HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:17:32 GMT

In article <77526@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Dec13.012822.22393@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>|If the mother has the right to abort because giving birth would cost her
>|her life, then she has the same right if the costs are lesser.  Being born
>
>Are you sure you want to stand by this statement.
>What if I were to say, "If not killing you would cost me my life, then I have
>the same right if the costs are lesser."

Two answers:

   1) I stand behind my answer of the form if A then B. Your seem to be
      objecting to A, not B.
   2) If the reason it would cost you your life was because I was taking
      something from you that you did not wish to give, and were under no
      obligation to give, AND the only cost effective way to stop my taking
      that something was to kill me, then yes, you have the right to kill me.

                                             James Parker
                                             jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Re: Libertarian enclaves overseas?
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:09:51 GMT

In article <1gla0rINNni8@menudo.uh.edu> Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu> 
writes about the idea of founding Libertarian enclaves and the criteria that 
would make a country a right place to start




>
>1.  Population - the smaller the better, with a few million at most.
>2.  Infrastructure - should have a well-developed communication and 
>     transportation system, and a fairly well-educated populace that
>speaks 
>     English, if possible.
>3.  Immigration Policy - it should be possible for an outsider to become
>a 
>     citizen or set up in the country fairly easily.
>4.  Political Freedom - should have a fairly stable democratic government.
>5.  Economic Freedom - should be as few restrictions on business as
>possible.
>6.  Money Policy - should be possible to trade foreign currency easily.
>7.  Gun laws - is it possible to legally own a gun in the country?
>
>Singapore, for example, is excellent on the first two criteria, but fails
>miserably on all the others. There are probably much better candidates
>out there. Any ideas?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that any country that answers three of these criteria, including 
number 1 would be a good place to try. You seem to be assuming as an 
implicit criterion that the country in question must currently have 
statehood. That needn't be the case. Several areas could be good enclaves 
when separated from their countries.

My suggestions:

1. Scotland. Answers 1,2, and 6 reasonably well. Is considered by the 
English to be a drain on tax money and by many Scots to pay more out of the 
profits from its state-owned natural resources than it receives. Condition 4 
does not apply because it is a part of a democracy rather than one in itself.

2. The province of the Netherlands where I live, Groningen. Population is in 
its hundreds of thousands, otherwise it's the same story as with Scotland, 
except that it is less likely EVER to acquire statehood.

3. Monaco. Conditions 1,2, and 5 apply (Dunno about 4 or 6). Has no 
taxes (or so I'm told--state money comes from the casinos!). Problem is 
that it doesn't have much of an economy of its own, as many inhabitants make 
their money outside the country. DISCLAIMER: I MAY BE MISINFORMED ABOUT 
MONACO.


Hope this will be useful/good fodder for discussion

Reinder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2638 alt.politics.elections:24603
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:10:48 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
 <1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com> <1992Dec14.235251.16721@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

In article <1992Dec14.235251.16721@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) says:
>In article <1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>}At least now we have some governmental protection in the form of regulation.
>}For example, if a person feels discriminated against in hiring or firing,
>}he or she can go to the EEOC.

[it's flawed because of restrictions in who is protected]

>}The FAA assures certain safety standards for
>}air travel.

[they're flawed because they're not high enough]

>}The EPA works to ensure that corporations aren't polluting
>}our environment.

[it's flawed because some businesses just shrug off the fines]

Tch. Utopia is not an option. I thought everyone here knew that.

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:23:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1g1giqINNhld@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

> We have pumped hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars into Europe
> over the last 50 years in the name of "stability".  There is no excuse for it
> now; they are entirely capable of looking out for themselves. 

This is not at all true.

I saw a quote in the paper two days ago, from a highly-placed European NATO 
muckety-muck.  He said point-blank that the American military presence is 
the ONLY thing preventing the Europeans from having another full-scale war 
between themselves.

American military presence in Europe provides them a substantial benefit:
namely, the privilege of being able to make disapproving noises about what
a violent culture we Americans have over here.
-- 

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: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: gold
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:14 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Bz9prr.Mpr@encore.com>, rcollins@1.com writes...
:>In article <14DEC199214070161@venus.tamu.edu>, gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
:>|> Ok,  here's what it means to say the price of gold is kept "artificially low"
:>|> when your currency is gold backed:
:>|> 
:>|> Fort Knox used to contain a huge fraction of the world's refined gold.  If
:>|> the U.S. pegs the price of gold at,  say,  20 bucks an ounce and the value
:>|> of gold relative to other commodities goes up,  people will trade in their
:>|> dollars for gold.
:> 
:>No they want, because the value of the dollar relative to "other
:>commodities (not gold)" goes up at exactly the same rate as gold.
:>
Only after a few people have traded in their dollars for gold.  Come
on now,  what good is a promise to redeem the currency for gold if there
are no circumstances under which anyone would want to make the exchange.



 >|> If gold is at its "natural" value,  the amount of gold in FK should be
 >|> reasonably constant.  By continually selling gold,  the U.S. could keep
 >|> the price artificially low for some time.  But not forever.
 > 
 >Theoretically, the US could sell gold until there were no more gold in
 >FK, at which time there should be no more dollars in the world (except
 >in FK).  And an oz of gold would still equal the same number of dollars.
 > 
 >I think one of us is not understanding what it means to be gold backed.
 >I think it means every US dollar is redeemable for a certain amount of
 >gold in FK.  That certain amount would never change. 


That is exactly what it means,  that the exchange rate is fixed.  It does NOT 
mean that the amount of gold in FK corresponds to the number of greenbacks in
circulation.  That is,  say there are 1 billion ounces of gold in FK.  The
government could certainly issue fewer than 20 billion dollars,  but it also
might well issue more if it was confident that not everyone would want to 
trade in their greenbacks for gold at the same time.  The more greenbacks they
print up,  the more likely people are to want to trade them in for gold.

One way governments used to borrow money  in times of war was to temporarily
suspend the exchange of greenbacks for gold and print up a lot of extra 
greenbacks.  Then they had to deflate their money supply after the war
to resume trading at the previous rate. 

Mr. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Non-consensual force and abortion
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 21:47:16 GMT

In article <12027@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR
.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Living in a crime ridden area does not mean that you have given your
>consent to being a victim of a crime.

... and having sex does not mean that you have given your consent to
being pregnant.  It just means you're running the risk, just like
living in a crime ridden area. 
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
From: dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk (Daniel J Livingstone IE90)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:02:55 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

In article <Bz2FKu.Grt@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>In article lifc40INNl4u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:
>>
>>Somalia has no taxation, no restrictions on gun possession, no
>>regulation of commerce, no regulation of food or drugs.
>>
>>Somalia is the ideal liberatarian state.
>
>Anarchy and libertarianism are not identical.
>

 Somalia aint an anarchy either. The way the word `anarchy' is used
 in modern language, it could be said to be in a state of anarchy,
 but as far as the anarchic ideal is concerned... somalia just
 doesnt fit.

 I believe that the essential idea of an anarchy is along the lines
 of `complete freedom to do anything that does not adversely
 affect the lives of others' - ie free to dress how you want, say what
 you want, live a free and unregulated life. Killing someone could
 be considered adversley affecting their life.

 I'm not an authority on anarchy, so if you wish to know more, search
 out the anarchy newsgroup...

kidd
-- 
dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk
Daniel, aka MBKidd
- Reality is what you make it
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: arguments about arguments 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 19:06:35 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <724271932snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>In article <Bz4Msw.G3F.1@cs.cmu.edu> asp+@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>
>>However, since you're a big fan of logical impossibility, I'd be interested in
>>how you handle the following argument:
>>
>>   "This sentence is false, and I am not the Pope."
>>
>>Notice that it is logically impossible for this sentence to be true,
>
>Wrong!  It is logically possible for that sentence to be true, since you
>used the 'and' conjunction.  That means that if either part of the
>sentence if false, the whole sentence is false.  Therefore, if you *are*
>the Pope, the second part is false, therefore the sentence as a whole is
>false, and the first part is true.
>

Think before you speak next time, or take a course in basic logic. There
is no way that a sentence of the form "This sentence is false, and X"
could be true, no matter what X is. If he used "or" (disjunction) instead
of "and" (conjunction), it would be a different story.

If he were the Pope, the sentence would be false, because if either
half of a conjunction is false, the entire conjunction is false.

On the other hand, if he were not the Pope, we'd have a logical contradiction.
Where T = TRUE, any statement of the form P ^ T is logically equivalent
to P alone, so if he were not the Pope, his statement would be equivalent
to "This sentence is false"... a logical contradiction which could be
neither true nor false.

In neither of these cases is the sentence true. Not that I see what this
has to do with Libertarianism, but I had to say *something*.

-- 
__/\__  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,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 12:07:17 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.160618.5932@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> Bakayaroo Banzai,
k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE writes:
>The "Big deal" is that, while not technically illegal, these actions
>contained "the appearance of impropriety" an argument which many of these
>self-same CongressRodents used to great effect against the incumbent
>Republican administration. Remember John Sununu and his flying about
>in military jets? There's more than just a smidgen of hypocrisy evident
>here.

Excuse me, but there are two BIG differences between the two. The check
"bouncers" did not cost the tax payers thousands for their "improprieties"
(they cost the tax payers nothing, period), and, most importantly, it was
the policy of the house bank to allow such drafts. You may argue the
soundness of this policy, but the house members who took advantage of it
were within their rights.

If this is the only "crime" the Repubs could come up with to hold over
those evil Demos, it is no wonder they lost.

>Most people didn't criticize this for any potential illegality,
>rather for the fact that if they tried something on this scale with
>their personal banks they would have been fined heavily. Personally,
>I resented the fact that many of these pious politicians, while decrying
>the state of the Deficit and the Economy, could not seem to manage their
>personal finances to save their lives. Just another example of the 
>ridiculous perks which Congress keeps granting unto itself.

As was pointed out earlier, and conveniently ignored, this policy was
instituted because of the large time periods between paychecks.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:37:35 GMT

In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
}
}In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
}           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
}
}>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.
}
}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.

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.

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.

The sad result for those of us libertarians who are heterosexual men is that
we get quite lonely for the company of females with political sympathies.
Many minimize this in romance by being gay or bi, but we tend not to have
many libertarian women as friends, either.

One of the bad results of this is that libertarian women must feel some
sexual pressure from the men, but their scarcity also increases their
"price," or market-value.  They get to call much more shots
than in other circles where women are more prevalent.

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: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:21:41 GMT

In article <zwQ=!y+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) writes:

>WHY has nobody yet taken Mike's analogy between employer-employee relations
>and government-governed relations and shoved it down his throat?

Because some of us have Huben the Authoritarian in our kill file. ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:49:53 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
 <1992Dec11.125935.29064@mr.med.ge.com>
 <1992Dec12.215840.1920@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

In article <1992Dec12.215840.1920@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) says:

>Actually I don't think the gov't of last century was much better than this
>batch of fools.

Quite right. It's a common (and wrong) perception that the present is the
worst things have ever been, and oh, if only we could go back to the Golden
Age of {50/100/1000} years ago, when life was simpler and happier...

Of course, the Golden Age of the 1950's featured segregation, McCarthyism,
environmental devastation, and the Cold War Turnin' Hot (so much for the
conservative golden-agers.) The Golden Age of the 1800's featured imperialism,
sweatshops, oligarchies, slavery, and discrimination of every conceivable
sort (so much for the Libertarian golden-agers.) And the Golden Age of the
Distant Pastorial Past featured short lifespans, rampant disease, endless
religious wars, and feudalism (so much for the liberal golden-agers.)

So much for Golden Ages...

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:14:59 GMT

In article <77760@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}In <1992Dec17.094333.21278@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}|In article <77623@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}|}In <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}|}
}|}>They suffered a low standard of living
}|}
}|}The result of the low level of technology of the day.
}
}|And the low marginal productivity of labor which was inherited from feudalism.
}
}Low marginal productivity may have been inherited from feudalism, but it
}wasn't caused by feudalism.  It was caused by a lack of technology.
}
}For example, a man with a mule will never be able to haul as much as a man
}with a tractor.

Then why did the standard of living decrease when Rome fell?

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
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:36:14 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: gak@wrs.com's message of 10 Dec 92 22:53:17 GMT

In article <Bz2FKu.Grt@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:



   One other point...

   In article lifc40INNl4u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:
   >
   >Somalia has no taxation, no restrictions on gun possession, no
   >regulation of commerce, no regulation of food or drugs.
   >
   >Somalia is the ideal liberatarian state.

%   Anarchy and libertarianism are not identical.

Niether are the chaotic state of Anarchy and Anarchism, especially
as Anarchy applies to the situation in Somalia.

from Websters :

anarchism: 1) a political theory holding all forms of govermentmental
authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating voluntary
cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Doesn't sound like Somalia right now.

anarchy: 1) a: absence of goverment b: state of lawlessness or political
disorder due to the absence of govermental authority c : a utopian
of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without goverment.

so a) and b) might apply but not c).


-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:21:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.041619.28662@ornl.gov> jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer) writes:
}	Scarcity is an economic concept meaning, roughly, that there's not
}enough of everything to go around, and you have to find some way of
}distributing it.  Scarcity is fundamental to our understanding of
}economics, but if we look at the problem anthropologically, we learn that
}scarcity is NOT universal, and therefore, scarcity-based economies are not
}the only alternatives.

Wrong.  Scarcity means not that there isn't enough to go around, but that
the quantity of a good is practically finite.  Some things are practically
infinite, and aren't scarce goods, but general conditions of human welfare.

}	Scarcity began with increasing populations due to the invention of
}agriculture in the Neolithic.

Absolutely, utterly, completely, false :-).  Goods were scarce in the
hunter-gatherer stage, too.  Even by your definition, there weren't enough
goods to go 'round.

}However, there is another
}alternative:  do away with scarcity!

But it's determined according to the theory of marginal utility!  What's
practically infinite now may be scarce in the future, even if there's more
of it.  It's all a matter of supply and demand.

What this requires is that
}production be increased to a level where the population can be supported,
}without the need for constant labour.  (Side note:  a bushman of the !Kung
}works about 4 hours a week)  Production must be unlinked from labour and
}capital.  When human populations were small, nature took care of this. 

How did nature "unlink" the human action of production from labor and
capital?


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