HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <1993Jan5.204229.847@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>i saved this out from alt.politics.marrou last August. i think it's a 
>rather interesting look at the question of why so many computer types 
>are also libertarians.
>
>--
>
>Subject: Psychology of libertarians?  A proposal.
>Message-ID: <BtGwEp.FF@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski)
>Date: 24 Aug 92 03:01:37 GMT
>
>Originally posted by Stuart Reges <backpack@access.digex.com> on libernet:
>
>	This post is long, but highly interesting.  It offers a hypothesis
>on how libertarians reason about politics, and how that may differ from
>non-libertarians.  He compares libertarian reasoning to an important
>computer programming skill and suggests a correlation.  I tend to think
>Stuart has a point because a fairly sizable percentage of the Libertarian
>Party is made up of people in the computer field.
>
>					Mark Sulkowski

(lots of "computer programmers as the only ones who have a real
grasp of how society works" stuff deleted)

sounds like the 'interactive model' utilized by programmers very
closely resembles the kinds of models rational choice theorists
employ--that is, emphasis on rational interaction, parsimony,
fool-proof predictability, etc.  in hypostatizing rationality and
generally oversimplifying cultural processes, the role of
ideologies, the superimposition of VALUES (besides the programmers'
own set of logical values, that is) onto social action, etc. in
their frantic pursuit of "the simplest model", CPs and rational
choice folks come up with completely unsatisfactory analyses of
social action.  Human beings are not micro-chips, numbers in some
computer program--well, at least not in the sense that it's as
simple a thing to predict what the former will do in a given
situation as the latter.  Understanding human action (and, to the
degree possible, predicting it) requires understanding culture,
social structure, ideologies, all the complex and varied ways people
in different societies/communities see and act on the world.
"rationality" by itself, and as feebly defined as in most of the
efforts by CPs and rational choice people with whom i've interacted
(perhaps one day one of these people will try reading Weber first
and then try to discuss 'rationality'? but i doubt it), won't get
you very far in an analyses of society.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:11:32 GMT

In article <81929@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <BZS.93Jan6053516@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>
>|>Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to mind
>|>something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:
>|>   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
>|>   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
>|>   mean leveling mountain ranges.
>
>|Gack, what a fascist mentality! And I suppose adding a little more
>|water and fertilizer to the section of the garden not doing well is
>|just anathema...let it wither, deliver god's justice to your carrots!

Where do you think fertilizer comes from.   What you are proposing is STILL 
whacking the tops off of the tallest, fastest growing plants, grinding them 
up, and using them for fertilizer to help the weaker ones.

>
>You assume that a lack of fertilizer is the problem.
>But then that is an apt analogy for most government programs.  Just spread
>the shit around deep enough and hope nobody notices the stench.
>
>|>He goes on to say he prefers liberty to equality.
>
>|How's he doing these days? Probably drooling in a garden somewhere
>|cashing govt checks...
>
>Boy something really got your panties in a wad today.
>
>|The pathetic thing is that those who write things like this don't
>|understand what insects they are, if confronted with true power for
>|one second on these terms they'd be on their knees begging for
>|"equality". What cheap and tawdry hubris...too many Chuck Norris
>|movies I guess.
>
>I guess in some circles, emotional drivel like this passes for deep
>thinking.  Around here you are just demonstrating what an intellectual
>light weight you are.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3019 comp.org.eff.talk:8299 alt.amateur-comp:468 soc.culture.usa:9449 alt.activism:20033
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 4 Jan 1993 22:42 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
>In article <1ia720INNm2j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don Pavlish) writes:
 >Considering that room, board, and tuition at most top-notch universities costs
 >close to the median family income in the US, its pretty obvious that
 >Libertarianism would tie quality of education to family wealth as closely as
 >it is tied in most third world nations (and used to be in most modern industrial
 >nations.)
>
Most taxes are paid by the middle class.  The middle class can't possibly
save money by paying taxes to subsidize universities rather than paying the
university directly.  You are trying to make more champaign by pouring it
onto the rug and sucking it up rather than drinking it straight from the 
bottle.


 >If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized, top-notch
 >college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid in taxes
 >(never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services that you
 >currently receive from the government), then you clearly place yourself into
 >the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.

Only if you are frustrated.  But you're making a ridiculous comparison here 
anyway;  if the government gave everyone chevvys,  no one would buy a ford,
and you would complain that "unsubsidized private" cars all cost $30,000+.
And I'd be writing that funneling money through the government can't make
cars,  or universities,  or anything else cheaper.  
 > 
 >My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
 >never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
 >without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
 >a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
 > subsidies.
 > 
 >Mike Huben

I don't suppose you'd believe me if I were to claim the USA had a large middle
class BEFORE there was massive public education,  that in fact without that
large middle class we wouldn't have the tax base to support this government 
spending in the first place?  Nonetheless,  it's true.

What I'd like you to find is instances of the head of a government agency
declaring his agency to be superfluous and harmful and that it should be 
eliminated.  Who knows,  maybe you'll actually find some and convince me that 
governments can be trusted to regulate their own growth.

Mr. Grinch
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3418 talk.politics.misc:67279
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: New idea for school vouchers
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:09:57 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

In a recent article, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>It's not shocking that being able to refuse the expensive cases, and
>thereby stick the public schools with them, keeps costs down.

This is a standard argument against vouchers (it's the one advanced by
the New York Times), and it carries some weight.  I would like to propose
a possible solution.

The problem is that the current public-school student body can (roughly) be
broken dowen into three categories:

  - normal students,

  - 'difficult' students, with family, behavioral, or other impediments
    to teaching, and
 
  - special-needs students, who require expensive customized programs.

It is argued that a voucher system would skim off the first category
of student into private schools, while leaving the other two
(expensive) categories to the public schools, which are required to
take them.  It is therefore argued that the public school's mandate to
accept any student puts it at an unfair competitive disadvantage.

I propose a simple remedy: let the public schools assign larger vouchers
to 'difficult' students, and even larger ones to special-needs students.
The voucher amounts might look something like this:

        regular students: $3500
      difficult students: $3500-$7000
  special-needs students: $7000+

The voucher amounts would be set so that the sum of all vouchers would
equal the school budget for that year.

Under this arrangement, while a public school would still have the
obligation to take any student that wanted to come, this would be
offset by the power to set voucher levels: if it got too many
'difficult' students, it could increase their voucher amounts.

The converse is interesting: the school could decide it gets too *few*
difficult students (actually, too few of their vouchers), if the
vouchers were set too high.  Educational entrepreneurs would surely
seek out the parents of these children, given a sufficiently large
incentive.

The beauty of this scheme is that it makes every student desirable to
a school.  Regular students would be desirable because they are easy
to teach.  Difficult and special-needs students would be desirable
because they would come with large vouchers.

Under this scheme everyone wins, except those with a vested interest
in maintaining the public-school monopoly.  Comments, anyone?

-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 7 Jan 1993 01:04:47 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan6.212145.22496@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>As a percentage of GNP, there have been major deficit reductions during the
>>Eisenhower and Carter administrations.
>
>i can't speak for Eisenhower, but i don't buy your claim or its implications
>re Carter. care to provide some numbers? 

According to an article in the Boston Globe citing Office of Management and
Budget figures:
	The highest percentage ever reached was 122% of GNP in 1945.
	It reached a postwar low of 33% of GNP in 1981.
	By 1992, it had reached (estimated) 67% of GNP.

>my numbers show a total deficit during Carter's years as $227 billion,
>comparable to the total deficits rung up by Johnson, Nixon and Ford
>*combined* over three times as many years.

Obviously the GNP has grown, due to both inflation and real growth.

>>The USA has always had a national debt (excepting 1835-6).  The last balanced
>>budget passed was submitted by Lyndon Johnson-- that big-spending, Great
>>Society liberal.  :-)
>
>that one year abberation is insignificant. we are talking a whole $6 billion.
>whoopie. clinton will spend that during his first morning job around the
>white house.

According to the same article, 8 balanced budgets were passed since 1931.

Your hyperbole about Clinton is besides the point.

>in the meantime, the policies Johnson initiated are largely responsible
>for the doo-doo we are in 25 years later. which is several orders of
>magnitude larger than that $6B.

Clearly (from the numbers cited in the article above) the doubling of the
national debt as a percentage of the GNP took place under the auspices of
Reagan and Bush.

Mike Huben

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it
is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made
to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason".
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3271 comp.org.eff.talk:8497 soc.culture.usa:9638 alt.activism:20236
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:30:48 GMT

From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
>
>I agree--I think he is very insightful as to why libertarianism is
>attractive to programmers.  It exceeds even Marxism in developing a
>logically consistant conceptual model of society.  However, the ability
>to develop and mentally analyze such a model of social interaction
>doesn't mean that such a model is accurate or complete.  Social theories
>which ignore the deeply irrational vagarities of human nature or consign
>them to a heap of undesirable traits are destined to fail.  One good set
>of empirical observations are worth thousands of exquisitely crafted and
>self-consistent theories.
>
>		-Ed Hall
>		edhall@rand.org

It must be very comfortable to believe in a single simple working model for
society.  Of course, it does overlook the problem that there isn't a stable
"solution", and that there are a number of different ways of doing things that
almost work.

I wonder if the "social programmers" get nervous around anything that deals
with chaos theory?

 - Ron Sharp.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3341 comp.org.eff.talk:8573 soc.culture.usa:9688
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:13:23 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1is9sdINNck6@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> >I am forced to pay for this "protection"  I have no choice.  It hurts me
> >deeply to support those who I see bullying innocent people.  If I at least
> >had a choice, I could pay someone with some respect for the "little guy".
> 
> You might try to.  But the reality is, that if you had a choice, the marketers
> would all be aiming for the guys with the bucks.  I doubt there's much profit
> in retailing "protection" to individuals: there's MUCH more in targeting
> businesses.

This is a lot like saying that since corporate security is such a highly
profitable field, it must now be impossible to find someone willing to 
come out to your house to install a burglar alarm.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --who still has an actual MILKMAN.
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:47:49 GMT

In article <pa142548.674.726519019@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
>refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>isolation.
>
>How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.

I know you said it's a grossly simlified example, but taking it at face value,
I'd say it would be really difficult to address this under any system but
complete totalitarism.  I'm fairly comfortable throwing up my hands and
saying "it's a damn shame, but life isn't always fair".  

A thought occurs: Today, Joe would more likely spend his money on making
a few friends in government, and then use zoning laws and other government
powers to affect the same result, but much more cheaply.  Not possible
under a libertarian government.

Another thought occurs: Joe would become county sheriff and simply ACCUSE
you of using some drug that is safer than nicotine or alcohol.  That's all
it takes to kick in the civil forfeiture laws, and your land becomes property
of the state.  It would be pretty simple, after that, for him to dispose of it
at he pleases.  Again, since the Libertarians would reinstate the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights, this would not be possible under a Libertarian 
government.

Another thought occurs: Joe would just become real good buddies with the
city police chief or county sheriff, and they'd work out beforehand what
would be done with your land if it were to forfeited.  Then Joe would
phone in an anonymous tip that you were using some drug other than nicotine
or alcohol.

Of course, you might have some other assets that you could use to challenge
the forfeiture, but the gov has ways of dealing with people who try that:
they just forfeit those other assets.  This continues until you shut up, or
until you are broke.  At this point, you are uable to provide for your kids,
so the state takes them, since you're an unfit parent and a druggy to boot.

I'm not making this up; it goes on all the time, right now.

No matter how you cut it, you'd be safer under a government based on the U.S.
Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights, both of which the Libertarians
would reinstate.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Psephological journals
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:07:14 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> Mark Wilson writes:
> >J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKH
> 
> >*IF* abortion kills a human, than outlawing abortion is no less 
> >legitimate a governmental role, than is outlawing murder.
> 
> But as I said before, it's predicated on the *if*.  

considering that Mark wrote it as *IF* i'm sure he's aware of that.

> There is no reasonable consensus on the "if."  

agreed. so what should the default stance be? your response to the
vagaries of the situation is to allow abortions until such time as
it's considered human by the criteria of survival.

-my- response is one that errs more to the side of caution: human 
until proven otherwise. for something that's not human period (ducks,
for example) it's a simple matter to say "that's not human". on the
other hand, EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past that there has been dispute
over whether or not a certain class is human, history has damned those
who said "no". the first step in any oppression is to question the
humanity of those oppressed. i don't want any part of that.

jason

--
  "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek  
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3353 comp.org.eff.talk:8578 alt.amateur-comp:567 soc.culture.usa:9693 alt.activism:20347
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:13:49 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan11.154615.15474@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>In article <1il10qINN7l5@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>One purpose of any government (minarchist, anarchist, or our current one) is
>>to prevent you from having to buy protection from more than one source.
>>I'm afraid you're going to have to pay for it no matter what under a minarchy,
>>and if you try not to pay for it in an anarchy, woe betide.
>
>I have a problem with the current "protection" provided by police, et. al.
>In most cases they protect the "status quo", not the rights of citizens.
>If you dare to cross this "status quo" voluntarily or otherwise, you are a
>target for abuse.
>
>I am forced to pay for this "protection"  I have no choice.  It hurts me
>deeply to support those who I see bullying innocent people.  If I at least
>had a choice, I could pay someone with some respect for the "little guy".

You might try to.  But the reality is, that if you had a choice, the marketers
would all be aiming for the guys with the bucks.  I doubt there's much profit
in retailing "protection" to individuals: there's MUCH more in targeting
businesses.
 
>>Of course, I can also make a cartoon of libertaria in a similar vein:
>>you miss a payment on your loan, and your bank shoots you dead for initiating
>>fraud.
>
>Nice cartoon, but upon reflection, banks wouldn't do this.  Any bank with a
>reputation for shooting late payers would have few, if any customers.

Haven't you ever heard of loan sharks?  And isn't it funny: nobody forces you
to borrow money from a loan shark.

And did you know that mortgages and other loans get sold?  Mine has been sold
three times already in two years.  Good thing it hasn't been sold to someone
unscrupulous.

Let's look at the libertarian result: loan sharks bid to buy mortgages
technically in default so that they can shoot the borrower and reposess the
property.

(Reminder: this is a cartoon.  But it cannot be dismissed as easily as "it
would be bad for business.")

Mike Huben

"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:20:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1993Jan11.204115.1005@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
|> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> > pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
|> > 
|> > ...Not to mention the joy of graduating grade school with a 
|> > sizeable loan. Why don't you just propose a return to indentured 
|> > servitude?
|> 
|> isn't that what Clinton's proposing?
|> 

Yes.  But he calls it "mandatory public service".  You see, once they
have taken all the money you earn in the form of taxes, they won't just
stop there.  Then they'll start taking your time as well.

I don't envy my daughter the world she is going to have to live in.

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>