HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:05:58 GMT

In article <s0499528.33.0@let.rug.nl> s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis) writes:
}In response to my query about Libertarian examples societies cited 
}as 'pretty close' were Switzerland, Hong Kong and the Netherlands. All of
}these were quickly refuted, but in theory Libertarianism would be possible 
}there.

Where was this refutation?  I was the one that proposed those examples, and
I've missed critique of their applicability.  What was it?

In fact, everywhere if there was sufficient public support and the 
}necessary conditions such as a transitional government, ethnic harmony and a 
}functioning economy, neither of which Somalia had.

You seem to be saying that such things are preconditions; in fact, it is
the opposite.  Libertarianism is the precondition to them.  I submit that
to maintain the opposite is to historically blind.


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." - Voltaire
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:12:41 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>}
>}Why?  No, I don't mean "Why is it a pity?" - why are there so few female
>}libertarians?  Is there something about the policies that puts them off?
>}Is there something in the attitudes of prominent libertarians which
>}seems to exclude women?

>I've been forced to a rather unpleasant conclusion, as it includes a view of
>most women contrary to what I desire.

Hee hee.  Welcome to reality.

>It seems to me, based upon my experience, that most libertarians fall within
>the "Promethean" category of the Jungian theory of psychological temperament.
>This constitutes about 12% of the population, according to David Keirsey's
>"Please Understand Me" (good book!).  Individuals with this temperament
>place high emphasis on logical consistency.

Let's rephrase this a bit :-).  When attempting to understand the
world about us, we develop models of how {things,people,society}
work.  These models start off very simply; so we look at their
predictions, and notice that reality doesn't match these predictions.
One approach to resolving this difficulty is to accept that our
models are incomplete, so we add levels of sophistication; this
doesn't appear to be a terminating process (at least for anyone
I've ever known).  Another approach is to decide that the world
isn't the way it should be, because it doesn't fit the model; so
we decide to work to change it.  This latter approach also doesn't
terminate.  Most people use a mixture of the above; change what
you can, and accept what you cannot.

People who place "high emphasis on logical consistency" have
trouble with acceptance; they place great reliance on their
models.  [Heretical concept coming up.]  Women, being socialized
into an inferior role in society, are statistically more likely
to feel unable to change their environment, and so are more likely
to have an "accepting" frame of mind.  They are therefore less
likely to believe in over-simplified models.  See how easy it
all is? :-)  This leads to:

>Simply put, I believe that our culture not only discourages
>this trait in all, but that it has a disparately negative impact upon
>the fair sex.  Furthermore, there is less of a tradition of women actualizing
>their logical faculties in our society than there is for men.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:28:10 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <xgT=dz@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.213849.12239@unlv.edu> bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>>Money should be electronic in this day and age. 
>
>No way, no way, no way. The problem with electronic money is that it's
>very, very easy to trace. Do *you* want the government to have an exact
>record of your every transaction?

I'm amazed that this statement has stood unchallenged for several days on
a network of computer users.

The technology for untraceable transactions has been around for a few years.
There was an article about it this past year in Scientific American.  It is
premised on public key encryption being impractical to break.

Mike Huben

"... -- it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific.
Moral: science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidden.  Science is
the first sin, seed of all sin, the original sin.  This alone is morality.
'Thou shalt not know' -- the rest follows."  Nietzsche in "Antichrist".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 10:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.091305.12602@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
}In article <1992Dec9.080931.4995@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1g2g5kINN6sh@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}>}
}>}Be responsible: live up to the
}>}demands placed upon you by your employer or your government.  If you don't
}>}like them, you are free to change either.
}
}Most people don't have this much freedom.  With the job situation in some
}places people are virtually forced to stay at thier jobs (or go on welfare),
}and changing the government is becoming harder every election.  I hope our
}elections don't become like in the former Soviet Union's: there may be two 
}choices, but it really doesn't matter who wins--the bureaucracy will still
}run the government.   

This is a very good point.  I know plenty of libertarians who'd like to
liberate themselves a little bit by taking over a US county government.
That way, they'd control the court, sheriff, coroner, etc.  Then they
could privatize almost everything, have IRS agents and others arrested
for vagracy ("no legitimate means of support") if they enter the area,
jail 'em, and have the coroner pronounce them dead :-).

However, they're being so oppressed by confiscatory taxation, regulation,
etc., that they can't even do this!  Much less the free country projects
which have failed due to Statist intervention.

Mike, you just don't know what you're talking about on this.

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." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:29:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.051901.9908@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>to summarize: if you define oil as $20 a barrel, and $20 buys X amount
>of goods, then if i have oil and i can get 2X amount of goods somewhere
>for my barrel of oil, then your dollar is only *worth* 50 cents, regardless
>of what you say it is worth.

Not really.  You can trade the $20 in for oil and then use the oil to get 2X
worth of goods, so the $20 _really_ buys 2X, not X, and your dollar is still
worth a dollar.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Federal Indictment Against Bobby Fischer
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:07 GMT

Heard a piece of a story on NPR this morning about a federal indictment
against Bobby Fischer for playing chess in one of the former
Yugoslavian republics.  Dershowitz for the Defense said that the right
to play chess is a subset of the right of free association and of the
right of free speech, and is therefore Constitutionally protected.  The
prosecutor (whose name I didn't catch) said that it would have been no
different if he had played in South Africa, and besides, he made five
million dollars at the chess match.

I didn't hear the beginning or the end of the story, so I don't know if

	- an indictment has been presented,
	- an indictment will be presented, or
	- an indictment is being considered.

Comments?  Opinions?  Facts?

gak, who got some interesting looks from people as he slammed his car
     door and shouted about fascists this morning...

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

How can you be ignorant of something you didn't know in the first place?
                                                      - Choo
From: Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:53:25 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.7.104.212
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A75360FE760168D4@mac.me.uh.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:16:30 GMT

In article <BzA4Fr.20r@newsserver.technet.sg> Ed Ipser,
ipser@solomon.technet.sg writes:

>In conclusion, the LP should drop the gold standard. If some statement is
>required in this area, it should be one of favoring competing currencies.
>Competition, not regulation, is the solution to this problem.

I agree. The only advantage to gold I can think of is that the amount in
the world is more or less fixed, and cannot be Uinflatedj as easily as
paper money. This is relevant only in a currency monopoly, i.e., if the
government is going to control the money, a gold standard is one way to
minimize the amount of damage they can do to it. 

With private currencies, a gold standard would be unnecessary, as the
issuing company would have a strong incentive to stabilize its value. A
sort of private currency has already evolved in many cities in the form
of Ubarter couponsj traded within a group of businesses who agree to
accept it as cash equivalent. The IRS is clamping down on this practice
since it is very easy to avoid reporting such transactions. Since we know
that the government only tries to shut down productive enterperises, this
is probably a sure sign that the system works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble    | Department of Mechanical Engineering         |
| MECE3D@UH.JETSON.EDU | University of Houston, Houston 77204-4792    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Federal Indictment Against Bobby Fische
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:42:50 GMT

In article 16042@samba.oit.unc.edu, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>	As far I know, he's not in trouble for playing chess.  He's in hot
>water for conduction a commercial transaction (a professional sports
>exibit / match) in violation of UN sanctions.  Bobby's a US cit. so we
>have to enforce it on him.  

I figured as much.

This is a seriously stupid law.  I'm a little surprised that there
isn't more of an uproar from the libertarians here...free trade and all
that.  And besides, Fischer reportedly took five million dollars out of
Yugoslavia.  What possible benefit does the UN think the Yugoslavian
factions will reap from that?

Yet another reason the US should get out of the UN.

gak

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

        I'm always more outspoken after a few pints of Guinness.
                - Mrs. E. Slocombe

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Subject: Re: Russell Means??
Organization: Zenith Data Systems / Bull, Billerica MA USA
Date: 14 Dec 92 11:39:08

In article <1gdqvoINNm24@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley) writes:

   If news reports I've seen are accurate, [Russell] Means has
   (IMHO) forfeited any claim to being a libertarian leader, by
   leading a demonstration which tried to forcibly stop a Columbus
   Day parade.  No matter how strongly he may disagree with some-
   one's opinion (i.e., that Columbus was a hero), a libertarian
   doesn't try to use physical force to stop the public, peaceful
   expression of that opinion.

Did the parade committee, in any way, use tax dollars to finance the
parade?  e.g. receiving cash from govt, receiving free police patrols,
free use of public ways, etc.  Unless the parade was 100% privately
financed, I'd give Means the benefit of the doubt.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis)
Subject: Freedom Daily Quote
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:40:00 GMT

There's a publication called Freedom Daily, which is a monthly calendar
with a couple of libertarian essays in the front, and a quote for each
day.  (Future of Freedom Foundation, P.O. Box 9752, Denver, CO 80209.)
It's a breath of fresh air each day.
 
Tomorrow's quote, from Isocrates, is "Where there is a multitude of
specific laws, it is a sign that the state is badly governed."
 
BL
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:34:35 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <liv1iqINN4ek@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>> No, you are entirely correct, the Fed does not print money. The Treasury
>> Department does. 
>
>[...]
>
>goes on and on...
>
>Looks like we've got a first rate idoit on our hands here. I am tempted
>to inform all of the readers here how the 'Fed' technically controls
>the money supply. But I haven't had a flame war with such a tenacious
>moron in so long that I can't resist.
>
>Out of courtesy, all future correspondence between Messrs. Skrinak and
>Haas will be found on alt.flame
>

Unfortunately, I don't read alt.flame (I pride myself on having a higher
level of maturity than that), so any postings by you there will go unread
by me.

My Webster's doesn't list "idoit". Please either define it or learn to spell.

When people speak of the Fed controlling the "money supply", they don't
mean the actual amount of currency, per se. To say that the money suppy
is "tight" does not mean that there is a small amount of currency, it means
that interest rates are high and people are saving and not borrowing.
Similarly, a "loose" money supply refers to low interest rates, and
a high rate of borrowing and spending. Right now, we have a looser money
supply than we've had in a long time.

HOWEVER, this is not what I was referring to, not at all. Kris was the
one who brought up the Fed, for reasons which continue to elude me. As
most readers of alt.politics.libertarian know, but as Kris apparently
does not, most bills eventually circulate their way back to the Treasury
Department. There, workers seperate the worn-out bills and shred them.
The Treasury also is in charge of printing new bills. And so, put simply,
in deference to you, Kris, the Treasury destroys X amount of money and
creates Y amount of money. However (and this is key, Kris, so pay attention
here) X and Y do not always match! In fact, quite often Y is greater than
X. This is how the Treasury, and more generally the Government, devalues
the dollar by printing more money. Understood?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:21:24 GMT

In article <1gi8khINNhd5@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> Gold went up in value because its price had been artificially maintained
|> very low for quite a while by the US government.  That was one of the reasons
|> why we went off the gold standard: it was impossible for the federal government
|> to keep saying an ounce of gold was worth (approximately) $20.  This sort
|> of deflation was very harmful for foreign trade, and threatened to depelete
|> US gold reserves.

Please explain.  If 20 dollars was backed by an ounce of gold, how was it
"impossible for the federal government to keep saying an ounce of gold
was worth" 20 dollars?  It would seem a lie to say that 20 dollars was
worth any more or less than an ounce of gold since that's exactly what
it represented.  (The 20 dollars = 1 oz. gold is just an example.
What was the actual ratio when our currency was backed with gold?)
From: wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William D Yang)
Subject: Please control the bandwidth usage!  (was Re: voting for the enemy.)
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:15:14 GMT

Please note: this has been posted to several local newsgroups in
Columbus, Ohio.  I have reset the follow-up line to move all future
posts out of our local news.  Also, I would like to ask people to make
sure that the osu and cmh hierarchies are removed from the newsgroup
line of your posts on this thread.
 
Thank you.
 
	-Bill
--
William D. Yang         wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         Yang.25@osu.edu
Technical Assistant to North Area Computing Sites at The Ohio State University.
It's my opinion, but if you really want it, you can have it for a nominal fee.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Harry.Johnson@launchpad.unc.edu (Harry Johnson)
Subject: Women who are libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:22:55 GMT


I just broke up with my longtime girlfriend (almost 3 years to the day; we
went on the first date Dec. 14, 1989).  As you might have guessed by the
article title, the breakup was the result of philosophical disagreements. 
I had been working under the (erroneous) belief that she valued the same
things that I value, and that we had no fundamental disagreements on the
issues that are truly important as the basis of a longtime relationship. 
The most positive thing that I can say right now is that I won't make that
mistake again... 

What I'd like to know, then, is how many female libertarians there are.  I
figure that I'd rather cut off my genitals and stir-fry them than go
through this sort of anguish again, and that I might as well start looking
for a new mate among the body of people who at least appear to share my
value system.  What sort of odds am I staring at?  Are there 3 men for
every woman in the LP?  A higher ratio?  Lower?  Also, what has been the
trend for growth of the party's population WRT women? 

(By the way, for any of you women out there who may be interested, I
currently live in North Carolina but am willing to travel...)

Sorry if this sounds like something out of the personals.  

Harry "Gee, it looks like a swell Christmas this year!" Johnson
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:37:39 GMT

In article <11338@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.221200.20158@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>
>|> i believe you have got it backwards. currency is supposed to represent
>|> something of intrinsic value. the term "pound" as applied to british
>|> currency originally meant that a 1 pound note could be exchanged for
>|> a pound of gold. (think about that in light of the current value of
>|> a pound).
>|> 
>
>Right idea, wrong comodity.  It was silver, thus The Pound Sterling.
>Put the concept remains the same.

actually, as i understand it, it was originally a pound of gold.
as the value of the currency devalued, it was redefined to a pound of silver,
and that is why it became known as a pound sterling (i.e. why
they tacked on the "sterling" part). i may be wrong about this.

they should really be calling it, what, the "pound copper" now, or
something (no international flames please, the dollar is just as bad, if
not worse) :^)

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Hey, Tim Starr
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:16:20 GMT

In article <BzD1oL.2or@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> The opposite is true?  You mean all those nasty pollyannic Dems/Repubs
|> belive that with a bit of social engineering, all of mankind's woes
|> will magically disappear?  How come they never say things like that
|> then?  [Note: social engineering has actually improved mankind's lot.
|> For example, giving blacks and women the right to vote is blatant
|> social engineering.]

Most refer to social engineering as the established or controlling group
(government) trying to manipulate or control behavior of the governed.
I don't think the suffrage movements fit.  Try sex ed and "values
clarification" in public schools for examples of social engineering.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}
}	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
}libertarians opposed to feminism?  

I wouldn't say that it's that we're opposed to feminism per se, but that
we don't do enough to emphasize the individualism in feminism, and spend
all our time attacking the statism in it.

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