HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: And They Call it Democracy ... (Was: Negative Income Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:00:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.180649.536@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>The sovereignty of the government is merely the sum of the 
>>>sovereignty of the individuals in the society.
>>
>>so if 90% of the individuals want to kill the Jews, the government
>>does so? this definition of government is so lame i can't even *list*
>>all the ways it can be ripped to shreds.
>
>The Salem witch trials were carried out by local colonial governments
>with the support of the population ...

which further emphasizes my point, i believe.
the purpose of government is to subjugate society to a moral law; to
enforce the law and guarantee the rights to life and liberty.
not to implement the hysteria of the 51% of the moment.

>>>Any government which does not receive the consent of every individual
>>>in the society is not a legitimate government, and any laws which such 
>>>a government show pass are not legitimate.
>>
>>then none of the laws *ever* passed in *any* democratic country
>>are legitimate. because a LARGE percentage of the eligible voters
>>don't vote. 
>
>Please note that while this is true for the United States, it is not
>so in Canada and Europe.  The 80% for the Charlottetown vote and the
>75% for the French Maastrichte referendum were among the lowest ever
>recorded for their two countries (when matched against elections).

well, Gary, a special referendum is not the same as a general election.
i'm sure turnout would be pretty high in the US too if something
as important and special as the Charlottetown referendum were held here.

still, i must give you that one. i believe that the US is worse than Canada
in overall election turn-out.
this is one of the most disappointing characteristics about Americans for me.
i would even welcome some theories as to the reason for this -- although
my suspicion that it is just apathy due to perceived powerlessness to
effect real change. 

that said, though, the number is really irrelevant.
since Gerald has said the government must receive
the "consent of every individual", and since his big concern is
with those who are starving so badly they cannot make it to a polling
booth, even 20%-25% of the population not participating must be
considered *very* large for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
even .001% of the population not participating would render all
government activity illegitimate based on his definition.
retroactively.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:41:08 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>even given this, there are some cases where individual opting out
>>would be impossible because doing so would threaten the rights of
>>others. the military is one case; how can the army defend my house
>>but not yours, which is next door to it? same with the fire department.
>
>You are deadset opposed to giving a meal to a starving person so that
>they have are able to think clearly enough to exercise their vote
>properly...yet you seem perfectly willing to steal from individuals
>to have a publically-funded fire department...what a misplaced set
>of priorities!

... or tax breaks for home mortgages a la the American IRS ...

(ref. "Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)" from before Xmas)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: Ookpik Day
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:26:38 GMT

In article <C0IrJo.122@u36.kwnet.on.ca> sp@u36.kwnet.on.ca writes:
> On this day, children, adults in their care and
> folks given to whimsey shall built upon their
> property, the property of others including municipal,
> provincial and federal land, a lifelike effigy of
> the mythical Ookpik.


For those of us down here (and perhaps elsewhere) who are unfamiliar with  
"the mythical Ookpik," could you please explain?  Sounds interesting.   
Thanks.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: wkmpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (W. Keith McManus)
Subject: Re: canadian subway
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:23:34 GMT

In article <C0J9Hv.7K6@panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
wrote:
> 
> If I might bother my Canadian neighbors for a second: I recall far too
> many years ago riding the ?Montrea? ?Toronto? subway and being impressed
> by itsrubber wheels.

Montreal

W. Keith McManus
=================================================
Rochester Institute of Technology
Applied Photography Department - Photojournalism
Rochester, New York

=================================================
InterNet: wkmpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
     AOL: KeithRIT
=================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 03:20:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>as i have said, there is a distinction. you know what it is, because
>you refer to it below. whether it is arbitrary or not is another
>quesion. but there is a distinction.

I know _that_ it is, but I'm fuzzy on _what_ it is.  What it boils
down to, tho', is that it is immoral for the government to feed the
poor, but moral for it to lock up social deviants.
>
>>I guess I have one other point.  I think your distinction is totally
>>arbitrary.
>
>well, it isn't. it is based on a particular set of premises. you
>obviously just disagree with those premises. 
>
I don't see how the premises you've given (rights only deal with
doing unto, not for; people have a right to their property) lead 
to the conclusion you've stated many times now.  Also the set of
premises you have is arbitrary (Gerald has a different set).

Furthermore, you've said you agree with the Feudalist position in
theory, but have concerns for protection of rights.  That is, to my
mind, a pragmatic objection to the Feudalist position:  it doesn't
protect rights well enough.  Since we weren't arguing pragmatics,
it's a non-germane (tho' perfectly reasonable) objection.

>the rest of your post deals with pragmatism. that is fine.
>i have no problems with pragmatism. i just don't think it
>is relevant to a philosophical discussion of rights.
>and if you recall, i already said i supported a pragmatic position,
>but that that was not relevant to the points at hand.

The rest of my post did not _deal_ with pragmatism, but rather
advanced it as a basis for deciding what actions are appropriate
for governments (and citizens) to undertake.  In effect, I've said
that there is no action that is _a priori_ inappropriate for a
government.  In effect, and now as before in as many words, I am
saying that there are no such things as "fundamental human rights".
"Human rights" is a social construct, and "rights" is a legal
concept.

I'll say it again:  government action is inappropriate only to
the extent that it offends the morality of its citizens(*) or (to
a lesser but non-zero extent) the morality of the citizens of 
neighbouring states.  The greater the offence, the more
inappropriate the action.

(*) for "citizens" you can substitute "people under its control"
to generalize to nations that don't give equal citizenship to
everyone living in that country -- which is every country to
some degree or another.

...mark young
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:52:22 GMT

In article <m2c=rCC@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>Fire protection is easily provided by the free market system.  You
>simply enroll in one of the Fire Protection companies that operate
>in your area.  If your house catches fire, they'll come and put it
>out.  If you pay for deluxe service, they'll come when your neighbour's
>place catches fire and keep it from spreading to your place.  For
>people who don't want to get fire protection, there'll be freelancers
>around most places -- people who'll bring the trucks to your fire and
>dicker with you over the price to put it out.

Okay, this is where the free-market society begins to break down.  Who will
build the roads the fire rotection company uses to reach your location?
Who lays the high-pressure water mains and hydrants so the firefighters can do
their job?  Naturally, the street-laying consortium (which you must pay if
you want to live on a street) and the hydrant corporation (which must have some
pretty good relationship with the street consortium to be able to tear up the
streets to install and maintain its water mains).

Now mind, most fires will be in the squalid slums where people cannot afford to
pay for sewers, fresh water, hydrants, streets, fire and personal protection.
Fires that catch there will spread, unfought, quickly raging out of control
and wiping out large portions of entire cities.  The diseases that run rampant
through these slums will easily kill off whomever is left -- exactly what
corporation can fight diseases of squalor?  You're not going to stop microbes
by paying lots of money -- they can't add columns of figures.

I would be willing to be that the amount of money the rich elite (that's you)
would spend to provide roads, sewers, water, personal and property protection,
fire fighting, squalor protection, class segregation, charities, research
reports (so you can identify the quality of goods and services you purchase,
since there is to centralized quality control or guidelines) and inspection
services would add up to quite a sum, easily matching the amount you
grudgingly surrender in the form of taxes.  Of course, you won't have as much
time to work to make money, either, what with finding all the companies 
you need to do all those little things for you, paying tolls, writing a
zillion cheques to all your creditors, and running from those hordes of
uneducated, soiled, diseased poor.

I would posit that there are at least a few things worth paying taxes for.
-- 
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack!  I've accidentally broken my leg!  -- Ed the Happy Clown
From: brb@falcon.is (Bjorn R. Bjornsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canadian health insurance -- Is Microsoft the next
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:03:37 GMT
Organization: Gagntaekni/Bijective Tech.

gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>>
>>>Furthermore (and this is a key to the issue of cost-effectiveness),
>>>the Canadian system does a great job at spending enough money where
>>>it's most cost-effective: in preventative medicine.  
>>
>>Yah, like taxing the hell out of cigarettes.  :)
>
>Why not?  Why should I pay for a smoker's added risk?  Smokers can lie
>their face off down here during their insurance examinations *and* get
>cheap smokes, then run up a huge insurance tab after "I just puffed 
>a few samples last week, doctor ..." -- yeah, right! (-;

Why not?  Because it is basically unethical.  The so called public
health/medical insurance systems of socialist western countries
(such as Canada, Nordic countries, etc.), do not operate like premium
by risk insurance businesses (ie. insurance companies).

These public schemes basically charge premiums correlated to taxable
income and not based on risk.  For instance, I have yet to see anyone
advocate taxing ski equipment, fishing vessels, etc., for the added
(huge) cost of emergency and health services resulting therefrom.  I
would point at out that if buy travel insurance, that most assuredly
you will pay through the nose if you are going skiing.

In essence: They premiums are determined by income and not behaviour
or risk (ie. probability of high cost claims), ostensibly to provide everyone
regardless of misfortune, economic means or other personal circumstances,
with the same standard of medical/health care.  It is unfair and unethical
under these terms to single out certain (unpopular) high risk behaviours
to extract [extort] additional premiums.  Are groups at high risk for AIDS
on your list for extra premiums?  Yet this is what we live with today:
extra premiums are extorted on grounds of popularity and political whims!

What are your risk factors?

Admit it, you dislike smoking and smokers, and would rejoice in
their punishment for their "wicked ways".  You like having others
pay your way.  God forbid it were the other way around!

Bjorn R. Bjornsson
brb@falcon.is
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: pwoles@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Peter Wolesagle)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Bright bilingual American grad. seeks employment using Russian
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:00:59 GMT
Organization: School of Arts and Sciences, UPENN


                (Abbreviated resume)
                
                Peter L. Woleslagle
                4403 Pine St. #2R
                Philadelphia, PA 19104-3955
                (215) 222-6384
                e-mail: pwoles@ccat.sas.upenn.edu

OBJECTIVE:
        A challenging position in a corporation or organization making use of my
        Russian language skills.

EDUCATION:
        M.A. expected, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Slavic
                Languages (current)

        B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1991.  Magna cum laude.
                Dual majors: Russian and English

PRESENT POSITIONS:
        Editorial Assistant, Slavic Review (journal)
        and Research Assistant,Perestroika Dictionary Project,
        Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of
Pennsylvania
        Responsibilities include research, translation, proofreading, editing,
        word processing.

        Freelance translator.  Worked for several clients in Philadelphia,
        including Atrun Group, Strategic Management Group, and the Wharton
        School of Business.  Work included financial, legal, biomedical, and 
        petroleum industry materials.

MISCELLANEOUS:
        - 5 months total living/study experience in Russia
        - Experienced in use of Macintosh computers and software
        - Numerically adept (GMAT 700 total; GRE 760 quantitative, 710
          analytical)
        - Some experience in youth counseling
        - Creative and analytical thinker
        - Self-starter and motivator
        - Willing to travel and/or relocate within North America, CIS,
          Europe, Australia, or New Zealand
        - Available June 1993
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft (was Re: Negative Income Tax)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:23:16 GMT

In article <C0IK1L.H86@teleride.on.ca> stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>You would be very, very hard-pressed to find a socialist who disagrees
>that it is the responsibility of every capable individual to care for
>his or her self.  A socialist would argue that there exist those who
>are incapable of taking care of themselves, and therefore it falls to
>those who are capable to take care of the incapable.  A socialist would
>argue that it is the responsibility of those who are capable to take care
>of the incapable because it is the right of everyone to be cared for.

The above is completely untrue. The socialist political ideology says
absolutely nothing about whether society should care for those unable
to care for themselves.

Have you read your first year political science text lately?

Now, noting that a party's platform is a separate animal from the
political ideology, I again refer you to the following:

Constitution of the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP)
as amended by the federal convention held in Halifax, 1991.

Preamble:

The NDP believes that the social, economic and political progress of
Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist
principles to government and the administration of public affairs.

The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as:

    That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be
    directed towards meeting the social and individual needs of people
    within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making
    of profit;

    To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive
    and distributive organizations through economic and social
    planning.  Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of
    the principle of social ownership;

    The NDP holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of
    the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended;

    The NDP is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist
    parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international
    co-operation and the abolition of poverty.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9770 soc.culture.china:34008
From: katzd@herald.usask.ca (David Katz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.china
Subject: Need info re Life in China/Arctic for Grade 7 student
Date: 6 Jan 1993 03:26:16 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
Originator: katzd@herald.usask.ca


Hello Netters:

My 12 year old daughter is presently studying about other cultures and
has been given two articles titled "Life in the Arctic" and "Life in
Southeast China" that describe life in those two places.  Without
getting into details, it appears to me that the articles are somewhat
sanitized and do not show a real picture.

As part of the lesson, she needs to compare the following points between
her own culture, the Canadian Arctic and SouthEast China:

	Food
	Clothing
	Housing
	Leisure Activities
	Transportation
	Work

Would anyone who has _real_ experience with life in the Arctic or
Southeast China who can provide information for her studies please
e-mail replies to me.  I will pass them on.

Where possible, details that reveal differences would be informative.
For example, while the articles say that in SE China pork is eaten, I
would guess that the amount of pork consumed and its frequency is less
than what an urban Canadian would expect.

Thank you very much for your help in furthering my daughter's education
with your replies.


Dave Katz, I.S.P., MSc.                  Sector     Consultant
Saskatchewan Economic Development        Phone: (306) 933-7212
206 - 15 Innovation Blvd                 Fax:   (306) 933-8244
SASKATOON, Saskatchewan   S7N 2X8        KatzD@Herald.USask.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: zxmsu01@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Joost Schuur)
Subject: Working permit for Canada?
Keywords: working canada
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:04:22 GMT

Hi!

   I'm interested in staying in Canada for maybe half a year or even
a whole year and earn my living by working there too. My question is,
what requirements are there for a foreigner to get a working permit/visa
in your country. Do I have to prove I have a certain amount of money
when I enter the country or present a return ticket? Can anyone tell
me something about the job market for unskilled labor in Canada at
the moment? I'm 21, have a drivers' licsense and a (German) high school
diploma and have worked before, but do not have any degree. What 
possibilities are there for a young, prosperous globetrotter who wouldn't
say no to physical labour?

Joost
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-jschuur@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|Joost Schuur, Carl Alexanderweg 3/1 | MUD: Jose@Nightfall 134.2.62.161 4242 |
|7033 Herrenberg, Germany            | Voice: Intl 49 - 7032 / 5761          |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=A still somewhat bewildered user of Linux-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:47:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.042644.27527@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>>How can you accuse me of espousing dogma...apart from asserting a
>>single principle, that of popular sovereignty, I haven't been advocating
>>any ideology...and the advocation of popular sovereignty is basically
>>asserting the position that everyone is entitled to their personal
>>beliefs and a right to voice them politically through 
>>their right to vote...which is a method more than an ideology.
>
>Ugh. Popular sovereignty? I am feeling very sick to my stomach. Who sends
>people off to wars? Elected politicians. Who raises your taxes and smiles
>and says its the will of the people? Elected politicians. And who is
>responsible - no not the politicians, but the Canadian people who are all
>suckers for believing that other people can solve their problems. Popular
>sovereingty. If that is the case than I declare individual indpendence
>against the popular state and pronounce judgement on those who exercise
>authority against me solely because a majority of electors (morons) have
>elected them to do so. A truly wicked system.
>


Popular sovereignty means individual rights and limited government.

Governments, even majoritarian democratically-elected governments,
must be limited...i.e. there are areas of activity where it is not
legitimate for government to intervene or act.  There is a protected
kernel of liberty defined by individual rights where legitimate
government may not intrude.  

Tyranny of the majority, where majoritarian government intrudes into
this protected kernel of liberty, is an omnipresent problem that
must constantly be resisted.  This mostly happens because socialists
refuse to believe that there are things that governments cannot
legitimately do.          

The only real defense against the tyranny of the majority is constant
vigilence and public dissent, in the defense of individual liberty.

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Happy New Year
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:50:50 GMT

In <93001.201947DXR10@psuvm.psu.edu> <DXR10@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>But we LIKE our loonies!  What the US needs (among other things!) is
>a one-dollar coin and a two-dollar bill (that folks actually use).
>No argument about Mulroney, though...
>Donna Rogers
>exiled in State College PA

Trouble is if you use them down here, the locals go nuts trying
to get the gold foil off so they can eat the chocolate. :-)

Bob.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics