HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Gladiator was Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 5 Sep 1992 03:34:44 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

The discussion on dueling was informative. It made me wonder a bit
more about libertarians and violence. I do believe the motto is no
first use of force.

Would libertarians allow gladiator contests as in ancient Rome except
that they would not be involuntary they would be by contract.

For example:

An enterprising individual wants to put on a gladiator contest. His
plan is to rent the Los Angeles Colesium and televise the contest
similiar to the Super Bowl or a Championship prize fight. He
establishes voluntary contracts with a number of individuals. The
contract calls for a contest with lethel weapons between some number
of the individuals. The contest is to be continued until at least one
individual is killed. The survivors are rewarded by some pre agreed to
formula based on their performance, of viciousness etc.

The weapons are such that there is no risk to the non-performers.
Althernatively they could be weapons that pose some risk to the
voluntary attendees at the event, but none to the general public.

Would libertarians allow this type of contract to be implemented?
If not why not?

Richard Foy
Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Space Program = welfare? (was: Hold on to your wallet!)
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:19:19 GMT

Edward J. Branley writes
>You've pegged Mr. Mulac quite effectively.  He doesn't want Clinton because he
>knows that Bush, like Reagan before him, is the best thing to help Big
>Government.  These borrow-and-spend Republicans are really lending a hand to
>welfare programs like the defense budget and the space program. Just pump more
>money into both, and don't really worry about trivial things as getting the
>most for the buck or direction of the programs.

  With the end of the cold war, Congress is justifiably taking aim to cut  
military programs that no longer serve our interests adequately.  But many  
people, Congressmen included, are suddenly eyeing the space program in the same  
light, with no good reason.

  I've heard the term "middle class welfare" used to describe the continuation  
of many defense projects that originated during the cold war.  The implication  
is that there is no longer any actual return on this spending, so the funds  
effectively just keep defense workers from losing their jobs.  I'm sure that  
there are some projects that fit into this category, but I don't know enough  
details to say which ones should be cut.

  What is disturbing and inexplicable is the sentiment that, now that the cold  
war is over, the space program should be scaled back.  I can only surmise that  
these feelings arise out of memories of the space race of the 1960s, when our  
main reason for space exploration was competition with the Soviets; that was a  
poor justification for the program, albeit an effective one.  There are better,  
more productive reasons for expanding our presence in space.

  I agree that the the government's priorities for the space program, like the  
military, need to be examined.  Both sides are guilty of playing politics here,  
and both have had an equally harmful effect on the program.  I don't want to  
work for a NASA that is nothing more than a political pawn; nor do I wish to  
see the program scrapped by a legislative body that has more knowledge of  
finance and law than of science and technology.

  Incidentally, I think the budget woes of the Reagan and Bush years have  
harmed NASA most in the long run; it doesn't matter how hard the President  
pushes the space program if the money simply isn't there.  I'll probably vote  
for Clinton, but I'd like to see him make a stronger commitment to space  
science and exploration.

  Finally, as a NASA engineer dedicated to the peaceful exploration of space, I  
resent the derision of my agency in the same sentence with the defense  
industry.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail O.K.)            |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Silly Season '92
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.150822.20843@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>This quote seems applicable to the current debate(s):
>

substitute war for election in this quote and it reads rather the same.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jac1@ra.msstate.edu (Jennifer Cox)
Subject: Re: Why we should blame Democrats...
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:55:13 GMT

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>|> But we can blame Congress for pork barrel legislation that the President
>|> can't stop since Congress will not give him the line-item veto, even though
>|> the vast majority of the Governors have it.

>Why doesn't Bush just veto the whole thing and say remove the pork
>before I sign it?  And do it publicly so that all the congress-critters
>that voted "yes" can be shamed.  I don't know the details of
>line item veto but it sounds dangerous.  Imagine Clinton vetoing
>the main provision of a bill and signing on the pork.

Speaking of pork.  Bush has been playing the pork game also.

I really don't think that a president would cut the main thing and keep
the pork.  The time a president would cut would be when it was something
that his party wasn't going with.  Why keep the pork if it is all pork for
the other party?

!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Organization: None
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:00:28 GMT

In article <92254.152550MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
>(Michael Edelman) says:
>
>>In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>>bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>
>>>     [...]
>>>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>>>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!
>>>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>>>Well...nothing.  :)
>
>>Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
>>history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
>>boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.
>
>"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
> I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
>   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.
>
>We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.

Do some homework.....It was the longest peacetime economic boom
in our history. If we wish to blame anyone for:
1-Our high debt- blame ourselves for NOT kicking the tax/spend bums out of 
                 the Democratic Congress
2-Our recession- recessions/expansions are part of the natural cycle. This
                 one is more difficult because we all splurged in the 1980s.
3-The end of the Cold War - Thank you Ron. My son will grow up in a SAFER world
4-The advance of Democracy - Thank you Ron.
5-The end of inflation - thank you Ron and Paul Volcker
6-The end of crushing interest rates (circa late 70s) - Thank you Ron/Paul

....etc...

I suspect many people posting don't recall the 70s. I will be happy to
trade the 80s again for the 70s. Many others may not remember civil defense
drills in the 60s, where we all headed into shelters. I remember doing this
in the 4th grade. How about the Cuban Missle crisis, where we almost went
to war with Soviets? Or the Vietnam war with us supporting South Vietnam
against the Communist north, backed by the Soviets?

Lets not forget the expansionist Soviet Empire during the 60s and 70s, or our
Hostages in Iran (How many Americans are hostage now? far fewer).

How about the broad decline in the power of unions, after Reagan fired the
air traffic controllers back early in his first administration?

Sure he made mistakes - we all do. But Ronald Reagan did many
brilliant things for us. The list is endless....

THANK YOU RON! 

My son will grow up in a far safer world than I grew up and
I credit Ronald Reagan.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers....





Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12782 alt.flame:12706
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:25:50 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
 <exuptr.443.716051820@exu.ericsson.se>
 <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
 <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>

In article <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
(Michael Edelman) says:

>In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:

>>     [...]
>>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!
>>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>>Well...nothing.  :)

>Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
>history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
>boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.

"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
 I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.

We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Poll results AZ
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:05:58 MST
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Sep4.174513.17682@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.183417.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
> ]Indeed it is!  I really can't tell you why, except that Arizona's state
> ]Republican party has been such a joke (Evan Mecham, Fife Symington, the
> ]AzScam scandal) that a lot of people are forswearing the GOP and looking
> 
> AzScam mostly caught liberal democrats, not republicans. Evan Mecham
> is indeed a dweeb  of the worst order, and has scrambled the party.
> Fife is just a governor, not a joke.

I'll have to disagree with you on AzScam -- it got Republicans (Don Kenney
in jail) and Democrats (Carolyn Walker) about the same.  Agreed on Ev.
No, Fife is really bad, the George Bush of Arizona, with his inability to
articulate a vision thing or work with the legislature.  Who needs him?

(For our national audience: The only "liberal" Democrats in Arizona are
in Pima County.  The other 13 counties have only Republicans or
conservative Democrats, the so-called Reagan Democrats.  The largest
portion of Arizona's delegation to the Dem convention in NYC was pledged
to Tsongas.  So all in all, conservatives, Republicans, or both have
ruled Arizona for decades, with the expected results.)
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:34:16 GMT

mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok) writes:


>In article <akyy3!p@rpi.edu>, buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes...
>> 
>>Subject line says it all. I'm looking for a copy of the Republican Platform.
>>Could someone please email it to me or tell me the address of a site where I can
>>ftp it from? Thanks.

>Yes, me too, if anyone has it.  Thanks in advance!!!

>Charles

Sheesh!

Guys, it's time for a little tutorial in net-etiquette:

1.  Asking nicely for obscure information is probably OK, but asking for
something you could find yourself with a little effort is a form of net
"panhandling,"

2.  There are no paid Usenet employees (except for your overworked local
system administrators and network managers), only peers and volunteer
participants whose time is every bit as valuable as yours, if not more
so.

3.  The "thanks in advance" bit is reminiscent of an annoying
boss/supervisor, who would order you to do something, then say "thanks
in advance."  Thanks are appropriate after someone has provided you with
some assistance.

4.  What on earth do you expect to the "me too" thing to do?  Make paid
Usenet employees come out of the woodwork an honor your request
(according to Internet RFC 237593, as I recall.....)?  To your credit,
at least you didn't say "please E-mail, as I DON'T HAVE TIME to read
news."  Check #2, if you don't understand why that one is so
deleterious.

I too would like to see the platform on-line, but as Ms. O'Neil pointed
out (Hi Sharon!) someone hasn't done the work.  If it ever does appear,
Archie or comp.archives would probably be the place to look for it. 

Call me a flame-baiter, even call me a "control-freak," but that's my
opinion.

Paul W. Schleck

pschleck@unomaha.edu

(Who missed voting for Reagan in 1984 by *ONE YEAR* of age.... :-(

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: New Electoral College Predictions
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:35:33 GMT

   Today's (9/14/92) St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides an "assessment based on
voter surveys and predictions by experts".

The assessment groups states into one of five categories :

Likely Democratic
Leaning Democratic
Toss-up
Leaning Republican
Likely Republican

Note : There is no description of what these designations mean.

The breakdown of states is as follows :

Likely Democratic            Running Count of Electoral Votes

Washington		       	11
Oregon			 	18
Minnesota			28
Iowa				35
Arkansas			41
Wisconsin			52
West Virginia			57
New York			90
Massachusetts		       102
District of Columbia	       105
Hawaii			       109

Leaning Democratic	

California			54
Illinois			76
Michigan			94
Tennessee		       105
Pennsylvania		       128
Maryland		       138
Rhode Island		       142
Vermont			       145

Likely Republican

Nevada				 4
Idaho				 8
Utah				13
Nebraska			18
Kansas				24
Oklahoma			32
Mississippi			39
Indiana				51
South Carolina			59
New Hampshire			63
Maine				67

Leaning Republican

Alaska				 3
Arizona				11
Wyoming				14
North Dakota			17
Texas				49
Louisiana			58
Alabama				67
Georgia				80
Florida			       105
Virginia		       118
Delaware		       121 

Toss-up

Montana				 3
Colorado			11
New Mexico			16
South Dakota			19
Missouri			30
Kentucky			38
Ohio				59
North Carolina			73
New Jersey			88
Connecticut			96

Any comments ?


Greg
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12837 talk.politics.misc:44795 alt.activism:16151
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:33:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <JYM.92Aug31090812@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>>>> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>>>> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>>>> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

>>> Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
>>> just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
>>> pretend that their idol always tells the truth.

>>=o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.

>Well, that's where Slick Willie's lying.  By Bush's criteria the
>number is 78 for Reagan and Bush combined.

You still don't get it do you?  Bush's people did not come up with
the number 78.  Clinton is saying that if you apply the formula
used by Bush to calculate how many times Clinton raised taxes on
Bush's record, you would come up with 327.

Clinton is not saying that Bush raised taxes 327 times.  He is trying
to point out the flaw in Bush's formula.  

For instance, regarding a particular liquor tax, there were subregulations
for different categories of liquor.  Instead of counting the entire
liquor tax increase as one increase, he counted the increase on each
category as one.  So he counted, what should have been, 1 tax increase
as 5.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: LIBERTARIANS POLL 6%, etc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:58:38 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

A little while ago (Greg Franklin) wrote:

|Now under a Libertarian government, income tax is eliminated and I
|have that $2000 back for me.  Now would I spend it in donations to
|private charities, old folks homes, or schools, or would I redirect it
|to my PC purchase so I can buy a $3500 machine?

I've always loved this scenario, and since others have addressed
the rest of what you wrote, I'll restrict myself to this one comment.
In a free society, all people who currently use overrriding
concern for the "downtrodden" to justify various and sundry
redistribute-the-wealth programs would be able to use their
increased wealth (from tax savings), plus anything they could raise
privately, to solve such problems.

If they preferred to spend their increased wealth on themselves, it
would only prove what I've said all along: these social do-gooders
like redistribute-the-wealth programs because it eases their guilty
consciences. I also think Ludwig von Mieses was correct when he
observed that most do-gooders unconsciously hate not only the wealthy
but also those who aspire to create wealth, because it reminds them
of the lack of accomplishment in their own wretched lives (taken
from "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality".)

Bottom line: I think most people, if shown a real case of need,
will offer to help to the best of their abilities - especially if
they KNOW there are no government funds available. However, I will
withdraw my contribution (and hide it to the best of my ability) if
my freedom to choose is abridged.

 _______________________________________________________
 |     "I love my country, but I fear my government"     |
 | Marrou / Lord '92 - VOTE LIBERTARIAN - 1-800-682-1776 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Switch Voters?
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:04:51 GMT


	Something which I've noticed as of late...

	There are quite a few people who voted for Bush in '88 who've
decided that they're going to cast they're lot with Clinton.

	I have yet to meet someone who voted for Dukakis who plans
to vote for Bush.

	Reflections?  Datapoints?

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Organization: NASA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:26:04 GMT

Mark Wilson writes
> BTW, why does everyone insist on lumping the Reagan and Bush tax increases
> together whenever they make these comparisons.  It's not like the VP has
> veto power or anything.

  Come, on Mark... it's an election year!  Why bother making a sound bite if  
you don't direct it at an entire party?  :-)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:56:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: gte

In article <1992Sep11.195125.7053@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> 
> >The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
> >role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
> >consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
> >answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
> >individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
> >determination for the rest of her life.
> 
> How then, would a libertarian have acted during the days when slavery 
> existed in the United States? Isn't justice a legitimate interest of the
> government?
> 

A legitimate interest is not (or should not be) sufficient to permit
the government to intefere in the rights of individuals.

Ending one individual's forceful interference with another's rights 
is.

In the case of slavery, it is obvious that one person is intefering 
with another person's rights.

In the case of abortion, whether or not the fetus is a person is subject
to interpretaion.  Furthermore, whether or not any one person thinks
a fetus is a person is strongly influenced by his religious views.
[Most persons in the Christian religions would say that the fetus is
a person.  However, as I understand it, Buddhists believe that the 
spirit enters the body at birth -- so their religious views hold that
the fetus is not a person.]

Science differentiates between a person and a fetus: lacking factual
evidence that the fetus is a person, the gov't has no cause to intervene 
(even if it does have a legitimate interest).

What is needed is a scientific/logical (*not* religious) discussion of 
when a person is formed.    ["Not religious" because, under our form of
gov't, no-one has the right to force his religious views on another --
this is as grievous as murder, IMHO -- in both cases you are interfering
with the right of an individual to govern his own life.]

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections