HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:50:15 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:

| >peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
| >>It is exactly the same story as someone hanging a free newspaper on
| >>your doorknob.  That paper is yours to read.  But you cannot reuse the
| >>articles it contains contrary to the intellectual property rights of
| >>the authors.  If the publisher doesn't want you to read the articles,
| >>she must either encrypt the articles, or not hang the paper on your
| >>door.

| I tend to agree with this position for broadcasts... (and getting rid of
| stupid anti-encryption laws can help), but how does it apply to private
| "eavesdropping" on one's own property?

| For example, suppose I have a top-quality directed microphone, and I aim it
| from my property to a quiet conversation occuring well within your property.

| First question: May I do this?

It is true that we run into a gray area here.  There is the common law
concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy."

| Second question: If so, what may I do with the overheard remarks?

I happen to believe that anything you do with reasonable expectation of
privacy you have full property rights over.  I believe this so much
that I think that a celebrity who doesn't like having her photo taken
(e.g, at weddings at the Michael Jackson Ranch) should be able to walk
down to the county recorder of deeds and declare her wish to have that
right of privacy observed.

And, in accord with the rule of restricting government actions to a
higher degree than private, I believe that even passive listening by
police should require a warrant.  Thus, none such "overheard remarks"
may be used as evidence, and their intentional acquisition is grounds
for disciplinary action.

| The problem I have with applying the "posted newspaper" analogy is that
| "intellectual property" rights do not protect privacy.  That is, I may freely
| casually discuss the general content with anyone I choose, just as I may say,
| "Guess what I read in today's paper?"

| Taken to an extreme, may one apply any surveillance one wishes on another, so
| long as the information is contained in EM or sound waves on one's own
| property?  With the advance of surveillance technology, will one have to
| surround one's home with electronic countermeasures to be guaranteed some
| semblance of privacy?

These may be things best hashed out in the common law.  Too bad there's
scant little of that around anymore.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3068 comp.org.eff.talk:8363 alt.amateur-comp:498 soc.culture.usa:9506 alt.activism:20109
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
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: 6 Jan 93 17:11:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BZS.93Jan6053516@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:


|>Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to mind
|>something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:
|>   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
|>   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
|>   mean leveling mountain ranges.

|Gack, what a fascist mentality! And I suppose adding a little more
|water and fertilizer to the section of the garden not doing well is
|just anathema...let it wither, deliver god's justice to your carrots!

You assume that a lack of fertilizer is the problem.
But then that is an apt analogy for most government programs.  Just spread
the shit around deep enough and hope nobody notices the stench.

|>He goes on to say he prefers liberty to equality.

|How's he doing these days? Probably drooling in a garden somewhere
|cashing govt checks...

Boy something really got your panties in a wad today.

|The pathetic thing is that those who write things like this don't
|understand what insects they are, if confronted with true power for
|one second on these terms they'd be on their knees begging for
|"equality". What cheap and tawdry hubris...too many Chuck Norris
|movies I guess.

I guess in some circles, emotional drivel like this passes for deep
thinking.  Around here you are just demonstrating what an intellectual
light weight you are.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:59:06 GMT

In article <5JAN199316484012@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark) writes:
>3) If you're interested in replicating this subsidy, free up the ocean 
floor,>Antartica, and outer space for homesteading.

You don't have to get that exotic.  Just free up the vast tracts of 
federally owned land that are currently being used as a subsidy for the 
timber industry.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3125 alt.amateur-comp:516 soc.culture.usa:9552 alt.activism:20149
From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:53:10 GMT

In article <C0KyF7.6n5@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
|> >In article <4159@randvax.rand.org>, edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
|>  
|> >|> 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.
|>  
|> >Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
|> >Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.
|> 
|> Actually, some do and some do not.  Libertarians are a terribly diverse
|> bunch on philosophical issues.  That's why I'm not one.
|> Perhaps you were thinking of Objectivists instead?

Right on!  Libertarians are a diverse bunch on philosophical issues
including but not limited to Randoids:), Anarchists, keep-and-bear types,
and the more tame budget cutters.  This is why it is growing and viable 
movement and it is one of the reasons why I am one.

|> 
|> >Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
|> >and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
|> >that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
|> >and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  
|> 
|> Why do you consider these to be incompatible or paradoxical?  Would you
|> really want unselfish love?  Self-destructive charity?  Irrational forgiveness?
|> I wouldn't.  What is really incredible is that so many people consider
|> selfishness, greed, and human nature to be evil.
|> 
|> --Brian
|> 

Greed, for instance, is paradoxical in its utility only for the
uninitiated.  Thank goodness there are plenty of energetically
greedy individuals out there to start businesses, take risks, etc.

-- 
Jim Albea                     albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:32:59 GMT

In article <4159@randvax.rand.org>, edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
|> 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

Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.
Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  Libertarians love
complexity and a future that is totally inscrutable and are not afraid of
such a future as long as fraud and the initiation of force have been 
banished from human relations.  Our quarrel with the societal entity 
commonly called government is that it commits wholesale initiation of 
force - based on "empirical observations".  Will a libertarian society
have great inequities?  Will it have destroyed and broken people?  Yes,
most likely, at times.  These things are certainly possible where there
is no force or fraud.  And it is almost certain that society will
continue to change.  The libertarian notion is that as society changes,
in order for it to be civilized, the ethic of no initiation of force
or fraud must be at its foundation.

-- 
Jim Albea                     albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com

"There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come."
                                    Victor Hugo

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:07:02 GMT


From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>: 
>: So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
>: something we don't disagree on (even tho you seem to love to point
>: this out at every opportunity), but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
>: paradise of court actions and no doubt we'll just cover the land with
>: court houses run by the govt and that will be the major function of
>: govt, managing lawsuit processing.
>: 
>: Well, no thanks. No thanks at all.
>: 
>I do not want the government to just manage lawsuit processing.

Well, I didn't mean to say it will JUST be a lawsuit processing
device, but that will become a major, major function. And the whole
concept rests on the idea that somehow lawsuits are a reasonable way
to resolve disputes, which everything I know shows that they certainly
are not. They are a method for exploiting the frustrated for the
benefit of attorneys. Period.

>When
>those that are held accountable for their actions are made to give
>proper restitution, there will likely be much less lawsuits. 

Ok, again, HOW will they be held accountable? By what force of law or
nature or ???

>Also,
>government processing of lawsuits would likely be more costly than
>private, so many could be handled outside the governmental court systems.
>(Arbitraters are one example of how two parties would settle a
>dispute.)

And what power would arbitrators have to enforce decisions? Do you
think unscrupulous people (and there are a helluva lot of them) will
just voluntarily do what arbitrators decide???

Let me tell you something that perhaps you don't know: If you win a
settlement against an unscrupulous person, not even a horribly
unscrupulous person, just some pissy landlord or whatever, your next
adventure will be collecting. Go ask an experienced lawyer what it
takes to collect on a judgement if the other party just kinda ignores
the judgement. IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS, at best. In fact, it's not hard
for a determined jerk to make it more expensive to collect than is to
be collected! What a deal!

That's why, for one example, there's so much trouble with fathers who
won't pay child-support. They ALL have judgements against them, but
they just don't pay it.

And somehow it's nearly impossible in many cases to make them pay it.

You can dream up mechanisms, garnish paychecks (they work off the
books), seize property (they don't have any, or none in their name),
they disappear and it will take you thousands of dollars to find them,
etc etc etc etc etc etc.

So what o what o what magic bullet do you have to resolve all these
problems. Don't tell me how you expect reasonable people to be dealt
with, tell me how UNreasonable people are to be dealt with!

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
	<BZS.93Jan8175219@world.std.com>
	<SLAGLE.93Jan9022251@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<BZS.93Jan9144659@world.std.com> <90193@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:28:12 GMT


From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) [responding to me]
>|The problem I am trying to point out, ultimately, is that eliminating
>|govt (perhaps just severely) is at best a questionable solution. The
>|problem obviously has much deeper roots. Govt at least is somewhat
>|answerable (in western democratic system), even if not perfectly so.
>|Private corps. etc are much less answerable in general, the average
>|citizen has little influence on the general course of private corps
>|except in very proscribed ways (I am not saying that is bad, I am just
>|pointing out the difference.)
>
>My one dollar has more impact on most corps. than my one vote has on
>most politicians.

That sounds very nice, but in fact I don't think it's true.

As a business person I'd sooner walk away from your one dollar if you
hassle me than a congressperson would walk away from your one vote.
And once you start accreting, well, you'd better accrete both votes
and dollars to keep the comparison rational.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:53:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.050618.6306@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
}the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
}the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
}the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
}all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?

It's far from clear to me that the airwaves are public property either in
the descriptive sense of the term in practice or that they ought to be anything
other than privatized.  Nor is it clear to me that Mulroney's proposal is
good or bad.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:40:44 GMT

In article <1il8qcINN7po@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.174047.735@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com  
(J.R.Moore) writes:
> >It is the whole notion that all kids regardless of desire
> >or parents' acceptance of responsibility are entitled.

libertarianism presents is exactly what we see in most third
> world nations.
> 
> Mike Huben
> 

Most third world countries are not examples of libertarianism. They are  
examples of the interventionist governments you advocate.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:59:42 GMT

In article <ARCHER.669.726508486@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
>refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>isolation.

Have someone airdrop you a large pogo stick.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Oops, prev. art. sub.: public radio waves		
Originator: ervan@athene.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:45:48 GMT


Due to an embarrassing cut and paste error the subject of my
previous post was wrong.  It should have been:
re: Sapphire on Libertarianism.
not part of the public education debate


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3443 comp.org.eff.talk:8641 alt.amateur-comp:577 soc.culture.usa:9742 alt.activism:20494
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:59:35 GMT

In article <1ivok8INN47b@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.232301.21934@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>> 	Yes a radio reciever is sort of a decryption device, however when
>> one braodcasts a radio signal the intent is for the people at alarge to
>> listen to it; you have the owners consent.  When one broadcasts a encrpted
>> signal the intent is the opposite.  How doesn't it follow that the law
>> should be different?
>
>What, we base the law on the sender's intent? 

	Yes, we generally do this.  For example I could get charged with
murder ! (death or life imprisonment) or Manslauter 2 (probably just
probation) based solely upon intent.  Besides, werre talking about
property rights here.  Generally the owners opinion is an important one.

>How about police radar?
>How about police scanners?  How about FBI radio bugs?  

	What about them?  I don't see what your getting at.

>How about 
>ex-post-facto prosecution ("I swear, your honor, at the time I broadcast,
>I really DIDN'T want anyone else to hear that.")  No, thanks.
>-- 

	Then why did you braodcast it.  My guess it the Judge would think
you were full of it.

>
>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...
>

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:10:42 GMT

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "before we had a Education Department,
we just had education."


========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Possible Libertarian Positions of Clinton
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:04:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greetings,

I read this in a past issue of the magazine Communications--Dec.
21, 1992. Steve Higgins, who wrote the article states that the
Clinton administration favors these two positions that the 
Reagan and Bush administrations opposed:

- relaxing export constraints on encryption technology
  (R+B reasons to oppose wear to preserve national security)

- relaxing government regulation of use of encryption tech-
  nology (R+B were for the govt. testing an encryption
  technology before it was used in the marketplace)

Has anybody heard anything about this?

Thanx. 

Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism