HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:08:16 GMT

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703367531@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Well, we don't believe big government is necessary today or otherwise.
>>It's not a matter of needing it as transitional form, it's a matter of
>>exactly of having to work with congress as well.  You can bet that if
>>suddenly there was a L president and congress you'd see income taxes
>>gone like that <*snap*>, and spending as well.  As it is, since that

>Are you serious? IF by some stroke of magic it did happen government
>spending would be gone overnight. I am appalled.

Well of course you are.  You've made it quite clear in your previous
postings that you think bigger government is a Good Thing.  This would
certainly stop the progress towards your socialist paradise, and I
don't see how you would be anything but apalled.


>Think what might happen if the L's are successfull in their campaigns.
>They gradually get more and more individuals in Congress. They don't
>yet have a majority in either House or Senate. They don't have the
>Presidency. They being a minority have not been able to pass any
>Libertarian legislation. Thay have only been able to impede the
>Ds and Rs. Then one election, things are going bad in the country,
>the L's gain the White Housse, and control of both the Senate and
>the House.

>Then if you are correct in what the L's would do, they would stop
>all income taxes and all government spending <*snap*>. What is next.

First, that's incorrect.  Not all government spending would cease.
However, the next things to go would probably be government favoritism
of certain industries, trade barriers, and plenty of government red
tape.


>I suggest that there would be chaos, worse than what is now happening
>in The ex Soviet Union. Millions of people without jobs.

Getting rid of it does not mean that it has to go this very day.  The
legislation needs to pass immediately to get things going.  However, the
optimum solution would be to pass legislation immediately to cut back
government spending and taxation.  However, that law could and should
phase it in over a period of a year.  Companies and individuals could
and would expand during this time, knowing that their tax burden has
decreased hugely and that they don't have to put the money away for
taxes next year.


>A stock market that no longer functions

Oh, please.  Right.  And the moon would cease orbiting the earth if
libertarian budget cuts were made.

>no more defense capability, etc.

Not true, either.


>There would be coups, revolutions, insurecctions, riots, or you name it.

Let them riot.  The ones doing the rioting are going to be the
nonproductive members of society who were on the government dole.
Plus outraged socialists, but they're for gun control anyhow, no
threat there.








-- 
Driving in the snow is a spectator sport.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:24:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:

>The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank[United States v.
>Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)] held that no indictment could be
>properly brought since the right "of bearing arms for a lawful
>purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it
>in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Is this correct?  I was under the impression from your post that RKBA is
a right, but the above, as I read it, says something different.

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17353 alt.drugs:7331 misc.legal:9012
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:55:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr7.220342.28177@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:

			...................

>... But it's not in the best interests of the law enforcement groups to 
>let a case get to the Supreme Court. They will try to settle any dispute
>that looks like its headed there. Is there any way to get the Court to
>decide on a case that's been settled in a lower court?

There is no way for the Supreme Court to decide on any case not in
its original jurisdiction or in its appellate jurisdiction.  Generally,
this is true for all courts.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:48:46 GMT



  Cornrow Row
  by Elizabeth Larson

  For 12 years Cornrows & Co. has offered braiding, weaving, and natural
  hair care in the 4,000-year-old African tradition to women in Washington
  D.C. Now the D.C. Board of Cosmetology wants to close the salon for
  violating district licensing laws. Enacted in 1938, when blacks weren't
  even allowed in beauty parlors, the laws require proficiency in finger
  waves and other outmoded hairstyles but ignore the nonchemical hair care
  now popular among African-American women.

  With the help of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, Cornrows &
  Co. is fighting these rules as a violation of the Fifth Amendment and the
  Civil Rights Act of 1871. The outcome of the case could set a precedent
  for challenging licensing laws on constitutional grounds.

  The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
  employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
  Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
  a beauty salon and training program without a license.

  Last fall, after the D.C. Board of Appeals upheld the fines, the
  Institute for Justice filed suit in federal court against the 
  cosmetology board and the District of Columbia on behalf of Uqdah and
  Ferrell. The suit argues that "the arbitrary diminution of plaintiffs'
  economic liberty by the imposition of these regulations deprives them of
  due process of law."

  Rather than have prospective employees spend as much as $5,000 for a
  nine-month training program that wouldn't even teach them how to comb
  African hair, Uqdah and Ferrell train their braiders themselves in a
  three-month program that costs $2,400. Cornrows & Co. has trained
  hundreds of unskilled and unemployed young people in the art of African
  hairstyling.

  "There is obviously a double standard going on here," Uqdah told The
  Capital Spotlight. "They're willing to take my $30,000 in taxes, but
  somehow I'm illegal. They're there to protect their own."



Reprinted without permission from:
  Reason
  3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
  Los Angeles, CA  90034
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:40:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr8.144003.15207
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <11103@borg.cs.unc.edu> bell@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.222713.2538@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>>>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>>>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>>>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>>>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>>>$15,000.
>
>>A VAT is more like a sales tax than an income or profits tax...
>>some of the complaints about it's regressivity have merit, but
>>that just means the social safety net has to be adjusted accordingly.
>
>From the Brown flat-tax proposal available over the net:
>
>For business, the basic tax is a simplified version of the value
>added tax popular in other countries.  Our version would be much
>better because it is so simple.  Each company would just take
>its total sales and subtract its purchases from other taxpaying
>companies to get its tax base.  The tax would then be calculated
>by multiplying the tax base by 13%.
>
>It *is* a tax on profits -- profits are the value added.

Um, no, because revenues minus purchases gives you a much larger number
than "profits" do.  And since the purchases are going to be inflated by
the same 13%, this is very much a red herring argument.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:22:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.195608.9372@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.181904.1173@kpc.com>,
>emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr5.165021.18118@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>>
>>>Thanks for the explanation.  While the LP favors any step which
>>>increases free trade, what we really believe in in unilateral
>>>removal of trade barriers.  Consumers in any country which imposes
>>>trade barriers are the ones who suffer.  Even Japanese consumers
>>>suffer because of the restrictions placed there on the importation
>>>of foreign goods.  We think consumers should not have to pay the
>>>price for government power games to protect favored industries.  We
>>>would work to eliminate any and all trade barriers any place we can.
>>>
>>
>>The Japanese consumers suffer from trade barriers now that they're a major
>>economic force. In the Post WWII trade barriers on key products (like
>>televisions) enabled their industries to survive and grow, since they had no
>>external competition. Japan's consumers would not be as well off today
>>if trade barriers weren't in place when they were needed.
>
>When trade barriers raise the price (either by limiting the supply
>or causing duties to be added to costs) consumers have to pay more
>for the products they wish to purchase.  This was just as true for
>the Japanese after WWII as it was been for everyone everywhere.
>While I don't have any specific data handy on this particular
>subject I would be willing to bet that when the restrictions you
>cite were in effect, Japanese consumers were paying more for their
>TVs than they would have had to in the absence of any such
>restrictions.
>
They were paying more for their TV's. On the other hand, without
the protectionism, they probably wouldn't have had the jobs that
would have afforded them TV's in the first place.

>/June


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:26:47 GMT

I missed this somehow...

>In article <1992Apr8.171329.10239@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>>Tangent on the issue.  Increased usage effects of legalization for 
>>alcohol and drugs will not be similar at all.  Drugs (except pot) 
>>are *extremely* addictive.

Bullshit.  caffiene isn't extremely addictive.  LSD isn't extremely addictive.
MDMA isn't extremely addictive.  dextroamphetamine isn't extremely addictive.
Do you need more examples?

>>So addictive, in fact, that a
>>one-time experiment can lead to a life-time addiction.

All addictions can be characterized as having started out from one 
experiment.  And for the average person I think the "one puff on a crack
pipe, and I was addicted" is an utter crock of shit.  If that phenomninon
exists at all, its only in susceptible individuals.

>>That cannot
>>be said for alcohol and that is why they are different.  

Bullshit.  It can be said for alcohol.

>>Further, if legalized, the big pharmaceutical companies would take
>>over.

So?

>>They would develop drugs, which are 90%-95% addicting 
>>on the first try.

I doubt they will be able to come up with anything more addicting than the
drugs that we currently have. 

>>Picture samples being mailed to every home
>>in the country.  I think this would be a problem.

When was the last time you got a free sample of alcohol or tobacco?

  Remember,
>>these are the same people that are busy mapping all your
>>genes.  (please don't think i am a conspiracy nut.)

oh I don't...  I just suspect that you don't know a *single* thing about
the pharmacology of drugs...

>>I believe that there is hope for winning the "war on drugs".

Oh right.

>>But the current plan won't work.  The guys at the top are
>>not touchable.  The guys at the bottom have nothing to loose.
>>The guys in the middle are vulnerable, but there are lots of
>>dealers waiting to take their place.  I think with a super
>>effort to stop money laundering, the middle guys can be
>>squeezed out.  Stop the ability to spend the profit and 
>>you stop the drug sales.  This is sort of the way they got Capone.

It isn't going to work.  Not unless you start monitoring all cash
transactions (and even then, I'm sure there are going to be ways to beat the
system). 

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.4497@layout.berkeley.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 08:48:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>
>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>political party.

Is it really the fastest growing?  Is it growing at all?  By what measure:
votes, money raised, TV and newspaper coverage, or what?  Please post the
relevant statistics or retract this claim.

Personally, I think the Libertarian Party is a joke.  If they were serious
about getting anything done, they would (1) work within the Republican
Party, and (2) give up their extremist rhetoric.  Some medium amount of
money (say a million dollars) would yield far more publicity if it were used
to back a candidate in the Republican primaries than it would if it were
used to back a third-party candidate in the general election; the
Libertarians could either run their own candidate or support one of the
usual ones (say, a Du Pont or a Weld in '96).  Same goes for other offices
besides the Presidency.  As someone once said, the Republican Party is
a big tent, so another sideshow or a few more clowns wouldn't hurt.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17485 alt.activism:7429
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: WHO IS LARRY AGRAN (Demoract) FOR PRESIDENT?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:56:13 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	"As an attorney myself ... I've concluded one of the most
	important things we can do as attorneys or citizens in
	general is to take control of local government. Most smaller
	cities or medium-sized cities can be easily controlled
	poltically with about five lawyers and some of their
	supporters. It's probably easier if you have only three
	lawyers and their supporters, and you just decide what kind
	of community you want to live in ..."
	
				-- Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, speaking
				to the National Lawyers' Guild,
				June 18, 1989
				
Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17489 alt.individualism:2351 sci.econ:3625
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Privatized Zoos?! What Will They Think of Next?
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:37:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1992Apr9.073744.8066
Organization: National University of Singapore



  Animal Pragmatism
  by Elizabeth Larson
  
  What do you do with a homeless peacock? Zookeepers had to deal with such
  problems when the Petting Zoo in Manhattan's Central Park closed last
  year because of New York City's budget problems. Most of the petting
  zoo's inhabitants found new homes with local families. Fortunately for
  both zoo animals and the children who visit them, many cities are
  privatizing their zoos rather than letting the gates close for good.

  Cities with private zoos include Fort Worth, New Orleans, Cincinnati,
  San Diego, Knoxville, and Jackson, Mississippi. Many others -- among
  them, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Birmingham, Alabama -- are considering
  privatization because of budgetary problems.

  Some zoos develop co-management/ownership arrangements between government
  officials and private, non-profit zoological societies. Dual
  administration has its pitfalls, though: The much-publicized power
  strugles between the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association and the L.A.
  Recreation and Parks Commission resulted in the resignation last November
  of the association's president, Bruce Nasby, who had raised paid
  association memberships from 80,000 to some 135,000 during his 3 1/2-year
  tenure. The lion's share of the responsibility for running the L.A. Zoo
  has returned to the city government.

  The Philadelphia Zoo, private since it opened in 1874, is frequently
  lauded as an example for other cities. The Zoological Society of
  Philedelphia augments teh $10 million generated by admission and
  membership fees with corporate sponsorships and fund-raising activities
  such as the "Run Wild at the Zoo" 10K road race, the Ben Franklin
  Look-Alike Contest, and the annual Zoobilee! party. The zoo's 1991
  budget topped $14 million -- not a penny of it from government coffers.

  The United States isn't the only country with private zoos. Forced to
  kill their goats and cows so the carnivores wouldn't starve, officials
  in Buenos Aires decided to turn their century-old zoo over to a private
  owner last year. With private capital and admission revenue, the zoo
  was able to acquire over 800 new animals in a matter of months.

  Director Juan Romero summed up the secret of his success in The San Diego
  Union: "It is faster to obtain money as a private organization. As a
  state operation, it would take two years to get new uniforms for the
  caretakers; now we have one meeting and we get what we need."



Reprinted without permission from:
  Reason
  3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
  Los Angeles, CA  90034
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18033 soc.men:8359 soc.women:8902 alt.rush-limbaugh:1163 alt.politics.correct:3669
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:52:10 GMT
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology

In article <1992Apr11.192820.9255@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu> rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem) writes:
>>I wonder if she supports homosexuals and drug addicts should pay the
>>bill for AIDS; women should pay for breast cancer; homeless people
>>pay for homeless hotels; Congresspersons pay for the federal deficit;
>>women pay for "everything" related to abortion; etc.....
>>
>
>Of this list, note that most women who have breast cancer  DO have to
>pay to have it treated, and they DO have to pay for abortions.
>-- 
>-rinat

Let's go one step further. Have them pay for breast cancer research,
and stop using government funds in abortion counselling. How does
that sound to you?
I don't mean to sound against all those items. My point is we can't
decide who pays based on who benefits. Sometimes, this method doesn't
make any sense. You agree with me, don't you?

---
Ed
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs