HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:58:59 GMT

thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:

>You (and apparently Desai (although he (?) doesn't defend government
>intervention) misunderstand the implications of his example.  As I've
>already pointed out, all his example shows is that the closer you get to
>theoretical 'ideal' conditions, the less incentive there is in the form
>of profit to get closer.  His presentation was misleading in that it
>contrasted an arbitrary position on the price/quantity curve with the
>boundary condition, ignoring market conditions in between that show how
>the market is encouraged toward (but never reaching) the theoretical
>ideal.

>More importantly, the example shows that the government cannot better the
>market by moving production beyond the point where profits are made
>because the costs of production exceed the value to consumers (which
>is exactly contrary to to your claim).

>thant

No, you're not getting the main idea here.  What he and I showed was that
such a "high-profit" situation is indeed an equilibrium.  That is, if it
exists, no traditional market forces are going to change it. How is this
an "arbitrary position"?  It is a market equilibrium.
And it showed that a subsidy CAN be more than cost effective in its total
benefits to society. 
So I can't see what you mean by "arbitrary".  For some products, there is
likely to be one initial producer.  And if start-up costs are significant,
the scenario I outlined could easily appear.  And since it's an equilibrium,
it's not a passing phase.  There may
be several equilibria, but this is certainly as worthy as any other.

Now, I want to leave Desai out of this since he presented it as a "silly"
example, setting it up for some pointed real-world questions.  So I'm
sure his little illustration of my example is not meant to support my
conclusions.  There are problems inherent in my scheme which he pointed
out, although I don't consider them to be fatal.  (Utopia
is not an option *grin*).  Mostly, he questioned the ability of the
government to project demand, the possibility of collusion, and the inability
of government to divorce itself from special interests. These are all worthy
topics of discussion, which I'll address when I have the time to write
something good.  I'm not going to make them disappear, but argue that
potential benefits exceed these potential pitfalls.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: dpm@liberty.b29.ingr.com (David Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:27:33 GMT


>thing - they don't all come immediately at birth or especially before.  In my
>mind a child that cannot live outside of its mother's womb cannot be protected
>by the law - it is an appendage to the woman's body and is under her control.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	You pro-choicer's have constructed some very clever and influental
arguments to mask your guilt.  I give you credit for that.  But do me a favor.
The next time someone close to you has an abortion, ask if you can be present.
Ask the doctor if you can touch or hold the "appendage" once it is removed
from her body.  Ask the woman how she feels.  Do you think she will feel 
indifferent, as though she has had a wart removed?  After all, the fetus was
merely an unwanted "appendage" on her body...in fact, she should probably be
rejoicing that she is rid of it.  But I'll bet that isn't what really
happens...

>allen@well.sf.ca.us
>ethridge@bnr.ca
>my opinions are my own

dpm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: martin@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Tracy Martin)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin.
	<1992Oct8.000958.16166@photon.com>
	<1992Oct8.181029.12186@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.181029.12186@leland.Stanford.EDU> adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:


>   If the right-to-lifers really cared about life, why don't they adopt
>   some third world babies, there are millions dying which could be saved
>
>   adesai@leland.stanford.edu


Okay, I can't just be quite here. Adoption isn't as easy as you make it
sound. Many people (including myself) would LOVE to adopt!!! But contact
any adoption agency and they will tell you that there are more couples
wanting to adopt than there are children that are adoptable. And if you 
can find a child to adopt, it costs $10,000 to $15,000 plus legal fees,
and if you adopt from overseas, you must add all the cost associated 
with the overseas agency, governements, airfare, etc, etc. This 
definitely hurts even upper-middle income people who could easily
give a child a good home, but not if your are $20k in debt from the
adoption alone!!! I know a couple who tried to adopt a child from Romania,
and was willing and able to pay the costs, and still was not able to get
a child because of the Romanian government!!


So don't go bashing pro-life people on the adoption issue  until you check out
the facts! 


--
=================================================================================
          The opinions expressed herein are strictly my own 
                and are subject to change at any time, without prior notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy C Martin                     |
Applied Research Labs              |               REALITY
University of Texas at Austin      |          keeps shattering my   
Austin Texas 78758                 |          Rose-Tinted Glasses

==================================================================================
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: the Debates, ah Conversations
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.politics libertarian, alt.politics.marrou
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:18:28 GMT

Well, now I see why Marrou wasn't invited to speak.  If he was, there
might have been some disagreement expressed on the podium.  We can
have that.  We don't want people talking about legalizing drugs.
Let's hear about why we need more police.  All together now guys...

I think the lowlight of this evening's entertainment was when either
the moderator or the CNN announcer (I forget who), referred to these
events as a series of conversations.  Not debates.  After all to have
a debate, you must disagree about something.  Kudos to CBS though.
The Blue Jays/A's game was MUCH more interesting...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:56:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <ISBELL.92Sep30091546@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
|> 
|> By the way, from where do the vouchers come?  Local taxes? State taxes?
|> Federal taxes?
|> 

Has anyone (besides me, of course) noticed how the voucher system although an
improvement is actually little more than a band-aid aimed at appeasing the more
liberal members of society while not eliminating a large piece of the buearocracy
that our tax dollars are wasted on.  You could just stop charging "school" taxes.
But this way, you get to pay some bloated buearocrat to take your tax money with
one hand and give you a voucher with the other. Skimming of a decent amount in
the process just for his "expenses".

There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.

The main reason that none of these problems will ever be fixed is because 
the biggest source of welfare in this country today is the Government Payroll.
None of them are likely to vote for the elimination of their own jobs and a 
lot of hogs eat at the government trough.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: at15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew Lewis Tepper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:16:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

You don't _need_ cable TV, any more than you need, say, access to
Compuserve. Suppose compuserve charged $200/month for access. Let's also
say their cost was $5/month/subscriber. Should the government step in?
The problem with cable TV is that (someone can correct me) local
governments sell "franchise rights" which are a government enforced
monopoly: You would be breaking the law by setting up a couple of
satelite dishes and selling connections to your neighbors.

Andy
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Results of today's poll
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:44:25 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@ss2035

Here's the results of today's poll that San Fransisco station KGO
conducted on The Jim Eason Show:

Bush:  28%
Clinton:  25%
Marrou: 20%
Perot:  25%

Of the 600 polled, Slick Willie got 1 more vote than Perot.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Marrou at the 20% level,
but I don't really take this poll very seriously. (Bush
winning in the San Fransisco area!!!????)



-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: voucher system?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:35:55 GMT

In article <1au1v9INNov0@agate.berkeley.edu> junhcho@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jun Han Cho) writes:
}
}I was wondering if anyone could explain, to me, about the use of a voucher
}system for education, ie how it would work, where we would get the money,
}etc...
}
}How would this system deal with discrimination?
}
}
}Thanks very much for your replies,
}
}Han,
}junhcho@ocf.berkeley.edu

Since you're in Berkeley, I'll describe the voucher system proposal that will
be on the CA ballot in 1994.

CA currently spends $5200/student/year in the public schools.  The average
CA private school tuition is just under $2500.  The Parental Choice In
Education Initiative would provide vouchers worth $2600 to parents who
could then redeem them at scholarship schools in exchange for education for
their kids.

Extant schools both public and private will be able to become scholarship
schools, as will startups.  Most forms of discrimination will be barred,
except for religious schools that want to enroll members of their congre-
gation only.  Schools that teach hatred for other racial or ethnic groups
will be ineligible from receiving the scholarship vouchers.

Hope this helps.


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: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:09:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.195716.17429@rational.com>, gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch) writes:
>
>So I don't really care if you can come up with a list of five or
>ten or twenty odd balls you will call themselves libertarians. Why
>aren't there hundreds or thousands when we know that the principles
>of libertarianism are so widely held?
>

I can speak only for myself...

The darwinian implications scare the s--- out of me.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: A question for Steven Soar
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:49:15 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

If you want to compare the economic power of Japan, Germany, and
the United States with the amount of intervention.  Why not
link the high cost of living in Japan with government intervention?
Many Japanese households have 100 year mortgages for a small cubby-hole.



-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: FREE BUS TO MSU DEBATE!
Summary: free from Columbus to E. Lansing
Keywords: marrou, libertarian, debate, msu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: oh
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:57:58 GMT

The Chair of the Libertarian Party of Ohio has informed me that there will be a
free bus provided for any Marrou/Lord supporters who wish to go from Columbus, 
Ohio to East Lansing, Michigan, on October 19th to protest Libertarian 
exclusion from the Michigan State University debate.  Remember, Andre and Nancy 
are on the ballot in all 50 states and DC and have as much right to be there as 
H. Ross Perot! Anyone in central Ohio and who opposes gun control, the drug 
war, and/or the income tax or just wants to let some fresh ideas into the 
presidential race is welcome to come.  We'll be leaving at about 2 pm, Monday, 
Oct. 19.

Meeting time/place will be posted later, but right now I need to get some sort 
of a head count.  If you're interested in going, please email me:

   sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Try to let me know before Wednesday so I can tell Russ (the Chair) how big of a
bus to charter.

Steve Conley
Student Libertarians at OSU
"I'M PRO-CHOICE AND I OWN A GUN!"
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:730 alt.politics.marrou:1506
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:06:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.000958.16166@photon.com>, jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
> At the risk of once again bringing up the abortion debate, the argument
> against allowing Libertarians equal access is the same as allowing legal
> abortion:  if it isn't viable, it has no rights.

Demonstrably false, as Perot is being invited to speak.  Next theory.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: kindred@telesciences.com (David L Kindred (Dave))
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: Telesciences CO Systems, Inc.
	<1992Oct1.222721.17684@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:03:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.222721.17684@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:

   In article <1992Oct1.170318.13169@iplmail.orl.mmc.com> steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz) writes:
   >How can I vote for a candidate who admits he has no chance of winning?  Isn't this
   >just about the same as throwing my vote away, or just plain not voting at all?
   >
   My tentative theory is that it depends on what time scale you're using--if
   you're just thinking about the upcoming election, then it doesn't make
   sense to vote for a candidate that can't win. On the other hand, if you
   think that the major candidates are of about equal value, but voting for
   a third party candidate will help build up an alternative that you'd
   prefer, then voting for the candidate you believe in makes sense.

   It might take twenty years to pay off, but voting for the minisculely
   lesser evil doesn't pay off at all.

					  ---Nancy Lebovitz

My thinking is starting to turn in this direction also, after several
years of voting for the "least bad" of the demopublican (or are they
republicrats?) party's candidates.  I am even thinking that it might
be appropriate to vote for libertarians in those races in which they
are running, and NO ONE in the others.  I would think that this would
help indicate that the demopublican party is totally unwanted.
					- Dave
--

EMail: kindred@telesciences.com
CI$: 72456,3226 (72456.3226@compuserve.com)
Phone: +1 609 866 1000 x222
Snail: TeleSciences C O Systems, 351 New Albany Rd, Moorestown, NJ 08057-1177
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Weird looking people...
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:47:12 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

I want to know why it is that every vocal Libertarian I see looks
like the dregs of society?  I was at a meeting last night (College
Republicans) and the head (I assume) of the College Libertarians was
there (plans to disrupt a Clinton Rally going on..), he was obviously
misplaced looking.  This guy looked like a 1960's Dobie Gillis (goatee
and all) and was in the midst of a whole lot of 'normal' looking folks.
I don't know any more about the Libertarian Party than is in the 
handouts, what Marrou and Lord have told me on T.V., but I don't think
that having the scummiest looking people (person) representing your
candidate (at least here at MSU) is making any points for a hardly
known candidate.

This guy stated that he would rather have Bush than Clinton in the
Whitehouse (which perplexed some of us...he sure looked Clinton-y!).

Are you all weird looking or did I just get a sample of the extreme??

Thanks for any help.
Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Summary: a little reality, please..
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU>, adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:
> In article <qreoo8c@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
> >
> >In article <parvin1.718571053@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:
> >
> >> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >One more time in your terminology:  If it is necessary to subsidize a
> >producer in order to provide an opportunity for that producer to enter
> >into competition, then the cost to taxpayers of subsidization will
> >*always* outweigh the benefit to consumers afforded by lower prices.
> >
> >thant
> 
If we could interrupt this econo-religious discussion as to how many proponents of
Say's Law can dance on the head of a school voucher, lets try a bit of
reality.

Rate the following economies in order of gov intervention into business (import
restrictions, subsidization, direction a la industrial policy)

1  US
2  Germany
3  Japan

Answer:
1  Japan (most intervention)
2  Germany
3  US  (least intervention)


Next question--Rate the same economies on performance over the past 10 years
(GDP growth, manufacturing employment, technological leadership, etc)

1  Japan  (Most growth)
2  Germany
3  US   (Least growth)


Can we assume that something other than pure market situations exist here??

Given that, why do Libertarians continue to insist on solutions that fail to
recognize real world conditions?  Refute with concrete examples please, no
appeals to religious dogma.

steve soar

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Re: And to the Republic for which it stands....
Summary: Fixed, my eye!
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:45:39 GMT

In article <9z6-ay_@engin.umich.edu> Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.041630.11687@cirrus.com> Dave Landis, lando@cirrus.com writes:

[snip]

>><| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
>>I must disagree.  The United States of America is a republic, it is not
>>a democracy.
>
>After several people pointing out my error in semantics, I concede defeat
>and thus have fixed the problem.
>
>| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^
This is fixed?

By the way, Mr. Landis mentioned that in a democracy (his example was the
Athenians, as I recall), everyone participates, versus a republic, which has
representatives making decisions.  This is somewhat misleading.  As a true
pedant, I'll point out that the Athenians had representatives for certain
types of decisions.  These were chosen by lot, rather than by election.
The Athenians recognized that elections were undemocratic, as they are based
on the notion that one person is somehow better qualified to hold office than
another (usual caveats about citizenship in Athens apply).

Thus, in a sense, our republic is not even a representative democracy, at least
not according to the traditional notion.  I'll offer my opinion that this is
probably good.

Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: voting conscience
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:35:59 GMT

In article 7315@iscsvax.uni.edu, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu () writes:
>Voting one's conscience is a morally good thing.
>
>Yet, if the results are bad, perhaps the action should be avoided.
>
>Voting for anyone but Clinton helps GHWB stay in office.
>
>yikes

And voting for anyone but Bush helps put Clinton in office.

Yikes.

---
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: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 10 Oct 1992 21:36:06 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <qshq1po@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>Profit *is* the measure of how much room for improvement there
>is in a given market.  If there is no profit to be made, there
>is no room for improvement.
>
>This is the point that Mike Huben and Douglas Parvin seem to
>be denying and which I've been trying to get them to understand.

Markets are extremely derivative creations of people.  They are shaped by
geography, geology, accidents of history, technology, fashion, weather, law,
etc.  If there is no profit to be made, some of those factors can be changed
and presto: there is room for "improvement".  ("Improvement" is the loaded
term libertarians use to mean moving towards an equilibrium.)

This is the point that you and other libertarians deny, and which we've been
trying to get you to understand.

Mike Huben

"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery