HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:37:27 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul22.183932.520@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:


>In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:

>>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism
>>and me: a belief that people are guided by rationale,
>>maximalisation of happiness, and concious thinking about the
>>cutting edges of judgements in life, with total disregard of
>>things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
>>like-me-not-like-me instincts.  People aren't rational.

>Bingo!

>Well said and said well.


So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
statist government.

I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: bsearfos@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (bryan.d.searfos)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:45:42 GMT

>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism
>and me: a belief that people are guided by rationale,
>maximalisation of happiness, and concious thinking about the
>cutting edges of judgements in life, with total disregard of
>things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
>like-me-not-like-me instincts.  People aren't rational.

If people are not rational enough to make judgements for themselves, how
can you trust a group of people to make judgements for everyone?  At least
with individuals, their likely to make different decisions as spread the
consequences around.  

Bryan S.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:54:26 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  

I would agree, but liberals would argue that the government has the
right to force your friends to sell their package to anyone the
government believes should have it.

Perry
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:06:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.222404.27664@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.205623.23453@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is 
> >not a slave pen
> 
> I love these comfortable well-off white guys' ideas of what a
> "slave pen" is.  Looks pretty cushy to me from up here...

  What in f*ck are you talking about? Are you willfully dense or
just purposefully obfuscating what I wrote? I didn't claim that we
have a society which is a slave pen. A society which does not grant
man as having the ability to run his *own* life most certainly would 
be run as one though. "There, there, we know what's good for you, now
keep on moving up the ramp, he have thousands more just like you".

> >we must work off of the assumption that man
> >has the potential of being rational. Putting self interest 
> >as the incentive is of primary concern since a person will
> >not objectify that which is not perceived as good for him/her.
> 
> Repeat after me: "The Market is good, the Market will solve
> Everything, the Market is good..."

  Such an erudite observation. Now just who's being unrealistic here,
somebody who takes into consideration the human nature of self interest
or somebody who expects everybody to act "good" for altruistic reasons?

  So Steve, just here to take pot shots, or would you like to
answer the various things that you dodged in yesterday's post?

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:15 PDT
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Nf-ID: #R:QFS-fv@engin.umich.edu:1034962224:cdp:1296500260:000:1575
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Jul 25 08:15:00 1992



The LaRouche organization and Liberty Lobby had a longstanding relationship,
a fact attested to by former staff members in both groups. This relationship
first surfaced publicly in lawsuits involving Liberty Lobby. The relationship
primarily consisted of regular background briefings and information swap
sessions between members of LaRouche's intelligenc staff and researchers
for Liberty Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper.

In the mid 1980's this informal information-swapping arrangement was
expanded to include private investigators and researchers for the Christic
Institute. It was through this secret mechanism that unfounded conspiracy
theories were woven into the Christic case. Former Christic plaintiff
Tony Avirgan argues that it was these conspiracy theories that allowed the
judge an excuse to throw the Chistic case out of court (although the move
was iclearly unfair).

I base these coments on interviews with former staffers at Liberty Lobby
and the LaRouche organization, court records and depositions and affidavits,
and material in Dennis King's excellent "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American
Fascism." I also discuss these matters in my study "Right Woos Left" which
is available from Political Research Associates, 678 Mass. Ave., #205, 
Cambridge, MA 02139 ($6.50 includes postage). This 40,000 word study is
posted on Peacenet in the <pn.publiceye> conference, and has been circulated
on USENET in several Newsgroups.
-Chip Berlet

(P.S. having been sued by LaRouche several times, I assure you I have my facts
straight. He lost all the cases....

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:26:01 GMT

  >  However, once society reaches the size that we have, individuals are
  >no longer significant.

  Well, if you were in favor of the anthill all along, why didn't you say
so earlier?  We could have saved the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars by giving up on the argument long ago....

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: FAIR's _CounterSpin_ #10 -- "Managed Democracy"
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.230923.20819@NOC.Vitalink.COM> rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>In article <9207210402.AA12148@poly.math.cornell.edu>, 
>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>
>>     
>> -------------------------- COUNTERSPIN ------------------------ 
>>   
>> -------------A Memo on Campaign Coverage from FAIR------------- 
>>   
>> --------------(Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)--------------- 
>
>Just out of curiosity, what does FAIR have to say about the total
>news blackout of anything having to do with the candidate of the
>third largest party, Andre Marrou (Libertarian)?
>
>Marrou got more votes than any other candidate in the first reported primary 
>election results (Dixville Notch, NH. -- Marrou - 11 Bush - 9, all the others 
>far behind).   Yet except for a few brief mentions on CNN during the night 
>after the voting, there has been  _nothing_.  
>
>And how about Lenora Fullani, candidate of the fourth largest party, the
>New Alliance? 
>
It's obviously a conspiracy caused by socialist fluoridation of the water.

These fringe candidates get more coverage than they deserve.  When the 
libertarians are able to elect anyone outside of Alaska, perhaps they'll
get more attention - but they never will.  If you have to rely on results
from Dixville Notch (which was a setup because Marrou was there) you're
preety pathetic.

Maybe you libertarians can start a paper like the "New Federalist" as
LaRouche did instead of relying on handouts from privately owned newspapers.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.135426.29953@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
>>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
>>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  

Not by my code of conduct.  That is, I'd disapprove.  On the other hand,
I'm not King, either.

>I would agree, but liberals would argue that the government has the
>right to force your friends to sell their package to anyone the
>government believes should have it.

I'd end the sentence after "to anyone".

There was an interesting news story a few years ago.  A subsidiary of
Ciba-Geigy, the Swiss drug firm, ordered a VMS disk defragmenter from
a company called "Executive Software" which is headed by a Scientologist
looney-tune.  When it came time for them to extend their software maintenance
contract, the president, discovering that the company belonged to Ciba-Geigy,
cancelled the contract on the grounds that the parent company manufacturers
and sells Ritalin, a drug he claimed turns children crazy and causes them
to commit suicide.  Of course, that is all Scientologist clap-trap (the
drug is used in narcolepsy and attention-deficit disorder in children
and adults.)

This action got a fair number of column inches in the computer trade press,
and even the most liberal might agree that this bad publicity was more than
adequate punishment for their "crime".

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13825 misc.headlines:5052 talk.politics.misc:36847
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:15:58 GMT

  Jason, you have a nasty habit of changing followups and not telling people.
  It's not a kind thing to do.

  Follow-ups to talk.politics.misc.

jd> Jason Durbin

jd> This is what I don't understand about the libertarian mindset. This "life
jd> ain't fair, so let's just let everyone do as they want and, since good
jd> always wins out over evil, everything will be just great someday".

  A massive oversimplification and misunderstanding of libertarianism. It
  seems you don't perceive ignorance as a vice.

jd> I probably hate many of the same rules and regulations you do, yet I
jd> can see the reasons for them. Why can't you and the other libertarians
jd> see the reasons?

  Oh, we can. We just don't think it's the State's place to step in and cor-
  rect various ills. Or are you so used to the idea that "There oughta be a
  law" that you can't fathom other alternatives? Remember, what the State
  giveth, the State can (and does!) taketh away. How much of your life would
  you entrust to Bush, Reagan, Joe McCarthy, the LAPD?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:39:32 GMT


In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:

>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism
>and me: a belief that people are guided by rationale,
>maximalisation of happiness, and concious thinking about the
>cutting edges of judgements in life, with total disregard of
>things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
>like-me-not-like-me instincts.  People aren't rational.

Bingo!

Well said and said well.


-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:54:29 GMT


Chip Berlet states that the LaRouche organization and the Liberty
Lobby engaged in regular information swaps and briefings. I have
no reason to doubt the accuracy of this claim. I would like to point
out, however, that LaRouche's group functions  as (among other things)
a private intelligence organization, and as intelligence organizations
are wont to do exchanges information with a wide variety of contacts
from all regions of the political landscape. To infer from such contacts
any general convergence of policy viewpoints would be in my opinion
just plain silly.

-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13689 alt.activism.d:2543
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Masturbation to Ayn Rand
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Date: 29 Jul 1992 16:31:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1992Jul29.023053.12050@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> So why can't libertarians be activists?

=o= Nothing I've ever said could reasonably be interpreted as
meaning libertarians couldn't be activists.  If there's
libertarian activism going on, alt.activism is certainly the
newsgroup for it.

=o= My complaint was about incessant undending non-activist
discussions.  Surely you know what I'm talking about:  those
flames that go on and on forever, usually cross-posted from
some newsgroup(s) in the talk.* hierarchy.  Ideological types
always add lots and lots of fuel to these flames, and liber-
tarians are certainly ideological types.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.usa
From: fg@spcklr.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Frank Grieger)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Workman's Compensation Laws in U.S. (mechanisms)
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:59:34 GMT

In <13gkdkINNfau@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>The American political system is basically a combination of
>chaos and fraud, where the "checks and balances" system prevents
>anyone in government from accumulating enough power to establish
>a dictatorship. It's dog eat dog, everyone for himself, the
>devil take the hindmost.

[stuff deleted]

Don't worry. This sounds very familiar to me. After all this is what
democracy is all about. Never trust anybody. Be shure that there is
enough control on every body who has power.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fg@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de               Frank Grieger, Bonn, Germany
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13714 misc.headlines:5026 talk.politics.misc:36546
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:19:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Jul23.001952.1452
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jul22.230654.26367@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> >  For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is 
>> >not a slave pen
>> I love these comfortable well-off white guys' ideas of what a
>> "slave pen" is.  Looks pretty cushy to me from up here...
>  What in f*ck are you talking about? Are you willfully dense or
>just purposefully obfuscating what I wrote? I didn't claim that we
>have a society which is a slave pen. A society which does not grant
>man as having the ability to run his *own* life most certainly would 
>be run as one though. "There, there, we know what's good for you, now
>keep on moving up the ramp, he have thousands more just like you".

It seems to me that by your standards, the laws and court decisions
which are on the books now and have been for the past 50 years are
more than enough to justify your claim of "slave pen".  Gosh, firms
have to hire black people if they're otherwise qualified, women constitute
a protected category, making hiring decisions based on someone's
religion is illegal, you can't decide only to serve white people or
black people or whoever at your lunch counter, and it's getting to
the point when you won't even be able to evict a lesbian or gay person
from their apartment because of all these "special rights" they're
claiming.  Aaauggh!  Deliver us from this slavery!

Or is all this OK with you?

>> Repeat after me: "The Market is good, the Market will solve
>> Everything, the Market is good..."
>  Such an erudite observation. Now just who's being unrealistic here,
>somebody who takes into consideration the human nature of self interest
>or somebody who expects everybody to act "good" for altruistic reasons?

God, you've got strawmen for every conceivable argument, don't you?
No, like Jess said, the market isn't sufficient to ensure equal
opportunity and justice in society, nor is the expectation of altruism
in everyone.

>  So Steve, just here to take pot shots, or would you like to
>answer the various things that you dodged in yesterday's post?

Simply pot shots.  I didn't dodge the "things" in your article
yesterday.  I thought they weren't worth addressing (not even
worth finishing reading, actually.)  They were just loud rhetorical
diversions whose point was unimportant; vehicles for that frathouse
outrage that folks like you are so good at dishing out.  "Slave pen"
indeed...



-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Universal Wages   was Libertarian history
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:03:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <55137@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>It should very definitely not be the case even then.  A job description
>does not determine the pay; how well the worker does the job should be
>a major factor.  Even in assembly line work, there was a difference in
>quality.  But this type of work is, and should be, vanishing.  When I
>take my car to be worked on, I do not care how long the mechanic takes,
>but on how the job is done.  And I should pay accordingly.  If a master
>mechanic finds the problem in 10 seconds, and a clunker takes an hour,
>I should not pay the clunker 360 times as much for labor.  It is not 
>even clear if he should be paid as much as the master.  And if the 
>clunker does not find out what the problem is, it is he who should pay
>for keeping my car unusable.


I don't know why everyone chooses to evade the issue I have raised.
I said that in a truly free market, two workers doing exactly the same
work should be paid the same. I am not saying two workers are clones.
I did not say that any two workers WOULD do exactly the same quality
and quantity of work.  

I said IF THEY DID, they should be pay the same in a free market, if
the market was truly free. That is the principle that Adam Smith worked with.
The invisible hand that ultimately made things so dandy and fair.
I also argued that the ideal is not only NOT in effect, but that it cannot be
in effect, because of the natural tendency of capitalism towards 
concentration and thus the suspension of the free market.

Frank.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:24:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Jul22.222404.27664
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jul22.205623.23453@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>  For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is 
>not a slave pen

I love these comfortable well-off white guys' ideas of what a
"slave pen" is.  Looks pretty cushy to me from up here...

>we must work off of the assumption that man
>has the potential of being rational. Putting self interest 
>as the incentive is of primary concern since a person will
>not objectify that which is not perceived as good for him/her.

Repeat after me: "The Market is good, the Market will solve
Everything, the Market is good..."

>  Perhaps you can tell us what or other choices are. This
>misanthropic pap is just too much though.

I must say it's more tolerable than hyperbolic Randroid ravings.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:33:09 GMT

In article <2A7832BA.25115@noiro.acs.uci.edu> rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray  
Ravelo) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.081153.202154@uctvax.uct.ac.za>  
vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:
> >article <1992Jul28.193602.4123@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,  
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
> >Because the SA people clearly rose up! They were crushed, that is true, but
> >is there any Cuban analogy to Soweto 76? The action of 85,86? Sharpeville in
> >1961? The Cuban people may resent their leaders, but it doesn't show nearly  
as
> >much as in South Africa.
> 
>  Maybe "it doesn't show nearly as much as in SA" because the extreme
>  repression and lack of international media attention that exist in Cuba.

Consider the situation in Russia and Eastern Europe. No one knew the extent of  
the environmental damage in those countries because of the controlled media.   
There have also been reports of riots many years prior to the breakup that were  
forcibly repressed with little information leaking to the West. 

Truly repressive regimes do not have riots. Only when the people in power relax  
their grip do things boil over. Consider Haiti under Papa Doc as opposed to  
Baby Doc.  Look at how fast things happened once the lid came off in Eastern  
Europe.  None of the "experts" even guessed at what was happening. John  
Gailbraith was gushing over how great things were over there just before it  
fell apart.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

Newsgroups: alt.activism