HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:38:40 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System


In article <BxJ8nq.EJD@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark
Sulkowski) says:
>
>        He probably should have explained his position better.

It's hard to explain to someone that totally disagrees with your position
on firearms and limitation on government powers how they would benefit.


>sounded that way.  Perhaps he should have emphasized that
>people could defend the country in case of an invasion better
>with semi-automatic weapons, and talked about Switzerland's
>citizen militia.

I don't know if I can call it a Citizen-Militia since these people
are all part of the Swiss Army, even if it is the Reserves.

Nick
___

  Nicholas  Hester                  "I'm a virgin...I'm just not good at it."
ia80024@Maine.bitnet                                 -Ramada, "Hot Shots!"
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Just Curious
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:09:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


What's happens to all these lists devoted to the presidential
candidates after the election?
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: How to get from here to there (was Local Libertarian government)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov12.125126.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes...
>In article <BxKwIt.MCL@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>	sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>> 	Also, zoning laws could be repealed... along with other
>> harmful city regulations.
> 
>   Ah! Now HERE is a barrel of worms were libertarians are likely to
>   come unstuck unless some very careful thought is applied.
> 
>   The way that my interests would be protected in libertaria is
>   through restricted deeds in land usage...
> [we'd make sure to put those deeds in place]
>   Tread carefully, those who love liberty! This is just the sort of
>   issue which will keep Libertarians marginalized.
> 
>Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.

	A fair point.  I didn't suggest that your method would not be
used.  I'm sure that the Reason Foundation or Cato Institute would
be researching effective ways of solving such problems, or reporting
successes already implemented elsewhere, and if I were the Libertarian
in office, I would certainly listen to them.

Mark Sulkowski
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:34:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <11NOV199211122062@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
[previous dialog deleted]
>
>Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing:  Tim decides to grow an 
>orange,  which I want to buy from him.  Clearly Tim and I both benefit from
>this transaction,  but because Tim has been allowed to sell his orange the
>market price for oranges drops slightly,  so everyone else who buys oranges
>benefits and everyone else who sells oranges is harmed,  and these other
>innocent orange producers should be free to use the political process
>to avoid and minimize the harm we have done them,  right?

Wrong.  We have done them no harm.  They have been free to enter the market
or not, and attempt to maximize their profit just as Tim and you.  Their
profit may have been a little lower than they estimated but they weren't
guaranteed any given profit, just the opportunity to offer their oranges
for sale.  

Look at it this way:  You go to market with ten oranges to sell.  You
estimate, based on last week's market, that you'll get a dollar apiece 
for them.  This week Tim's also in the market and you can only get 90
cents each.  Have you been harmed?  No, you've made ten profitable orange
sales that benefitted you.  If you hadn't, you wouldn't have sold the
oranges.  If you had made $10 and Tim took one you would have been harmed
but you never had $10.  You had $9 and you still do.  Where is the harm?

If you find a $10 bill on the street do you feel harmed that it wasn't
a 20?
>
>Of course,  there's no reason the harm done to the other orange producers
>exceeds the benefits done to the other orange consumers (in fact,  they
>should be almost exactly the same),  but in general it will be much
>easier for the producers to organize politically because there are fewer
>of them.  
>
Easier to organize but if the government is bound to leave the market alone
there will be no incentive.
>
>Mr. Grinch

RJL

-- 
Rich Loether (rjl@unix.cis.pitt.edu)
Computing and Info Services (Systems & Networks)
(412) 624-6429 / FAX (412) 624-6436
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:48:28 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
>
>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
>
>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
>
>Helpful St. Grinch

And a fundamental problem with a completely free market is that it
tends towards conditions in which a free market does not thrive -
concentration of power - irrespective of government influence.

Laissez Faire is lethal to laissez faire.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2208 alt.politics.libertarian:1802
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NH LP candidates
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9NOV199213533628@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>What happened to the three NH Libertarians in the state legislature
>running for re-election?

	I've heard that Cal Warburton (first to join the LP) and Finlay
Rothhaus (second) were reelected.  I'm not sure if the third guy was
reelected, but two other Libertarian Party candidates were elected
to similar offices.

	That makes a total of four Libertarian state legislators in
New Hampshire.  Yea!

> 
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:57:32 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>This is less than clear.  Take, for example, the regulation or law that 
>forces food producers to print a list of ingredients on their labels.
>For all practical purposes, once the law is on the books, the expense to
>the government is zero.  But this law is unlibertarian, so out it goes.
>Producers may now make "lite" food that is not "lite," low-sodium food
>that is not low-sodium, and if you don't think they won't, you haven't
>been reading the news.  The result would seem to be a large increase in
>the number of fraud suits by consumers against producers, and this does 
>translate to a government expense in the libertarian order.

Libertarians do not oppose the government's enforcing laws against fraud.
However, if you think that the FDA has solved the problem of vague
claims like "lite" and "low-sodium," then you haven't been reading food
labels.  If you think that producers will not use "good" labels unless
they are forced by the government, then you haven't heard about free
market economics.  If you think that the public is not responsible
enough or capable of determining what a "good" label is (through a free
market), why would you ever want other people (elected officials)
mandating what all labels should look like?
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:34:29 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu writes:
 
>ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>>
>> All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou is a
>> lunatic, because of some comments he made about the right to own
>> semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason given was to protect
>> ourselves from the government.
>
>sounds like Andre's been quoting Jefferson again. what a lunatic...
>;^)
>
Exactly ! My response to all three was that this idea, to protect
ourselves from a tyrannical government, came from Jefferson. This
just resulted in blank stares...
 
It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise intelligent
people, the idea that the government will ever get so bad as to require
self protection is _universally_ viewed as paranoid.
 
Now I don't think that we should compromise on principles, but we
should examine the fact (?) that maybe the American public is
not ready for a Libertarian federal government. Maybe, instead
of blowing a wad on an unwinnable presedential race, we should
blow 1000 milliwads on possibly winnable state and local races.
 
We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-automatic 
weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

Ed Stokes
ebstokes@crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:00:49 GMT

In article  <Bx8nK6.Dw8@beach.csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.002719.4221@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>>The 5th Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for
>>public use without just compensation.  Yet, every other week I notice
>>that 1/4 of my private property has been confiscated from my paycheck
>>without just compensation given.  I don't consider waste, fraud, and
>>abuse by elected representatives to be just compensation.
>>
>>Has the 16th Amendment completely superseded the 5th?  The two aren't
>>incompatible, really.  An income tax would be more bearable if I
>>received something in return of equal value, but I don't.
>
>  It would be reasonable to conclude that later ammendments supersede
>earlier ones or it would be difficult to rescind them (as in Prohibition).

But again, the two aren't incompatible.  The 16th Amendment doesn't
explicitly rescind the 5th.

>
>  In any case, unfortunately for you, paying taxes in not a marketplace
>function (which you Libertarians seem to worship as the end and be all of
>existence) and so you do not get to establish value, worth, price, etc.
>all on your own. Sorry, one just has to accept civic responsibility over
>personal preference and self-interest on some things.

First, I'm not a Libertarian.  I disagree with them on a few important
issues, so I wouldn't want to register my name with the party.  However,
I absolutely agree with them on the importance of taking the Constitution
seriously.  The Constitution exists to protect you and me from authority
gone bad.  When the authority begins to overstep its bounds it is our duty
to protest, even if the abuse of authority benefits us.

Second, I do accept civic responsibility, and would gladly pay for 
Constitutionally mandated services that I receive, in addition to making
voluntary contributions to charity.  But if you want the government to
force me to contribute to the charities that it chooses, then get working
on a 27th Amendment to the Constitution so that what the government is
currently doing will at least be legal.  Just don't ignore the 5th
Amendment in the meantime.

--
                      The above opinions are mine alone and cannot be
  _____               held by anyone else without prior written consent.
 /o\   \________________________________________________________________
 8 8    ===o=xoo=x=o=xo=ox=== Michael Savastio (m.savastio@telesci.uucp)
 \_/___/   *******^*******^   Don't blame me: I voted for the bozo who lost
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:46:04 GMT

In article 9493@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de, gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>
>>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
>
>Don't be an idiot.  At most it means that at least 57% thought someone
>else would be better.

Thanks for both pointing out my idiocy and making my point more clearly
than I did.  :-)

What I meant by the statement was that a candidate who doesn't garner
at least a simple majority of the vote clearly doesn't have the
"mandate from the people" that Clinton is claiming.  (Or at least that
the media claim he's claiming.)

gak

> Some people voted
> for Perot who wouldn't have if they thought he might win.

Yeah, but those people are idiots.  :-)

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Disclaimer: I'm not allowed to
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--|             have opinions.
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:38:10 GMT

gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
| For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
| 
| 1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
| they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total
| utility.
| 
| 2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
| prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.

  Just curious.  How do the following fit in with your argument?

  1) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against firms
  that have employment contracts with individuals that include drug and
  lie-detector tests.  If a firm thinks it is in its best economic
  interest to have drug and lie-detector tests, shouldn't they be free
  to hire only those willing to take these tests?

  2) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against
  newspapers and television stations that did not give them "fair"
  campaign coverage.  Should Libertarians be telling the media what
  to do with their private property?  The Libertarians might be in a
  catch-22 on this one.  In a free market, only those with money have
  power -- but the Libertarians have no money and thus no power.  And
  they can't even complain about it, because that is the system they
  are advocating.
  ==

  Bob
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why????
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:12:19 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov5.211621.13863@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
> I think a lot more can be learned by listing a wide range of opinions
> on different political issues and then asking people to classify them
> as libertarian, liberal, conservative, socialist, etc.  I think there's
> a big difference between what people perceive us to be and what we
> actually are.  Once it's clear what people's perceptions about us as a
> party are, we can act to dispell people's mistaken ideas.
> 
> Also, as far as just a general "sell" is concerned, I think the Political
> Quiz with the diamond graph on it is a good method.  A lot of people are
> surprised to find out how Libertarian they are, and they're a lot more
> receptive to the rest of our ideas once it's clear that they agree with
> us on a lot of things.
> 
> Steve Conley

   I'm afraid that more is required. I wish it were so simple.

   This election campaign was perhaps the most distressing in memory.
   Not only because of the outcome, but more importantly because of
   the political ground over which battle was waged.

   The commonality between the three `official' candidates is the
   presumption that government is essential to be able to solve
   problems - "confronting the issues" is endemic to them.

   People clearly are far happier if someone comes along and offers to
   solve their problems for them. No matter that they have failed
   before or have some strange new slant on how to solve them,  so
   long as they are convincing or untried.

   I find it quite disgusting that the political agenda in this, of
   all countries, should have become so warped.

   The Libertarian party should of course try to get the message out,
   but they should do more. They should realize that the first battle
   is to return to the minds of the electorate that THERE ARE IMPLICIT
   ASSUMPTIONS in the major parties of the necessity of government
   involvement.

   It is a difficult business, and I am rather pessimistic of any
   serious progress. Libertarians have no simple answer on how to help
   the homeless, or provide healthcare for all. The only defense if
   you want to carry Joe Sixpack is to change the agenda so that the
   question is no longer asked.

   Our best bet is to hope someone like Clint Eastwood sees the
   light and become our Perot in '96.

   By the way, for what it is worth, my opinion is that a Clinton
   victory is the worst possible outcome for the libertarian party.
   The republicans will, after much solesearching, most likely come
   back next time with a more Libertarian-sounding agenda. Perot's
   crypto-fascists didn't break the two party hold. 

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
From: rademaew@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%..etc, where are these from?
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:44:58 EST
Distribution: na,world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <EPPERLY.92Nov5091558@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tom Epperly) writes:
> Where did these results come from?  When are they from?
> 
> 				Tom
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Epperly	University of Wisconsin-Madison		Chemical Engineering
> (608) 262-8264	epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu		Graduate Student
> Member of the League for Programming Freedom(fighting software monopolies)
> 	For more info contact me or lpf@uunet.uu.net.
> If you feel you must flame, please send email rather than posting.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were very nicely lifted from alt.politics.elections, which were lifted
from one of the drugs newsgroups. Kind of found it funny that the person
posting it left of the FIRST LINE OF THE 'ELECTIONS' POST:

" [Are these results real?]"

They may be true, or may not be true, but witout that line its a nice way to
attack with a little less than the truth :)



Tired of the way these posts trickle down...
!eric!
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:36:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov10.225009.16240@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes...
>All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou
>is a lunatic, because of some comments he made about the
>right to own semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason
>given was to protect ourselves from the government.

	Well, if you read the Federalist papers, that was a major
reason for the Second Amendment.

	Marrou's comment would probably have appealed to NRA members
and other conservatives who know why the RKBA exists.  Liberals would
react negatively.  You can't please everyone, I suppose.


>Now I am a Libertarian, and voted for Marrou, so don't
>flame me. But it seems that to universally offend
>potential voters (who agree with other Libertarian positions)
>by making a paranoid-sounding comment about semi-automatic
>weapons on NPR was rather short sighted.

	He probably should have explained his position better.
It's not really a paranoid comment, though it could have
sounded that way.  Perhaps he should have emphasized that
people could defend the country in case of an invasion better
with semi-automatic weapons, and talked about Switzerland's
citizen militia.


Mark Sulkowski
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2174 alt.politics.libertarian:1760
From: mcsdc2dgw@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
Subject: exit
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:41:45 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology


Has anyone noticed that once again that magnificent Jac de'lors

who runs the EC like it were his own personal France, has brought the world to

brink, whilest running the EC like his own personal France.

All because of the ammount of Rape seed produced and funding given to the very

farmers who produce it all. 

  The worlds economy is %10 farming, france has %0.1 of the economy in respect

to farming yet we find our selves in this deardfull situation.

I wonder was it such a good idea to vote de'lors back in for another term?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: javtah@world.std.com (james e vath)
Subject: EC pharmaceutical info sought
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:53:15 GMT

I am interested in any comments, opinions or insights that anyone may
have concerning recent developments in the European Economic Community's
efforts to harmonize the pharmaceutical and biotechnological drug
approval and registration process.

I am a graduate student who is studying the policy options available
to the EC. I would appreciate receiving candid remarks from those in
industry or involved with legislation. I intend to use this information
as a starting point for further discussion within my study group.

I also would appreciate being made aware of any souces where one
could retrieve current information on this topic.

Please email your responses and thank you in advance.

James Vath
Boston, MA USA
inet: javtah@world.std.com




Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: sspoa@SV.UIB.NO (Oyvind Andersen)
Subject: Re: exit
Organization: default trumphet user
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 14:03:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.144145.1126@dct.ac.uk> mcsdc2dgw@dct.ac.uk writes:
>From: mcsdc2dgw@dct.ac.uk
>Subject: exit
>Date: 6 Nov 92 14:41:45 GMT
>
>Has anyone noticed that once again that magnificent Jac de'lors
>
>who runs the EC like it were his own personal France, has brought the world to
>
>brink, whilest running the EC like his own personal France.
>
>All because of the ammount of Rape seed produced and funding given to the very
>
>farmers who produce it all. 
>
>  The worlds economy is %10 farming, france has %0.1 of the economy in respect
>
>to farming yet we find our selves in this deardfull situation.
>
>I wonder was it such a good idea to vote de'lors back in for another term?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: lohsej@pell2l2.alleg.edu (James Lohse)
Subject: French Legal System 
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:43:14 GMT

Is there anyone who could direct me to someone or some institute that  
might be aid me in finding specific and current information dealing with  
the French Legal System (has to be a way to order legal  
books,materials,etc.

Any info should be e-mailed to lohsej@alleg.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc