HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:48:10 GMT

In article <1jp74pINN64v@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

}Frankly, I'd rather pay more taxes to create fellow citizens than to allow
}a resentful underclass to grow up looking for opportunities to rip me off.

If what you're saying is that you would be willing to part with the money,
then you could just as easily give it to a charity to do this, without
coercion of anyone.

If what you're saying is that such citizenship programs must be paid for
through taxes, then I see no reason for this to be true.

Since you bring up the subject of resentful underclasses, I haven't read
it, but understand that in "Resentment Against Achievement" by Robert
Scheaffer it is argued that domestic aid programs are de facto resentment
purchases which must be stopped if resentment is to be curbed.


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: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Do Pragmatic Libertarians Belong in LP or RLC? (was Re: Party line)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:19:22 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan25134701@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> In article <C1F327.GD2@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
|> >In article <parvin1.727938404@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
|> >>
|> >>You can have your pure little party, safe from any internal strife... and safe
|> >>from making any kind of impact whatsoever.  You can require members to sign
|> >>a pledge which, however you twist it, calls for the elimination of taxation,
|> >>or something very close.
|> 
|> >>You just will not represent a decent
|> >>number of Americans, and will have alienated many that you could have
|> >>represented better than anyone else.
|> 
|> >If the only way to get LP members elected is to allow people who oppose the
|> >libertarian philosophy to run for office as Libertarians, why should there
|> >even be a Libertarian Party?  If I just wanted people who are slightly less
|> >socialist-leaning than the average to rule over me, I'd vote for Republican
|> >Liberty Caucus members.
|> 
|> This raises an interesting question -- do pragmatic libertarians
|> belong in Libertarian Party or the Republican Liberty Caucus?  I
|> define a pragmatic libertarian to be anyone who falls in the
|> libertarian quadrant (supporting civil liberties and free enterprise)
|> but who is not a non-coercion absolutist.
|> 

I suppose this depends on whether the LP represents the libertarian
quadrant, or simply a libertarian point (100/100 on the Nolan chart).
At the present time, the LP seems to represent the views of those who
are at or near the 100/100 point.  They don't seem to care about those
who fall in the rest of the quadrant.  I personally would like to
see the LP 'moderate' its views so that it encompasses more of those
in the libertarian quadrant.  I think a strong party which represented
this group would do more for liberty than a weak party attempting
to maintain some theoretical purity.  Once a strong party representing
the libertarian quadrant is established (with many elected members),
it may be appropriate to establish a new party to represent more
'extreme' libertarians.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:14:31 GMT

In article <1jf7rsINNq3t@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <C12EqE.KI6@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
}>In article <1jeo1oINNot7@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}>|> Children and women in that era didn't necessarily have either a choice in
}>|> where or whether to work, what their wages were, nor were they entitled to
}>|> keep their earnings.  In most states, they were effectively owned by
}>|> husbands/fathers.
}>|> 
}>|> These abuses (based on common law) were largely curtailed by government action.
}>
}>Yes, women and blacks have gained more of their natural rights in the
}>last 200 years.  Libertarians applaud that.  What's your point?
}
}Slavery and patriarchal families were common law "rights" driven by
}capitalism since antediluvian times, even in many cultures without states.
}They have NEVER been abolished except by state fiat creation of "rights"
}opposing them.  (There have been cultures where they were not profitable,
}and thus did not significantly arise.)
}The US government NEVER enslaved.  At worst, it started with common law.
}It never brought slaves here: that was entirely a free-market phenominon.

To claim that the US government has never enslaved is at best to be ignorant
of the fact that slavery consists in the denial of the right to the fruits
of an individual's labor.  At worst, it's lying.

See Spooner's Unconstitutionality of Slavery on the question of whether
slavery is in accordance with the common law.

To claim that the importation of slaves was a free-market occurrence is to
misrepresent the "free" part of the term "free market."

Huben, I've called you on this claim before, and you've never bothered to
address your error, making you guilty of intellectual negligence at best.

}The *people* forced OTHER PEOPLE to cease enslaving.  Slavery and patriarchial
}exploitation of family are things done by PEOPLE, not governments.

Not done by governments?  Bullshit.

There was
}nothing stopping those people from freeing their slaves and little stopping
}them from respecting the individual rights of their spouses and children.

In the case of Thomas Jefferson, there was: a restrictive covenant on his
inheritance.  He tried to get a statute banning slavery passed while he was
in the Virginia colony legislature, but failed.


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: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Prisoner's Dilemmas & The Deficit (was Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:37:29 GMT
	<1993Jan18.060428.13963@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1jf4ceINNpfd@armory.centerline.com>
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 18 Jan 93 20:36:30 GMT

In article <1jf4ceINNpfd@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>It all boils down to the prisoner's dilemma.  Cultures that
>have methods of dealing effectively with the prisoner's dilemma would
>outcompete those which did't.  Example methods include persecution of
>traitors and spies, enforcement of taxes for public goods, etc.

>The prisoner's dilemma is a fine example of how the fallacy of composition is
>erroneous.  Separated individuals are not faced with the dilemma, and can't
>even play the game.  As soon as they are together, the game emerges.

One practical question is whether government eliminates the prisoner's
dilemma or merely raises the game to another level.  I agree with your
argument (in other posts) that it is naive to assume that humans will
always behave honestly in their interactions with others -- but it
seems even more naive to assume that these same "dishonest" humans
will act "for the common good" simply because they are acting in
groups.

Consider the dynamics involved with taxation and government spending.
For any voter, the highest payoff strategy is the one which maximizes
the positive difference between the amount of benefit received from
the government and the amount of taxes paid to the government.  This
is a classic prisoner's dilemma in that if a portion of the electorate
decides to give up benefits or pay more taxes, its sacrifice will be
likely to be absorbed by the "defections" of the rest of the
population -- without long-term benefit to the economy.  So those who
"cooperate" lose twice: once because they sacrifice in terms of
immediate benefits or taxes, and again because they suffer the
same long-term economic consequences with everyone else.

Given this situation, $300 billion dollar deficits and a $4.2 trillion
national debt aren't surprising at all.  I wouldn't be surprised to
see trillion dollar deficits by the turn of the century...

Politics: n.  A conflict of interests disguised as a contest of
principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The big difference
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:50:40 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1jpmdnINNfdh@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1jpj4jINN689@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>|> In article <1jmce6INNkv1@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >Do you believe that rights exist only because a government (or
>|> >'society') created them?
>|> 
>|> Yes.
>|> 
>|> >Or do you believe that there are at least
>|> >some rights which a person has simply because they exist?
>|> 
>|> There is NO physical evidence of this, whereas there is ample historical
>|> evidence of the former.  Rights come from the exact same source as laws:
>|> human societies.  To pretend that they have some Platonic existence outside
>|> of a particular human society is the fallacy of reification.
>
>So, to use a common example, you believe that human slavery is just
>fine and dandy, as long as 'society' thinks it's ok?  You believe
>that discrimination against blacks is fine as long as the white
>majority thinks it ok?  You don't believe that there are some 
>things which should not be allowed even if 'society' thinks that
>they should?  You believe that there is no right or wrong except
>that which is acceptable by 'society'?  Well, you're entitled
>to your own opinion (that is, until 'society' says you're not).

There is a difference between what I think is true and what I like.
I don't think Santa Claus exists, but I like the fiction that he does
exist (and so does my 3 year old.)

Do you deny that societies have created all rights?  If so, I'd like to know
how you know that, and how those other rights have come about.

A person (such as myself) can have very clear personal ideas of what is
right and wrong without resorting to reified "rights".  And that same person
can chose to support or oppose the rights society is currently proclaiming
secure in the knowledge that they are not axiomatic or laws of nature.

Mike Huben

"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:13:02 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan27.064902.5735@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1k3qmtINN8at@gap.caltech.edu> damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
>}	I agree with David Friedman here.  By the Nolan test I was sent
>}several years ago I'm a 100/100 (no taxation question) but I do not 
>}know that I would be with other questions.  The NCP is the only other principle
>}I've codified for myself, but I know that in some situations I would 
>}choose some coercion as the lesser of two evils.  To steal an example
>}from _Machinery_of_Freedom_, if someone was going to machine gun a crowd,
>}and I could stop him by stealing (to be later returned) a rifle on someone
>}else's property, a someone who hd stated before that NO ONE was to touch his
>}rifle for ANY reason, I would do so.
>
>But should you not be held liable for any damages incurred as a result of
>your crime?

I see.  No initiation of force becomes "initiate force any time you like as
long as you are willing to pay the damages."  I suppose libertarians will
also reinstitute weregild, the practice of evading penalty of law by
remunerating relatives of a murder victim.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:46:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1jp74pINN64v@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> Where I think the libertarians are wrong, is that they are not pragmatic enough
> to recognize that while there is injustice to them in (3), there is also
> injustice to them through (1) when the children grow up and commit crimes.
> Frankly, I'd rather pay more taxes to create fellow citizens than to allow
> a resentful underclass to grow up looking for opportunities to rip me off.

"NOW how much would you pay for this?  But WAIT!"

> A class that isn't exploiting opportunities to expand itself at the expense
> of other classes is likely to shrink until it is impotent.

Well, this strategy has sure proven itself in the past 50 years.  Next player.
-- 

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...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:28:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.130330.13274@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
}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,

You got it.

my guess is that it is
}impossible because libertarians make up a tiny percentage of the
}population and/or it would be prohibitively expensive.

Too bad.

}>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 sure have gotten this impression from Al, but I don't read LPUS.  He
wants to redefine libertarianism vaguely as "tolerance," rather than
opposition to the initiation of force and fraud we call coercion, then
get rid of the pledge.

I know many tolerant people who aren't libertarians by the conventional
definition.  My family tolerates my libertarianism, but doesn't share it.

}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.

The opposition to coercion is a conclusion, not an axiom.  It can be arrived
at in at least two ways: Lockean natural rights theory, and utilitarianism.

The reason the LP is perceived to be weird is because of what typhoid Murray's
Radical Caucus did to it after they drove out the Kochtopus.

}>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?

Nope.  Why would you think this?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Good Samaritian ??? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:31:47 +0000

In article <DCHRISTY.93Jan8190128@boron.cs> dchristy@boron.cs writes:

>Perhaps you are familiar with the old Biblical story called the 'Good
>Samaritian'.  After thinking about it I wrote my own, similar story called
>the 'Bad Samaritian'. I hope you enjoy it.

[story deleted]

I think that it was a very good example of what our society tends to do.
Could I have permission to distribute it?  I know people not on this
newsgroup who could benefit by it...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:14:26 GMT

In article <1jf5nbINNpsv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> I love the way libertarians are so inconsistant with each other
> and even themselves.

This assertion, I want to talk about. I find it ludicrous.

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?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:12:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.092833.6867@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
}In article <1993Jan25.073616.29180@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>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?

Inaccurate.  They may join, but may not support coercion for the term of
their membership.  If you want to support liberty, welcome.  If you want
to support tyranny, the incumbent parties are the experts.

}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.

Thank you.

}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.

Votes, yes.  Money, yes.  Help, yes.  If you support coercion, though, I
don't want you to be an LP member.

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,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:44:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183433.27612@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu
(Dave Borden) writes:

|>In article <93019.010831U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>, U16244@uicvm.uic.edu (David
|>James Alexander Hanley) writes:
|>> 
|>> In article <C12Dsw.AC7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu
|>(Herman
|>> Rubin) says:
|>>
|>> >It would take little time to do this.  A private school could be
|>established
|>> >rather quickly, even within weeks.
|>> 
|>>   I have a hard time seeing how this could take place.  Weeks?  It,
|>> I think, is a somewhat more complex process to set up a school than you
|>> think.  Getting new teachers, administrators, books, getting investors,
|>> students... Etc, e etc...
|>
|>Weeks might be pushing it, though a small school of an informal nature could
|>probably be done.  A year or two would be plenty of time.  Announce now that
|>starting either in the 93-94 school year of the 94-95 school year, a voucher
|>system will exist, with the voucher of a sufficient value to give a good
|>education, and there will be more than enough private school space by that
|>time. 
|>The schools will be practically breaking people's doors down trying to market
|>themselves.

Come off it the schools that the yuppies want to send their kids to are the ones
that have been arround for at least four hundred years. In the USA of course
there is the colonial discount on antiquity, so divide by four.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker