HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:14:41 GMT

In <1ikr2eINNlpt@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.133237.25879@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

>> 1)  the police have the right to listen to open air broadcasting.  You
>> forgo all privacy rights by broadcasting.  They would not have the right
>> to de-encrypt a broadcast without a warrent however, since you the owner
>> are no longer giving permission to the casual listener to listen (implied
>> by encrypting the message).

>Given that a radio receiver is in itself nothing more than a decryption
>device, and that a similar prosciption against people building their own
>radio receivers is obviously ludicrous, a certain amount of intellectual
>rigor is apparently missing from the chain of logic that leads to this
>asssertion.
>-- 

>cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

A radio receiver is not a decryption device.  Encryption implies encoding
information in such a way that, with a piece of data presumably known
intended receivers (a key) the message can be decrypted easily, but without 
that key the message can only be decrypted with great computational expense.  
Radio signals are simply a public encoding of information for broadcast...
no secret key is needed to decode it.

BTW, I am against any laws against receiving or even decrypting broadcast
messages.  If the sender uses a encryption that can be too easily broken,
then that is his problem, IMHO.  If he broadcasts plaintext messages, then
he should be aware that anyone might be listening.  (I have a cordless
phone, and you will never catch me using it to order something by credit
card...;-)
-- 
**************************************************************************
* "Rub her feet."  --  L.L.                          * Jeffrey S. Clary  *
*                                                    * clary@iastate.edu *
**************************************************************************
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:31:45 EST
From: Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard
 <1992Dec28.052850.5919@athena.mit.edu>
 <1992Dec28.063235.4991@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1i7570INNq98@armory.centerline.com>

In Message # <1i7570INNq98@armory.centerline.com>, Mike Huben (groan) writes:

>I TOOK A FEW MINUTES IN THE LIBRARY TO LOOK UP THE ARTICLE UNDER GOLD STANDARD
>IN THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA. ONE OF THE KEY POINTS THEY MADE WAS THAT
>CURRENCIES DID EXCEED GOLD RESERVES GREATLY.  PRIOR TO 1914, THE RATIO WAS
>ABOUT 20:1 IN GREAT BRITAIN.
>ANOTHER INTERSTING POINT WAS THAT THE GOLD STANDARD WAS ADOPTED IN 1821.
>PRIOR TO THAT, THE WORLD HAD OPERATED ON A SILVER STANDARD FROM ANTEDILUVIAN
>TIMES.
>AND FINALLY, THE ARTICLE POINTED OUT THAT GOLD'S PRICE FLUCTATES WILDLY
>DEPENDING ON WORLD POLITICAL STABILITY.
>I ONLY HAD A FEW MINUTES TO SKIM THE ARTICLE: BUT IT CONVINCED ME THAT
>CURRENCIES ARE QUITE A BIT MORE COMPLEX THAN THE SIMPLISTIC LIBERTARIAN
>NOTIONS PRESENTED HERE.

Huben, what are you talking about?  SIMPLISTIC notions of currency?  Libertar-
ian notions of currency rest on two pillars: the first being that government
should not be trusted with this power, the second that currencies markets, like
 ALL markets, are far too COMPLEX to be managed by the blunt tools government
wields.  Libertarians recongnize the intricacy of currency and embrace it.
Our efforts are directed to finding an economic, rather than political, found-
ation for it.  Gold works, as does silver.  These are both "natural" monies,
as they are in short supply, durable, malleable, and desirable to human beings.
But other things could easily used to establish a currency value.
The point is, money is an economic concept and works better when influenced by
economic, rather than political, actors.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3079 comp.org.eff.talk:8368 soc.culture.usa:9510 alt.activism:20116
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:20:24 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <1993Jan5.204229.847@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> . . . .  He compares libertarian reasoning to an important
>computer programming skill and suggests a correlation.  I tend to think
>Stuart has a point because a fairly sizable percentage of the Libertarian
>Party is made up of people in the computer field.
. . . .
[Long, long repost deleted]
. . . .

I agree--I think he is very insightful as to why libertarianism is
attractive to programmers.  It exceeds even Marxism in developing a
logically consistant conceptual model of society.  However, the ability
to develop and mentally analyze such a model of social interaction
doesn't mean that such a model is accurate or complete.  Social theories
which ignore the deeply irrational vagarities of human nature or consign
them to a heap of undesirable traits are destined to fail.  One good set
of empirical observations are worth thousands of exquisitely crafted and
self-consistent theories.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: A question for Mike Huben
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:51:36 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan8.170127.23609@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan The Instigator :-) writes:
>The following is a question which I'd like Mike Huben to answer. I'd
>be interested to hear his answer, and it may precipitate a lively
>discussion.

As if I'm not involved in enough discussion here already....

>Mike: How do you define the verb "to own" and the concept of "ownership"?

Ownership: a societal convention where one party has more use of something
than another.  Frequently reified by propertarians.

To Own: to have ownership of something.

Because ownership involves denial of equal use to others, the expression
"property is theft" makes alot of sense when applied to natural resources
such as land or minerals.

I consider ownership a useful idea, when not carried to extremes.  I certainly
wouldn't abolish it, nor make it stronger than it is today.

Mike Huben

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
	Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3421 comp.org.eff.talk:8637 soc.culture.usa:9736 alt.activism:20458
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:20:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <C0r0J5.6Hp@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

|pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

|[whether government or business is more answerable to the public]

|>I want private corporations and the individuals within them to be
|>answerable when they use fraud or steal from other people.  Here is an
|>experiment that anyone can do to see who is more answerable.  The next
|>time you are in a line at the grocery store or post office compare the
|>experience.  How are you treated if you complain?  Do this at any
|>governmental agency and any private company.  Who is more responsive?

|Now, follow this experiment with a request to see the profit margins
|and salaries in the private corporation...

Now just what does the profit margin of a corporation have to do with
how well you are treated by it's employees.

I'd be very surprised if the clerk at the post office was not being paid
substantially more than the clerk at the grocery store.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3009 comp.org.eff.talk:8280 alt.amateur-comp:460 soc.culture.usa:9437 alt.activism:20011
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:25:21 GMT
	<1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>
	<1993Jan5.050327.28994@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1993Jan5.083531.3355@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

MH>  == mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
RAH> == Randall A Helzerman <helz@ecn.purdue.edu>

 MH> My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I
 MH> could never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the
 MH> middle class without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I
 MH> defy you to point to a nation that creates and perpetuates a large
 MH> middle class without such subsidies.

 RAH> Wasn't America in the 50's such a society?  Even my father, who went to 
 RAH> collage in the early 60's, could earn enough to send himself to collage
 RAH> at Michigan State University during the summer.

I would suspect that Michigan State University gets a fairly good-sized
chunk of its budget from the state of Michigan, helping it to keep the
tuition lower than it would otherwise be.  I also suspect that it was doing
so in the early 60s.

I would consider that a "substantial government...subsid[y]".

As for America in the 50s, the G.I. Bill should also, IMHO, be considered a
substantial government subsidy...
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3025 alt.activism:20048
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:39:43 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
>Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
>Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:47:16 GMT
>In article <1ia720INNm2j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don Pavlish) writes:
>>>a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
>>>frustrated children of the elite.  [...DRIBBLE DELETED...] they aren't
>>>quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
>>>no school loans, scholarships, etc. for people like them and so
>>>they'd be preaching the religion of the mighty and asocial
>>>individual while sweeping up the shit in the rich folks' back yard.
>>
>>Actually, as a Libertarian I am quite prepared to admit that a
>>Libertarian government would -not- offer loans, scholarships, etc.
>>for college tuition. However, a Libertarian government wouldn't be
>>stealing and wasting such a huge chunk of my family's income, rendering
>>government aid necessary in the first place. Cause and effect, see?
>
>No, we don't see.  Because we can no more see libertarian governments than
>we can see heaven.  You sound just like a communist promising the withering
>away of the state, or a Christian promising heavenly rule, or a cargo-cultist
>propitiating the great silver birds.
>
>Considering that room, board, and tuition at most top-notch universities costs
>close to the median family income in the US, its pretty obvious that
>Libertarianism would tie quality of education to family wealth as closely as
>it is tied in most third world nations (and used to be in most modern industrial
>nations.)
>
>If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized, top-notch
>college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid in taxes
>(never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services that you
>currently receive from the government), then you clearly place yourself into
>the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.
>
>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
>a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
>subsidies.
>
>Mike Huben

Here here! My parents, grandparents etc. were working-class. Every single 
advancement of the welfare state has given them new opportunities that they 
wouldn't have had otherwise; opportunities to create wealth for themselves, 
as well as for the people in the area they live in and, yes, for the 
state, by paying back in taxes what these opportunities cost in the first 
place.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3227 comp.org.eff.talk:8471 alt.amateur-comp:541 soc.culture.usa:9614 alt.activism:20210
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:58:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1ikjvuINN7b0@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.
> At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no secret
> about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:
> every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.

> A contractual requirement of residing in the USA is paying taxes.  You've
> entered into the contract freely (as I pointed out above.)  Non payment of
> taxes is fraud which you have initiated, plain and simple.

Now I remember where I heard this argument before.  It was advanced by a
greasy-haired fellow with wide lapels in my uncle's drycleaning shop just
shortly before the unfortunate fire.

> (I'm going to be so glad not to have to explain this over and over once my
> FAQ is completed.)

Why write a new one?  I believe you can get a free copy of what you want
simply by dialing 1-800-HOODS-R-US.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:36:39 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <93008.44842.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1ikjvuINN7b0@armory.centerline.com>, Mike Huben writes:
>>If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.
>>At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no secret
>>about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:
>>every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.  Those laws are created by the
>>process of mutual agreement called representative democracy.
>
>In other words, *I* still haven't chosen *anything*, so it's not mutual.

You have chosen to remain here.

>I'm part Indian--my ancestors were here before the Europeans.  Should I be
>forced to abide by the laws too?  It seems to me that a lot of my ancestors
>"agreed" to our government's terms by being at the wrong end of a loaded
>Colt .45.  In other words, part of my heritage is *not* that of immigrants.
>You only mentioned *immigrants*.  May I now please be excused from obeying
>your coercive laws?

We'll coerce you with fewer bullets in the magazine to represent that portion
of your ancestry that is Native American.  :-(

When you can convince me that any group of Native Americans displaced by
settlers and our government did not commit similar territorial travesties
with still earlier peoples, then I will grant them more validity than our
current system.  Personally, I don't buy nobility of Native Americans,
despite the heinous crimes committed against them.

Besides, it is really funny to hear a member of that cult of individualism,
libertarianism, claim refuge by means of ancestral privilege.

Oh, and here's an idea: start a libertaria on a reservation.  No state or
local laws can apply.  Granted the BIA would be pretty noxious, and federal
laws would mostly apply, but it would have alot of advantages.

>My parents made a choice for themselves--and I was just along for the ride.
>You are saying that I somehow deserve to suffer if I continue to live here
>because my being here was my parents' decision.  [Absurd example omitted.]

That you are here was your parents' decision.  Now it is yours.  The
responsability is all yours now: shoulder it and bear it.

>We live in what is best described as a "representative *republic*."

Correction accepted.

Mike Huben

A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 22:01:33 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
: 
: >> As to the point of this thread, whether education should be subsidized, I
: >> pose the following question: If the poor cannot afford an education, how
: >> do you expect they can ever pull themselves out of poverty?
: 
: >Through hard work, thrift, and more hard work.  The same way
: >that all worthwhile goals are attained.
: 
: Please, get in touch with reality.  A rich person has to expend
: far less effort to get richer than a poor person must to get past
: basic living requirements.  You may consider it just that the
: latter has to work 60 hours a week to save very little, while the
: former has to work maybe 20 hours a week to more than keep up
: with inflation.  And you may consider it just that in times of
: unemployment, a poor person loses all their savings to stay
: alive, while a rich person probably doesn't lose their job at
: all.  But putting on a starry-eyed, Horatio Alger look and
: appealing to the virtues of hard work aren't convincing.  It
: can be done, by a few; but it is not just.

Dr. Mary J. Ruwart explains this brilliantly in her book "Healing Our
World."  Government control over business has effectively knocked out
the bottom wrungs of the "Ladder of Affluence."  Many government
regulations against business raises the cost of entry into many markets.
This hurts the poor and disadvantaged most.  For example, our city has a
law that requires five years of apprenticeship with a city electrician
before you can get a license in the city.  Who benefits?  The current
city electricians who are licensed.  With all the fees and five years
experience under a city electrician the poor have no way to even have
the chance to compete in a market -- even if they have the knowledge and
skills.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3043 comp.org.eff.talk:8344 soc.culture.usa:9481 alt.activism:20084
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<1993Jan7.144527.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1ihiguINN57b@armory.centerline.com>
	<1993Jan9.073052.16069@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <bob1.726769032@cos>
	<90201@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <bob1.726853902@cos>
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:36:19 GMT

In article <bob1.726853902@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
| No, just aware of some of the *real* history of those days.
...
| >Gouging landlords.
| >Evidence please.  Or were you just spitting bile, and forgot when to stop.

| Oh come on, take a look at any current landlord/tenant contract form. The
| standard one here in Maryland would be laughed out of court in any other
| country. One major reason why we now own our own home. I assume that we
| have advanced since *the good old days*, so I can just picture what they
| were like then.
--

You haven't shown squat about your awareness of history. You're just trying
to extrapolate your opinions backwards based on current evidence.
--
Mitchell Gold, sundance@rpi.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:10:36 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1ifvjfINN3oi@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

[ Statistics showing the deficit as a percentage of GNP deleted]

>Clearly (from the numbers cited in the article above) the doubling of the
>national debt as a percentage of the GNP took place under the auspices of
>Reagan and Bush.

and Tom Foley, and George Michel, and Dan Rostenkowski, and you and me and ... We 
get the government we ask for and as long as we expect Washington to feed Somalia,
rescue Bosnia, care for the elderly, provide health care to everyone, eliminate
poverty, eliminate racism, educate everybody, ... and believe those who tell
us that they can do all this and only Donald Trump and his friends will have to pay
for it, neither the national debt nor the deficit will come down.  Fiscal
responsibility, like charity, begins at home.

>
>Mike Huben
>


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and
 act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it."
			  
                                      P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

===============================================================================
"By the way Romans executed homosexuals in their military. I don't think 
 it was a common practice among the Roman Citizenry. Greeks have always
 liked it though, maybe that is why the Romans conquered the Greeks? That's
 it! The Greeks fell because of homosexuality! The Romans because of
 Christianity.  The Americans will because of stupidity!"

                                      jim shirreffs - 1992

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism