HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:21:01 GMT

In article <robc.17.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>So what, capitalism has very little to do with free markets. The unregulated
>>free market quickly becomes a monopoly.
>
>	I'll need further illumination on this argument. It seems to me that 
>a monopoly is impossible in a free market. There is absolutely nothing to 
>prevent another company from competing with the one attempting to be a 
>monopoly. To obtain a monopoly you will need to get a government to write 
>laws and regulations that keeps others out of the market. It seems that the 
>regulated market is the one that causes monopolies. It is always interesting 
>that more regulation is the usual prescription for the failings of a
>regulatory policy.

Phill offers the classic Marxist argument: capitalism leads to monopoly. But
there are several problems with the argument.

First, it is a matter of economic nature that monopolies, oligopolies, and
cartels cannot survive for any length of time without the support of
coercive government regulation to solidify the position of the business(s).
Sooner or later, in a free market, competition will arise.

Now, there is a secondary argument that oligopolies can sustain themselves for
long periods of time by virtue of certain economies of scale which favor
large companies over small. The trouble is, there are no historical examples
to support this assertion. Every classic evil monopoly or oligopoly was
created or nurtured by government regulation. Railroads, telecommunications, 
etc.

Moreover, modern technology is such that there, if anything, most industries
face DISeconomies of scale. That is, in our modern economy, it is the small
companies which are beating the shit out of the big ones. IBM and GM are BIG!
And they are in trouble big time.

Finally, there is the argument that in a capitalist society, the
government naturally tends to be bought and run by vested, i.e.,
monied interests. This, though, is a peculiar argument. For if, from
this, one wishes to arge that we need government regulation to prevent
this, just what is the regulation intended to regulate? And if we are
supposed to believe that the free market will inevitably fall victim
to rent seeking big business control of the government, why should we
believe that we can use the government to prevent this?  In other
words, if we are looking at political solutions, why not go directly
for what we want: free markets.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: CANADA: Montreal Synagogues Painted With Swastikas
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 22:23:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: Montreal

In article <Jan.6.13.50.31.1993.20754@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.162413.27443@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
>> "One possibility is that this series of incidents was perpetrated by
>> neo-Nazi skinheads or members of the neo-Nazi movement," [...]
>
>Or maybe Vichy Quebecois skinheads?

Hi Ted, long time no see (again).  Are you ever going to complete that
dissertation of yours?

But to come back to the subject, do you realize how little ideological
difference there is between friends of yours like Pat Buchanan, or
Bill Bennett, and the Petain government in Nazi-occupied France during WWII?

Family, work, property rights, the Fatherland, xenophobism etc...  Good
same old story, really.

This said, I thought that your knee-jerk reaction to the original
posting about nazi mob behavior was in rather poor taste, to say the 
least.

Luc B
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Discrimination!
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:49:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <9301090737.AA32689@localhost> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:



|mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:

|>I agree wholeheartedly. Discrimination is one area where
|>government can govern not at all.

|Do you have any suggestion for ending discrimination or do you think that
|discrimination does not occur?

It takes a pretty massive leap of faith to believe that there is anything
that government can to reduce or eliminate discrimination.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan11.082453.18783@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	<1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:16:04 GMT

<In article <1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I.
Petrich) writes:
<   : In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
<: 
<: What a ridiculous point!  You won't find any mention of "North American
<: Free Trade Agreement", "Head Start", "Environmental Protection Agency",
<: "SALT Agreement", "Strategic Defense Initiative", etc. in the Constitution,
<: either!  The Constitution can't mention every political issue or
<: organization that is of interest.  What the Constitution does do, is allow you
<: to vote for the people who do make these decisions.  
<>
<>These items and many more have pretty much vaporized our beloved 10th
<>amendment.  Long Live State's Rights!  Let's hear it for amendment number 9 as
<>well!  Rights retained by the people?  Oh, hell, I'm still living in the
<>past......

<	   And let's go even further.

<	   Let's abolish the Federal Government, and break the United
<   States up into 50 separate nations (more than 50 if one counts
<   territories like Puerto Rico).

	Petrich thus displays the ignorance of the Constitution
	which is a hallmark of "masterblaster" postings.

	One suspects that "Blaster" does the writing rather
	than "Master"....

<	   And let's abolish state governments, county governments, and
<   city governments also.

<	   Let's get rid of all that g-thing and have ... ANARCHY!!!
 
	Oh, no, Petrich, we're all going over to *your* side
	of the fence; more, bigger and "better" government
	every day.....whether we like it or not.

	We'll know when we have "too much" government when
	something Petrich likes gets regulated out of 
	existance.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Libertarian heaven
Organization: pubs
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:21:16 CST


There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
has no government and its populace is armed.  Until the recent intrusion
of some outsiders, no external force impinged on that country's freedom.
When these outsiders leave, that country's citizens will again be free
to pursue their individual destinies.  I invite all Libertarians to move
to that country: Somalia.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:54:57 GMT

In article <0DkZwB1w165w@fennec.com> flash@fennec.com writes:
>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary) writes:
>
>> So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
>> that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
>> about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
>> self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
>> "cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
>> attracted to men.
>
>[...]
>
>> Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
>> to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.
>
>You have GOT to be kidding! Do you seriously expect anyone with a BRAIN 
>to formulate an opinion on the subject of homosexuality based on the 
>self-serving drivel provided by the national media? That group of ultra-
>left bozos has an on-going love affair with the "gay" movement.
>
>The fact is that until homosexuality was removed from the AMA's list of 
>mental disorders that the "cure" rate was extremely high. Even today, 
>there are organizations who boast "cure" rates of close to 100%. 
>Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE than a behavior. One chooses to exercise 
>that behavior.
>
>If I am attracted to a woman (not my wife), does that make me an 
>adulterer? How then can being attracted to a man make me a homosexual? It 
>is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
>definition is indefensible.
>
>

Your denial of the facts do not make what you have posted truthful.

The FACTS are that not one single person who is homosexual has ever been
cured at anytime in the history of man upon the face of this planet.

And that is the reality of your 'cures'.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66473 soc.motss:55201
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
From: sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:31:24 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
: From article <1992Dec31.025057.21605@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
: > In article <13744@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
: > #Sadly, Greg, it is not a free speech issue.
: 
: > Err, the people involved say it IS a free speach issue. What right
: > does anyone have to PREVENT them from marching? The parade is on a
: > public street. 
: 
: A parade permit was issued for the event; it was not merely
: a spontaneous assembly of people.  The parade committee
: accepted NAMBLA as one of the groups marching in the parade,
: a big mistake in my opinion. 

	Where in the name of God do you get off, insulting others' 
	orientation & lifestyle?  It smacks of hypocrisy to deny to
	others the freedoms you so assiduously guard for yourself. 

: This sort of crap gives
: ammunition to the folks who try to like homosexuality to
: child molestation.

	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."
	In other words, your assertion has "no visible means of support."
	If you're going to sound off, at least make rational arguments, 
	rather than blind assertions.  

: We're talking "guilt by association,"

	Guilt?  Guilt due to what?  NAMBLA advocates changing unfair &
	unrealistic laws, a lot like most gay organizations.  TO be 
	guilty, one must *do* something wrong.  You again fail to support
	your assertions with *anythng*. 

: kind of like the GOP allowing Pat Buchanan to speak at the
: convention.  That was not a free speech issue, and as a
: result, it isn't hard for liberals like me to view GOP'ers
: as knuckle dragging homophobic morons.  Get the analogy?

	Well, then why don't we distance ourselves from all those militant 
	homosexuals who want special rights?  If we all went back into our 
	closets, then we wouldn't have to worry about offending others.

	Do we really want to advocate appeasement?  I know I don't. 

: Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh

--
Steven S. Brack        |"But the greatest of|   sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive    | these is love."    |  STU0061@uoft01.BITNET 
Toledo, OH  43613-1605 \____________________/    brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010        |  MY OWN  OPINIONS  |   sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66461 ca.politics:10527 ba.politics:8100
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:52:18 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.184325.5487@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1if28mINNsse@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>    >So, I have never been to a VD clinic, Phil... Why does the
>    >public dislike me? One can assume that it is related to the
>
>How does an incomplete picture turn into "hateful people" and "hateful
>propaganda"?
>

Why don't you use your own knowledge about the Nazi's and what they did.
It is just this type of misinformation and incomplete pictures that cause
scapegoats in a given society.


You are the one talking about PCism and how it attempts to skew the
reality of things to make them acceptable to certain groups.  It works
in all directions.

It is the process of defining, creating and attacking all with inappropriately
used knowledge and information.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Summary: Huh?
Keywords: Really. It's yours.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:20:36 GMT

In article <10JAN199317384142@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Dismissal) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.072957.16969@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes...
> 
> Well mc. You win. I've had enough. 
> 
> From a bumper sticker:
> 
> 	And now that you've won, I hope you're happy with
> 	what you got. <picture of jack ass here>
> 
> No reflection on you personally intended, marc.
> 

I'm getting the impression I'm supposed to feel I've won some
incredible victory, or maybe not.  I'd feel better if I knew
who this guy was and what he was talking about.  And about
the bumper sticker - does ANYONE knew what it means?  I'll
hold off being insulted until I understand what it means.

marc colten
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.171446.8312@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

>>>Gulity or not guilty.  Once you get a jury or court to say not 
>>>guilty you are not guilty, end of story.

>>      Well in a technical legal sense that may be true, but if you use
>>      the more common everyday definition (did he actually commit the 
>>      crime or not) North is obviously guilty.

>	In every sense the common every day definition is irrelevent,
>	except for armchair discussions, editorials, and rants on usenet.

No, you have it backwards.  In every sense the technical legal
definition is irrelevant, except for courtrooms and jails.

It is important that someone not be punished if doing so would violate
his rights.  On the other hand, there's no reason to ignore reality and
say that someone didn't do something when a jury has found that they did
and that finding was never overturned.

(As in this case; the jury finding was *not* overturned.  The appeals
court did *not* say the jury made a factual error; they said there was a
*legal* error.)
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:07:49 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan12.001141.15180@radian.uucp>  
markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
> >No, it is the laissez-faire capitalism which has never been tried
> >because men are too afraid of personal responsibility.  I can't  
tell
> >you how humiliated I am to be called "unsophisticated" by a man  
who
> >calls capitalism obsolete.  So tell me, when the Berlin Wall came
> >down, why didn't all those horribly exploited West German workers
> >all rush over to the compassionate East where their food and  
shelter
> >are guaranteed by the state?
> >
> Never been tried? How about the US a hundred years ago, or Britain?
> 
No, he's playing semantic games.  When he says "laissez-faire 
capitalism has never been tried" he seems to mean that 100%,
no-regulation-at-all capitalism has never been tried. We've tried
things close to that, but never 100% unrestrained. (A good thing,
since when it was mostly unrestrained we had a number of problems.)

But then, when someone else uses the term to say that "laissez-faire
capitalism" has been rejected, he then uses the term as synonymous
with "capatalism" (as in how we normally use the word: free markets,
but with some degree of government involvement).  He asks, if it
is dead, why did the Berlin wall fall. However, while many folks
from behind the old iron curtain want capitalism in the broader
sense of the word. I doubt that many of them want 
laissez-faire capitalism, in the sense of no government involvement
at all.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:25:56 GMT

In article <90226@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.025829.11030@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>|In article <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>|>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
>
>|: While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
>|: contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
>|: from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
>|: counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.
>
>|	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for
>|the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
>|others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?
>
>|	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
>|More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
>|occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".
>
>Why do you have this fascination with big companies.
>-- 

He has the same problem that I do with "pure libertarianism," I think.  Lib 
philosophy clearly identifies coercion of the individual with force, either 
phycial (literal strong arm robbery or kidnaping) or intellectual (fraud.)  
On thing that I am yet to be satisfied with is "force by economic power."  
A large company or extremely wealthy individual can coerce the less well off 
by virtue of the ability to buy entire industries or land areas, and lib 
philosophy appears morally deficient in the way that it addresses this 
concern.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame,alt.individualism,soc.rights.human
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Stamping out deviance
Followup-To: alt.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:14:32 GMT

This seems like it might be the George Orwell posting of the month:

In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:

>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
>		thieves.

>>    What, exactly, needs to be cured?  

>	Deviance.

How deviant is posting to the net, I wonder?  Are we all in trouble,
or just some of us?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Bush leaves a little something for Clinton under the tree: new budget projections
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:56:30 GMT

I heard last night on NPR and read in this morning's paper that the
White House has released new budget projections which, not
surprisingly, project larger deficits for 1994 and on than previously
thought.

According to NPR, in order for Clinton to meet his goal of halving the
deficit in 4 years, he'll need to raise taxes or cut spending by 150
billion.  Surprise, surprise.  The Bush campaign team had this number
before the election but for some reason didn't have the projections.

The paper mentioned that 1998's deficit is projected to be 48 billion
higher than the White House' projection of just _5_ months ago.
Richard Darman explains that the science of macro-economics is highly
fallible and mistakes are made.  Well sure, but wouldn't it help to use
some reasonable assumptions?  (In fairness, yes, I know both Repubs.
and Demos. are guilty of this).

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:21:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.025227.7747@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <C0Ju9w.BpC@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan8.155205.2234@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>>	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>>>	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>>>	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.
>>
>>"Shepherds are for sheep."
>
>	Exactly.

Then why advocate flocklike behavior?

>You're a bright guy, Tim.  Can you come up with [a
>justification for homosexuality] that
>is CONSISTENT with the rest of your philosophy?

No, I can't.  I can't do that because in my mind, homosexuality needs
no justification, so I can't possibly imagine what to say to someone
who needs such a justification.

Homosexuality exists.  I don't think many people deny that.

Some people say it's wrong.

Why?

All of the arguments you cited above -- many of which *are* fallacious
-- are responses to arguments that homosexual behavior *is* wrong.
What I'm looking for is a clean, clear argument against homosexuality
that's consistent with the speaker's other philosophies.  So far I
haven't found one, so I rarely bother.

You're a bright guy, Richard.  Make me bother.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /