HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:19:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) says:

>In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
>> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>> able to sign the pledge.
>
>You know, I hadn't thought it through in connection with the pledge, but I
>believe Mr. Ray is correct.
>
>Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
>dangerous contradiction in their belief system.
>
I disagree.  I believe that this should be taken as a clue that the real
world does not always conform to your ideal of what the world *ought* to
be.  Or, to use a favorite libertarian slogan, "Utopia is not an option."
>
>Instead, what does the LP do?  Duh.  Abolish the pledge.  Of *course*.
>
The pledge is not realistic, and it keeps a lot of people out of the party.
To me, it makes sense to abolish it, for the reasons I have stated.  Please
not that abolishing the pledge is not a panacea, but it is a *necessary*
step on the road to a more libertarian world.  Sometimes you must take
one step backwards before you can take two steps forward.
>
>Sometimes I think there's no intelligent life on this planet.
>-- 
>					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
>
Sigh.  I had hoped we could maintain a higher level of discussion than this.

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:43:14 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:

>But real life *is* a series of prisoner's dilemmas. That changes the
>payoff matrix significantly and that's what makes it in an individual's
>best interest to cooperate rather than defect. Defecting will pay off
>more in the short run, but will make it less likely that others will
>cooperate in the long run. It's not necessary to have government intervention
>to make people cooperate... they will do it themselves, knowing that
>in the long run it is in their best interests.

Have you ever played Diplomacy?  People are willing to betray others
if they think the payoff is enough; and in a large society, it is
possible to move far enough away that retribution is unlikely.  In
other words, the series of prisoner's dilemmas can be terminated
unilaterally, so cooperative behaviour cannot always be depended on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Distributed object-oriented causal transition systems burble glug glug...
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 18:11:37 GMT

ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:

>I don't mean to suggest that a book is an eyesore or that it
>uses valuable resources (like yard space which I paid dearly
>for), but the point is that the only approach that makes sense
>to me is one where 'dumped' articles become the property of the person
>they are dumped on.  If this were not so, then the person who
>is dumped on has some positive obligation that he did not agree
>to accept.  I cannot see any other logical alternative.  If
>the book dropped on my yard is not mine, what am I obligated to
>do?  Leave it on my yard?  Store it for the day the owner
>returns?  Put an ad in the paper?

>You mentioned difficult counter-examples.  Give me some of those
>examples and I'll try to meet them one at a time.

 I'm not the person who mentioned them, but how about this: You wake up
and find a few toxic waste containers (some of which aren't properly
sealed...) on your lawn. Are they now yours, along with the burden
to dispose of them safely? Or does the dumper still own the containers
and the responsibility?

>Returning to the main issue, radio waves, if one accepts the notion
>that things left on my property are mine, the only question is are
>radio waves actually left there?  One poster made the point that
>radio waves are something else, not part of your property, like
>air space far above, or liquids far beneath (though this is fuzzy).
>This is the only really good objection that I have heard.  

 The radio waves pass through, they don't stay. If they are intended
for someone else you can't stop them (IE jamming equipment) but while
on your property you can listen in as this doesn't stop the signal from
continuing.
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 18:42:10 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan22.111431.16248@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
  <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com>
  <1993Jan27.063302.5304@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

Tim Starr writes:

>In article <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike
> Huben) writes:
>
>}I suspect that TJ could have freed his slaves somehow; if only by selling
>}them for a pittance to an abolitionist.
>
>I don't know.

I recall that statutes were passed forbidding "manumission".


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!" 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:23:01 +0000

In article <1993Jan11.203746.5055@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:

>This is a reality check for everyone. I live in San Francisco, and have a
>couple roommates from England who haven't given up their English citizenship
>yet. One needs some serious dental work, while the other needs medical help
>for his neck. Neither have health insurance since the places they work don't
>supply it.
>        Here's the kicker. After checking into the cost of taking care of
>their health problems, they discovered that it would cheaper to fly all the
>way back to England to have it taken care of, then to have it taken care of
>here.
>        Ain't life a bitch.

If they're trying to get dental work using the National Health Service,
they're in for a rude shock.  Very few dentists are accepting NHS
patients for anything apart from emergencies now - if you're not an
established patient in the local area, tough.

The ordinary medical work will be OK - he might actually get seen by a
doctor in a few years.

No, this isn't a joke - that's the way the NHS actually *is* now.  And
I'm being forced to pay for it out of my taxes (they call it National
Insurance, but a tax by any other name...).

***********************************************************************
*  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: Life & Liberty
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:15:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.220650.1324@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>
> [admiration of 'life, what a beautiful choice' commercials]
>
>let's not get into an abortion debate here, but wouldn't a similar 
>tactic work for the LP? start running low-key commercials -now-. well-
>lit ads with "ordinary people" explaining why they prefer to make an 
>individual choice on any number of issues. keep track of Clinton's 
>latest screw-ups & cover those topics without acknowledging the 
>competition. close 'em up with "sponsored by the Libertarian Party". 
>by 1996 we've got name recognition. coupled with a more pragmatic 
>platform we'd at least be able to make a showing, or get the 
>Republicrats to move away from the parental role they seem so fond of.

This, sir, is an *excellent* idea. While we're at it, let's start *now*
badgering the debate commissions to allow the LP candidate in 1996 to
debate.

-- 
__/\__  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.
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:42:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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

>In article <1k2tfhINNcos@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>}>
>}>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.
>}>
>}Excuse me...are you under the impression that any significant fraction of the
>}American public (even of the politically aware portion) even knows who
>}Murray or Koch *are*?
>
>No.  But many are aware of the difference between the LP prior to the RC
>takeover and afterwards.  I've had people tell me they remember well Clark's
>gubernatorial campaign in CA, 1978.  People who learned of the LP since
>the RC takeover doesn't have as good an impression of it.
>
>}>}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?
>}>
>}Because people are more likely to give you a gift if you treat them 
>}respectfully, as if they are people worthy to come in the front door of the
>}house.  If you treat them like servants, and send them around to the kitchen
>}entrance, a lot of them will never make it.
>
>Why is it impossible for us to respect non-members?
>
I suppose it is not impossible in principle...but in fact the disrespect 
shown to people who are not 100% behind the NAP is almost Randian in its
proportions...I cite, for example, a recent post in this newsgroup
where you suggested that those who "support tyranny" should give their
support to the Democrats and Republicans.
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: Party line
Reply-To: dbrown@ai.uga.edu
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:58:53 GMT

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 can force the utilitarian-minded to defer all
>future LP positions to categorical reasoning.  Enjoy your cute little club,
>but don't be surprised when you don't make a difference.  It has nothing to
>do with organization or enthusiansm.  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.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
From: jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca (Jonathan Story)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:58:01 GMT

In article <DDFr-250193144500@law-mac-28.uchicago.edu>
         DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman) writes:
> 1. My personal objection to it (the reason I would be reluctant to sign it,
> as opposed to any reasons I might think it a bad idea for the party to
> require it) is not that I am a "consequentialist" rather than a "natural
> rights" libertarian, but that I do not believe it states a correct natural
> rights position. This is not because it is badly written but because, in my
> opinion, the subject of rights is too complicated to be summed up in any
> short statement that both says something substantial and is true. I think
> almost any thoughtful person who has signed the pledge could be convinced
> that there are some (imaginable although perhaps implausible) situations in
> which he would be in favor of initiating coercion. That is why, on the one

A number of such examples are given in _The_Machinery_of_Freedom_ (by I
forget who).  But what bothers me about giving up and not having any
philosophical anchor is that the LP would have little defense against
those who would make it a republicrat wannabe.  I will grant, as advanced
in TMOF, that the LP is ultimately doomed, being taken over by the
professional politicians when it becomes a credible vehicle to public
office.  However, surely having some kind of oath will delay the
inevitable decay into populism.  As I see it, excising the pledge, as
flawed as it is, will be the telling moment when the LP turns from
principle to politics.

Maybe this is just as well.  There are many other voices who are spreading
the libertarian philosophy.  What's more, they do not have to compromise
for votes.  It would be interesting to learn what the political and
non-political "missionary" success rates are.


> On the more general question of "consequentialist" vs "natural law"
> libertarianism, I prefer to use consequentialist arguments not because I
> believe natural law arguments are wrong or meaningless but because I belive
> that much more is known, and I in particular know much more, about
> economics than about moral philosophy. I can, however, imagine situations
> where I was convinced that action X had more desirable consequences than
> action Y (in utilitarian or similar terms), yet chose action Y for moral
> reasons--which is one reason I do not call myself a utilitarian.

Is "consequentialism" another term for "utilitarianism"?  (I wonder if
an analogy can be made between "consequentialist" vs "natural rights" on
the one hand, and quantum mechanics vs ??? on the other (I'm not a
physicist).  QM is a marvellous predictor, describing what happens with
eerie accuracy.  However, some scientists, unsatisfied, look for an
underlying, more subtle, reality.)


> David Friedman
> University of Chicago Law School
                        ^
                        |
                    Is this new?
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:25:41 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <SLAGLE.93Jan21170557@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>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.
>
>Since you are so familiar with applied logic, and so fond of the
>Socratic method, perhaps you will favor us with an answer to some
>questions:
>
>What species of fallacious reasoning attempts to generalize from
>the specific actions of particular individual members of a group
>to an implication that all members of that group share a
>proclivity to act in such a manner?

Induction.  A fallacy I haven't committed here, because it only requires
two members of a class to demonstrate inconsistancy, not all the members.

>Which one is it that implies that a property of all members of
>a group is peculiar to a particular subset group?

I forget this one's name.  Yet I made no such assertion: do you see the
word "so" above?  That indicates that I think libertarians are MORE
inconsistant than other groups or individuals.  In no way can it be read
that I deny other groups or individuals are inconsistant.  Do you have
difficulty comprehending the difference between quantitaive and qualitative?

>(Just the formal classifications of the fallacies is all that we
>require; your statement above will suffice as a fine compound
>example of both.  You clearly qualify for a good grade in economy
>of exemplary exposition.)

Inasmuch as you have proven yourself incapable of diagnosing fallacies
twice in my one sentence, what grade do you think YOU deserve?  You certainly
have shown yourself unqualified to grade me.

>For extra credit, what general category of verbal fallacy
>subsumes both of the above subcategories?  (Hint: This one is far
>and away the most popular of all the fallacies among the Usenet
>contributors.)

I'll grant myself extra credit for the one informal fallacy that I allowed
myself in my sentence: ridicule.  Too bad you weren't able to detect it.

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:18:16 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1jlisdINNrla@gap.caltech.edu> damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
>In article <1jkiu9INN3qr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Their mistake is that our government is not forcing them to do anything.
>>They can leave at any time, as I would have if the draft had not been
>	From one government to another?  Some solution.  The same or
>similar problems would exist there; that is the definition of government.

If that is your viewpoint, only some utopian anarchy could be the solution.
However, Canada's government was at the time a product that I would have
preferred.

Mike Huben

In fact, when you get right down to it, almost every explanation Man
came up with for *anything* until about 1926 was stupid.  Dave Barry
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:02:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan25.073616.29180@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> }2.)  It scares away some people because of its resemblance to a loyalty
> }oath.  
> 
> This resemblance is only superficial.  People wouldn't be scared away from it
> if people who wanted non-libertarians to be members didn't keep telling
> people it had this resemblance.

Not true, by personal experience.

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

In an earlier posting, someone said something to the effect that he signed it 
because he didn't consider such pledge binding except between two trusting 
parties.  Contrarily, I look upon such a pledge the same way that I look upon
an oath, such a marriage vow -- as a point of honor, if nothing else.  Humans
are known to fail these things occasionally because they are human.  The
expected return from a marriage vow (consortium, affection, inheritance,
legitimacy) is reason enough for me to work hard to honor it.  I see no such 
return from membership in the LP -- indeed, the LP, in collecting my dues and
contributions, having its numerical strength increased, and getting the use of
my name on mailing lists gets the best of the deal, WHICH I DON'T BEGRUDGE IT 
because I consider it a gift to a worthwhile cause.  But I will not bind 
myself with a vow as a condition of making such a gift, especially one that
I fear that, being human, I may fail somewhere down the road.  (Hell, it's
already happened, on a recent state referendum vote...)

The question the LP has to address is whether they think they are better off
with people like me, or without them.  To me, the question solves itself either
way.  I can't see the return in joining an organization that turns down the
memberships of anybody under 100% on the Nolan Chart, since it is doomed to
perpetual impotence.
-- 

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...
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:49:02 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

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?


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