HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 00:11:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.112502.16492@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Most of the proposals for improving the LP are good, and oughta be adopted.
>However, I have three objections, which I've argued about vociferously on
>libernet:
>1) limiting the platform to 10 planks.

I agree with this objection.

>2) limiting stategy to 2-5 years.

Nobody is advocating limiting strategy to 2-4 years. I agree
with the proposal that the _platform_ ought to have a 2-4 year
perspective. This only makes sense for a political party since
the election cycle is two or four years for most offices.

>3) getting rid of the membership pledge.
[...]
>I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the membership pledge costs
>us many supporters.

You haven't been reading this newsgroup then. I've seen
postings from several people saying they are libertarians but
not LP members who would reconsider if the LP scrapped the
pledge and took a more solutions-oriented stance.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:28:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.073616.29180@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>}conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>}possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>}to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>}yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>}evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>}able to sign the pledge.
>
>Merely because people are inperfectly faithful to a principle is no reason
>to abandon it.

Ah!  So minarchists are not welcome in Tim's LP?  Those of us who find value
in the arguments against, say, equal opportunity laws, and would like to 
have more libertarian principles applied in these areas, but aren't 
*necessarily* comfortable (yet, at least) with dumping them totally are
not welcome?

Sorry, we're at odds on this one.  If you lot prevail, the LP is going no
where.  What if the Repubs or Dems rejected anyone who didn't believe in
every plank all the time, as opposed to welcoming anyone who thinks their
general view of 'how the world should be' is more correct than not?  They'd
be down to the size and power of the LP in no time, that's what.

I have a lot of respect for you, Tim.  I've learned a lot from you.  It's
the 'radical' types like you in any movement that gets things done.  I'd
like to have you and a few more like you influencing congress.  I'd vote
for you because, in *general*, I agree with your view of how things ought to
be more than I disagree.

But you don't want my vote because I don't agree with you 100%?  Sorry, I
think it's *you* who needs to go create a new political party.  I agree
with having an LP that welcomes anyone who fits in the libertarian
quadrant.  By definition, you would be welcome.  'Course, sounds like
you wouldn't want to be there.

Well, despite my respect for you, I would gladly trade a few Tim Starrs
for the many millions of people you would gladly reject from the party.
But not before thanking you for all the good you've done.

Of course, I'd be wasting my breath, since it sounds like a 'thank you'
from someone who isn't an 100% anarchist isn't worth the air it travels
through to you..

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Reply-To: dbrown@ai.uga.edu
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:23:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.222804.14956@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>
>The proposal is only for eliminating the pledge as a requirement
>for membership. I don't know of anyone, including Steve Givot,
>who appears to be the defacto leader of the reformers on the
>LNC, who does not think that requiring the pledge of party officers
>and candidates would be a good idea.

I have a copy of the original proposal.  It merely says, "Eliminate the
`Oath'."  It says nothing about keeping it for candidates.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:45:45 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <SLAGLE.93Jan27154711@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1k6nu2INN58f@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan23.061426.3629@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>
>>>One of the BIG differences between the Libertarian party and the other
>>>two major parties is that Libertarians are consistent... almost to a
>>>fault. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Libertarian party planks follows logically
>>>from our one fundamental belief... that initiation of force, for whatever 
>>>reason, is wrong. How can you get more consistant than that?
>
>> Hahahaha!  That's why one Libertarian party plank was to hold a
>> gun to taxpayers' heads to finance school vouchers, right?
>
>Liar.  The LP Platform says no such thing.

If Marrou did not endorse vouchers during his presidential campaign,
then I apologize and admit a blunder.

Mike Huben

"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that
there may be something to them [which] we are missing."  Gamel Nasser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Mason.L.Allen@dartmouth.edu (Mason L. Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:42:13 GMT
 <727831381snz@keris.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

So who says a couple of Brits deserve medical care paid for by American
taxes?  In a perfect world, they should and would get it. 
Unfortunately, so many people who do get health care decide simply NOT
to pay for it, and so many others make the government pay for their
medicine, that the Englishmen couldn't find any help.  

m.

BTW, I missed the original post, "its all over.." 
INHO, though, the male protestant elite ruling class myth is nothing
more than that, an urban legend
From: schmidt@netcom.com (Christopher VA Schmidt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:23:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Bcc: acuff@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, schmidt


	Regarding:
>"White can help us, but they can't join us." - Malcolm X.  Similarly,
>non-libertarians can help us, but they can't join.
	Note that at its peak size during Malcolm X's life, the Nation of
Islam had only 40,000 members.  Malcolm X himself (according to his
autobiography) lamented that the many puritanical pledges required of
members prevented the group from ever reaching more than a miniscule
percentage of the 18 million blacks in America at the time and advocated
dropping the requirements of orthodoxy.
	By contrast, the World Wildlife Fund has 1.2 million members.  I
doubt they would be nearly so large or effective if they required a pledge,
say, that members not eat meat or wear leather.
	BTW, am I the only person who thinks the pledge is ridiculous
if only because it is so vague?  I signed it because I agreed
wholeheartedly with the "Statement of Principles" printed nearby, but
from reading this dialog, it has become clear that the pledge's
advocates don't want me in the party.  I suspect they would also
reject most of our founding fathers for initiating force against the
British to found the (relative) libertopia we had 200 years ago.  In
recruiting new Libertarians, I try to use that operating manual
written by the founding fathers--the US Constitution--as an example of
a libertarian document in preference to our own Party platform.  Most
potential members already have an affinity for the Constitution,
regardless of its flaws.  I doubt there are as many as one-tenth who
have the same liking for the Pledge, so I think its days are numbered
as our party grows.
-- 
--Christopher VA Schmidt, Redwood City, California
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:50:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:

>In article <1993Jan25.101049.7633@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan25.073813.29279@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}>}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
>}>}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
>}>}not hold to one shining guiding principle.
>}>
>}>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
>}>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.
>}
>}Oh, so someone who supports the entire libertarian agenda but is
>}not an NCP absolutist is a conservative? Gimme a break.
>
>False dichotomy.  The post I replied to said "a libertarian agenda," not
>"THE libertarian agenda."  That said, someone who doesn't believe that
>freedom of speech is absolute doesn't believe in free speech, and someone
>who doesn't believe that coercion is absolutely impermissible isn't a
>libertarian.
>
This is self-defeating, in that there are *very* few people who are truly
absolutist on *anything*.  A party which insists on absolutism is doomed to
perpetual obscurity.
>
>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
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: You Can't Have it Both Ways
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:04:29 GMT

In article <parvin1.728033026@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>
>Well, the LP can require all its members be categorically motivated.  But, if
>so, it has no business trying to recruit those who aren't - most libertarians.
>I can understand such tactics trying to sway votes in an election, but it
>seems almost criminal to use the ol' Bait and Switch on prospective members.

There is indeed a problem there.  That's why I would require the oath only
for those who are running for office or involved in LP policy decisions.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: What are the limits to personal firepower in Libertarian Utopia?
From: EXTDSM@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MADDISON,David)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:37:58 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In an ideal Libertarian Utopia it is (rightly) difficult to justify *any* form
of weapons control. What about weapons that have a definite capability to
destroy large areas such as nuclear devices. Is there any theoretical reason in
Libertarian Utopia to control private ownership of such devices? Some nuclear 
explosive devices *could* have legitimate civil engineering uses such as 
building artificial harbours and other large scale works. In this case any 
control of such devices would be seen as an unwarranted attack by the State on 
legitimate business. Is the capability to destroy a large area really a cause 
for "control"? There are many legitimate processes which could similiarly 
destroy large areas, e.g. petrochemical plants out of control, airline 
disasters, dam failure, escaped virulent strains of bacteria etc. Just curious.

David Maddison
Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:15:30 GMT

esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
>> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>> able to sign the pledge.

>You know, I hadn't thought it through in connection with the pledge, but I
>believe Mr. Ray is correct.

>Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
>dangerous contradiction in their belief system.

>Instead, what does the LP do?  Duh.  Abolish the pledge.  Of *course*.

>Sometimes I think there's no intelligent life on this planet.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines.  With consistency a great soul has
simply nothing to do... Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow
speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything
you said today." - Emerson

One can ALWAYS be consistent by adopting exactly one clearly defined first
principle.  I don't consider this to be any great achievement.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Parvin                  
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu              
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Party line
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Reply-To: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:00:29 GMT

Suppose I believe that coercion is bad in a lot of cases.  Suppose even that
it's a lot more cases than most Democrats or Republicans believe in.  But it's
not everything.

Can I be a member of the Libertarian party?  Can I call myself a
{L,l}ibertarian?

I suspect this situation is very common.  I'd be deciding "because it produces
results that are good, I support the NCP", rather than "because I support the
NCP, I automatically consider anything resulting from it to be good".  Even if
I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Party line
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:20:11 GMT

In article <1kFGOM#20QJ559GJyBG52Otsm3NjxtL=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>> Suppose I believe that coercion is bad in a lot of cases.  Suppose even that
>> it's a lot more cases than most Democrats or Republicans believe in.  But it's
>> not everything.
>> Can I be a member of the Libertarian party?  Can I call myself a
>> {L,l}ibertarian?
>Maybe.  What cases of `coercion' do you sanction?  It may be that your
>understanding of the concept is incomplete or incorrect; in particular,
>you may regard some things as *initiation* of force some things which a
>libertarian would regard as *return* of force, or vice-versa.

I doubt it.  I support laws against racial discrimination by private
businesses, for instance.

[NOTE: If you are tempted to reply to that, "those laws are a bad idea
because...", skip it.  The question is how to classify my opinions, not how to
justify them.]

>> I'd be deciding "because it produces
>> results that are good, I support the NCP", rather than "because I support the
>> NCP, I automatically consider anything resulting from it to be good".
>This is easy.  Your stance would be consequentialist or pragmatic
>libertarianism, as opposed to the a-prioristic "natural law" libertarianism
>of Randites and those like them.  You'd have plenty of company...

There are a number of issues on which I have no opinion.  Since the NCP
dictates stands on these issues, and I have no idea whether or not those stands
are good, I cannot honestly maintain any position at all on the NCP.  How can
I support something if I have no idea whether some of its results are good or
bad?

>>                                                                      Even if
>> I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
>> yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?
>Then you'd have to either change other parts of your belief system or stop
>calling yourself a libertarian.  That isn't complicated, is it?

It's not complicated--except that it means if I support most of the things you
do, but disagree about a minor issue like government-funded public libraries, I
would be kept out of your party, even if I want to join because, say, I dislike
the War on Drugs, gun control, no-knock searches, and the Social Security
system.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Life & Liberty
Date: 28 Jan 1993 05:45:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) says:

>i saw another one of those "Life. What a beautiful choice." ads 
>tonite. whether you are pro-choice or not it's pretty obvious that 
>they're effective at changing the image of the anti-abortion 
>movement. they don't scream in your face, they're generally non-
>intrusive & even make decent eye candy. they're also difficult to 
>counter. how is the pro-choice movement going to respond? "Death. 
>What a beautiful choice.", while showing visuals of a successful 
>young woman & a bag of blood & tissue that would have turned her into 
>a welfare mother? naah. 
>
>let's not get into an abortion debate here, but wouldn't a similar 
>tactic work for the LP? start running low-key commercials -now-. well-
>lit ads with "ordinary people" explaining why they prefer to make an 
>individual choice on any number of issues. keep track of Clinton's 
>latest screw-ups & cover those topics without acknowledging the 
>competition. close 'em up with "sponsored by the Libertarian Party". 
>by 1996 we've got name recognition. coupled with a more pragmatic 
>platform we'd at least be able to make a showing, or get the 
>Republicrats to move away from the parental role they seem so fond of.
>
This is a great idea.  I really mean that.  There is only one drawback:
There is no money to fund such a series of commercials.  By great effort, the
LP managed to produce four TV commercials last summer and fall, and managed
to show them on TV (mostly cable channels) five or ten times a week.  In
the absence of the heat of a presidential campaign, I believe it is 
doubtful we could raise even that much.

>jason
>
>--
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
>`,`   "...And I didn't even need pants!!" -- Dilbert, on the internet   `,`
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 13:03:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.094147.11160@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>I should have qualified evidence by saying that what I meant was scientific,
>as opposed to anecdotal, evidence.  I've never seen any scientific evidence
>to support the claim that there's lots of libertarians who would join if
>it weren't for the pledge.

I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for. Please elaborate.
If you're thinking of a scientific poll, my guess is that it is
impossible because libertarians make up a tiny percentage of the
population and/or it would be prohibitively expensive.

>The anti-pledge types seem to me to want to go after non-libertarians
>to become members, that's all.  

I don't know where you're getting this impression from. I can't
believe that you have gotten it from myself, Mark Sulkowski, Al
Date, or any of the people arguing for the LNC proposals on
LPUS.

I want to go after people who are libertarian, but don't want to
join the LP for a number of reasons, such as they arrive at
their libertarianism via a route other than the NCP, they don't
like oaths, or they just don't want to be involved in a group
that is perceived by their friends to be fringe or kooky.

>Yet, many who give money to the LP haven't
>signed the membership pledge - and I have seen evidence for this.

Don't you think they would be likely to give even more if they
weren't considered second class by the LP?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian