HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Summary: state vs. fed
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:50:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T




>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>>You wrote:
>
>>>And who will stop the Feds if they pass oppressive laws?  Should we
>>>submit to the UN as some sort of global govt?
>
>>I take it that's one of your big worries - you mention it quite
>>often.  You'll notice I haven't advocated it - but you will keep
>>mentioning as if I had.  Let's say, that the Fed passes an
>
>No, you keep saying that our rights can only be guananteed by appeal
>to a 'higher' authority.  Should there then be one higher than Washington?
>If not, why should there be one higher than Illinois?
>

Several reasons - not the least of which is you never know when
you might need that extra appeal.  But to turn your argument around,
why Illinois, why not your county. And if your county, why not your
town?  Why not anarchy?

>>I'm sorry if I bored you with the travails of non-christians, but
>>there it is.  The State of New York told everyone, Christian or
>
>Hardly a travial.
>

Well, excuse me.  Exactly how much discrimination does someone
have to go through before it bothers you?  Forced Christian 
prayer in public schools?  Elections scheduled on Jewish holidays?

>>No - it's not even close.  Goldwater was taking a rights issue
>>(whether black children were entitled to the education their
>>parents were paying for - and that white children were getting)
>>and recast it as an "education" issue.
>
>He refused to force his moral views on other people when he had
>no legal way (in his opinion) to do so.  Depending on the moral
>viewpoint, that is either "tolerant" or "facist".
>

How sad for America he didn't feel like sharing his moral vision
with the rest of us.  I'm sure he would have sat out slavery
as well.

>>>And if proper Federal functions are defined in the Fed Constitution,
>>>then there is no limit to what it can do?
>>>
>
>>The 50 state constitutions can vary widely - enslaving people in
>>one state - freeing them in another.  They can be rewritten or
>>amended at the state level, while the Federal constitution is
>>ratified by the States.  It provides uniform protection for people,
>>no matter what state they live in.
>
>The Fed Constitution can enslave everyone and provide uniform
>oppression also.
>

Yes it can - or uniform liberty above local and secterian bigotry.


marc colten
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:25:29 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <19930127171830ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>  
ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
> In article <1k6g2vINNp9e@transfer.stratus.com>, on 27 Jan 93  
17:17:19 GMT,
> >
> >The problem is, a right isn't much of a right if the government
> >doesn't prevent others from taking it away from you. I have
> >the right to vote for whomever I want to. It wouldn't be much
> >of a right, though, if my company said "if you vote for
> >anybody but .... we'll fire you" or my landlord (if I still
> >lived in an apartment building) said "if you don't vote
> >for X we'll refuse to extend your lease next month when it
> >comes up."  (The latter can be an even bigger problem if you
> >landlord owns many of the major appartment complexes in
> >the area).
> >
> >Similarly, the right to form a union isn't much of a right
> >if someone can be fired for joining a union or trying to
> >form one.
> >

> You seem to be rather confused as to what things are rights and  
what
> things are not. You have a right to join a union, and you have a  
right
> to vote anyway you like. In the absence of a contract to the  
contrary,
> you do not have a right to a perpetual tenure in somebody else's
> apartment building, and you do not have a right to a particular job
> beyond the point where the employment is not mutually desired.
> 

You missed my point. Of course I don't have the right to 
a particular job. What I said was, though, that my right to
vote (which we agree IS a right) would NOT be much of a right
in practice if my employer were able to tell me "vote this
way or lose your job."  I may technically have that right, but
it wouldn't mean much.

> As a parenthetical note, I'm often puzzled by the implicit  
assumption
> that to be terminated from a job represents a one-sided loss of  
benefits
> to the ex-employee.  Doesn't the employer also lose the value of  
the
> work produced as well?  Or are you perhaps assuming that a  
unionized
> worker isn't really worth his wages and that an employer has a net  
gain
> by firing him?
> 

First off, yes, the employee provides something for the wages. The
problem is that in many jobs (especially in lower paying and
blue collar jobs of the type that don't take much training), 
people are almost interchangeable.  The company doesn't have
to worry about firing Jane Doe (a cashier, say) who tried to form 
a union, because they can hire Jim Smith, train him in half
a day or less, and have him do the same job.  

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:16:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.165541.16010@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>People who get to a given piece of real estate first are
>>>entitled to have "property rights" to it, while a person who gets there
>>>second is entitled to be charged with theft or trespassing.
>
>>That is correct, be it "real property," or ideas.  That's why we have 
>>copyrights, patents, and trespassing laws.
>
>Why is that the case, though?  This isn't a *natural* right; it's a
>government created right.
>

Sure it is (a natural right).  You are entitled to the fruits of your labor, 
including your thoughts and ideas.  You own that with you make, or that with 
you trade what you make for.

>>You own your thoughts, talents, labor, and any products thereof.  Futher, 
>>you are have the right to exchange those thoughts, talents, labor, or 
>>products for those of others (with thier consent.)  Through this exchange, 
>>you can also own the property of others.  Ownership and exchange of these 
>>things is in no way a creation of government. 
>
>But very few things are solely a product of your thoughts/talents/labor/etc.  
>There are a lot of raw materials..

Not really.  I will concede that physical devices, such as computers, or 
chairs, require certain raw materials.  But the design belongs to the 
designer, and the raw materials are traded for.  While they are not solely 
the product of one persons labor, those components that were not, were 
traded for.

>
>>>I submit that property rights are an artificial creation of government.
>>>In a state of nature, you would own no property, except perhaps what you
>>>could carry.
>
>>In a state of nature, you would own whatever you could take and keep through 
>>force of arms.
>
>Ownership would be a meaningless concept, in that case.  Possession would
>be what counted.  Not some piece of paper which said you owned something.

Not exactly.  By accumulating things of value, and hiring others to guard 
things for you, your "possession" can reach as far as your gold and your 
charisma.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:26:46 GMT



> Family leave

The policy will apply to gays and lesbians *only* if gays and lesbians
can marry legally.  This may be closer than you think, but there's no
support in Congress for adding domestic partnerships to federal law, so
don't hold your breath on this.

> small companies

The law applies only to companies with 100+ employees because they are
better able to absorb the loss of the employee for a certain time.  While
people in Mom-and-Pop operations might need family leave just as much,
it's more difficult for those businesses to fill the gap temporarily.
The idea here is to maximize available family leave without bankrupting
anyone.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69535 alt.activism:21280 alt.conspiracy:14565 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13699
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 24 Jan 1993 20:23:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) says:

>    There's only one problem with that reasoning ; eventually the U.S.
>will no longer be able to afford to support the oligarchical countries

        "oligarchial countries "   ??!!!
   
      Holy Media, Batman!  What do you suppose the U.S is?  

>to which you seem to be referring to anymore. You are risking having a
>Socialist popular revolt (do you REALLY think Socialism is dead?) in

    Well, I risk that HERE, too.  Besides, South America has already
    had a fair number of revolutions.  I suspect that they will 
    follow past experience, bail on their debts, and do okay.

     You must have missed the riots.  You see, there was this big wave
     of riots and violence that swept the country a while back.
     Luckily, in November, we progressed to political looting.


>your country and losing everything. The oppressed people of the third
>world are tired of economic subjugation perpetuated by international
>capitalism. You may go there, but you do so at your own peril. If I
>were you, I'd stay put, pay my taxes (keep my right to complain about
>them, too), and realize this is the greatest country in the world, the
>one that got you where you are today!

      EXACTLY my point!  It's gotten me where I am today.

      Taking it easy.

      But, it's just not in my nature, I guess.

      Come on, all you useless bitchers out there.
      You're wrong!  Join Bill and Hilary.  Let us join hands, ring
      bells, and work together to save America.  

      Jump on that gravy train while it lasts!

      We're gonna TOTAL this beater!

{serious mode}

      Truly a thanks to you, God, for granting the wisdom to
      bail out in 1990.  I have way more free time now, I get
      free health care for being a student, I qualify for grants,
      plus I've got enough credits to qualify for all kinds of 
      federal grant projects.  I have no expenses.  

      I can take classes, build my network and play with the 
      Internet.

      I truly am thankful I didn't waste ANOTHER ten years
      in private industry, working 60 hour weeks.  I'd have
      been awful angry at recent developments.

>

     Work, work my old job
       Take my place
         There's no fee

      I bailed out to go to class
          Being responsible, I think I'll pass

      I worked like a slave for years
          Sweat so hard just to end my fears
      But by now, I'm glad I ran.

   YES!  YES!  Goddam, I'm happy.  I KNEW this was coming.
   It used to be, I'd just say " Hey, this is the way I am, I see it 
   coming, but I have to do my part to keep society together ".

   Fuck!  I sure am glad I bailed now.

      >

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69921 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13893
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:42:34 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>         i)  Privitiztion is happening most everywhere but HERE

That's because so much in America is already privatized, or never had
strategic state industries in those areas to begin with.  Also, the
privatization of formerly-strategic industries should not be confused
with the forming of private companies and private investment houses
(e.g., Hungary), though, nor private companies that already exist
(e.g., Siemens, Mercedes-Benz, Nixdorf, etc. in Germany).  The true
analogous situation is equivalent to Los Alamos seeking research
contracts with industry ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70065 talk.politics.medicine:712 soc.culture.usa:10164 soc.culture.african.american:14389 sci.med:24489
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 28 Jan 93 05:18:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.044849.26210@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>The judicial system is bound by laws made by politicians, and
>reflects the opinions and skills of these politicians. This system's
>decisions are in no way a standard of thinking or making judgements, 
>but is a _result_ of a judgement of those who made the law or appointed
>the judges. 

In one breath you say that laws aren't making judgements, but then you
say that they are the result of judgements made by politicians.  What,
do you think pols are Martians or something?

Regards,
Janis C.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ai356@yfn.ysu.edu (Robert Edward Schmidling)
Subject: What to do?
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:49:59 GMT


I am new around here. I pose this question. "How do we the people
get back our country?"  For so long now we have allowed the 
government to do what they want with no way of stopping them.

For example, how do we stop congress from giving themselves
another raise that they don't deserve.

Hey! ARF where are you?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Family leave (wasL Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:30:24 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM AIX/ESA Development, Kingston NY

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
> >>In most of these cases the government has not stepped into a private contract
> >>between two responsible parties and dictated how that contract will be
> >>implemented.
> >This arguement went out with the Robber Barons of the 1800's. This was
> >the same arguement that the Supreme Court used to defeat Child Labor Laws,
> We do not consider children capable of entering into labor contracts in
> this country.

Not today. Once upon a time, though, this came claptrap about "private
contracts" was used as an argument why we shouldn't think that way.

> >>The Family Leave Act is an intrusion by government into the
> >>affairs individuals where it does not belong.
> >Only if you define the "individual" to include businesses.
> It may shock you to know that businesses are owned by individuals with
> families also.   Business are also "entities" and are treated as such by the
> law.

"Entities" are not "individuals". Businessess may not marry, have wills, or
be elected to office. 

> >>Baloney.  If that employee has made themselves worth keeping, the company
> >>will keep them and their (sometimes substanial) investment in that employee.
> >So that will stop children from getting sick? But then I guess society
> >is better off if single mothers and their children are all starving or
> >on welfare.
> Society is better off without single mothers.  Emotional appeals 
> do not sway me.

Ah, then *you* must be the person with the plan to eliminate all divorces
and deaths of parents by 9:00 next Monday. I *knew* you were around here
somewhere.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

There are 827,670 New York City residents on public assistance, more than
every man, woman, and child in San Francisco.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: AMERICA, Prepare to FLAME ON!!!!
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:57:27 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11473; Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:08:42 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA10365; Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:08:29 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA02749; Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:57:28 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


      YES!    RIGHT ON, WILD BILL TAXCUT!!!!!

      Oh, Energy Bill sounding LOUDER, and everybody jump aboard
      the E-bill!!!

      Thank you, U.S. Army, for creating the foundation of a hardcore cynic!
      Thank you, Savin, for dicking me with oral and implied promises!
      Thank you, Litton, for dicking me with oral and implied promises!
      Thank you, HP, for maanagers so slow and incompetent at dicking me,
      they dicked themselves!

      On "Crossfire', Jessica Matthews says ...

	    " There will probably be a rebate in the energy bill for
	      people making under $10,000 "

      YEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!     I KNEW this was coming.

      I've cut my gasoline consumption to less than HALF! 

      I'll cut my hours a little and that should put me just barely 
      under the $10K, PLUS I'm almost quaranteed a full-scale PELL GRANT!

      More money AND less work.

      Oh, GRAVY TRAIN SOUNDING LOUDER!!!  

      Finally, after 16 years of working my ass off, letting companies, 
      managers and government use my own work ethics and moral standards
      AGAINST me!   

      For you, Doc Norman, I say the same thing I told Savin, Litton,
      and Teradyne...

      Join together and rebuild America????

	  Eat me!  I'm done.
      
      *I* was willing, ONE LAST TIME, to share the burden.
      *I* voted for Perot.  
      I knew he would lose.
      But MY conscience is clear now.

      43% of America wanted freebies.
      40% wanted to own EVERYTHING.

      Oh, yes, come on, Wild Bill!  RIGHT ON!



      

      
      
4 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:24:36 GMT

In article <C1F34B.B77@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack
Campin) writes:

>So it appears that the Libertarian Party does not in fact support the right
>of workers to form organizations devoted to collective resistance to the
>power of the employer class.

The author you are responding to is misinformed; the Libertarian Party
does support the right of workers to form labor unions.  Here is a
passage from the 1990 platform:

10.  UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish,
associate in, or not associate in, labor unions.  An employer should
have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the
collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.
. . .
Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary
boycotts if they so choose.  Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not
justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers,
strike-breakers, and innocent bystanders.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:02:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.205507.23484@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>But my question, and I'll put it to Ted and anyone else who wants to play with
>>it, is this: Is the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" at the 
>>beginning of I,8 a _separate_ enumerated power of Congress, or does it merely
>>serve as a preamble to the enumerated powers listed below?

That clause is part of one of the enumerated powers: "The Congress
shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and 
Excises, to... provide for the general welfare of the United States..."
It means Congress can tax for this purpose (and arguably spend the
money collected as well). But (as far as I know), Congress can't
do whatever it wishes in the name of the general welfare. An obvious,
modern example would be a $5/gallon gas tax, intended not to 
raise money but to reduce consumption (which, it could be argued,
promotes the general welfare.)

>Well, Madison thought that GW was confined to enumerated legislative
>fields committed to Congress.  Hamilton's view to the contrary seems 
>to have carried the day.
  
I thought that debate was over the Necessary and Proper clause. When 
did the Supreme Court rule that the General Welfare clause was a 
blank check?

>...I'd buy the proposition that the GW clause
>gives Congress the right to spend, if not regulate, as they see fit.

I don't see where spending comes from: The clause empowers Congress
to tax, but I don't see any reference in it to spending. Further,
wouldn't that interpertation be in conflict with the rest of
Article One, Section Eight? Most of the other listed powers amonut
to spending "...provide for the common Defence and and general 
Welfare..." It seems that interperting that clause as a power
to spend would reduce the rest of Article One, Section Eight to
redundant and meaningless provisions. Since the framers clearly
intended these provisions to mean _something_, I think there
is a serious flaw in your interpertation.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution