HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: KIDSCAN - Electronic Big Brother.
Date: 4 Apr 92 20:06:14 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr2.223102.975@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> Chanced upon an episode of that Australian TV show "Beyond 2000" last night
> on TDC. I arrived at the tail end of a story about a device called
> "KIDSCAN". This appears to be an adaptation of a lab-animal ID tag that
> is regularly advertized in the weekly science journals like "AAAS SCIENCE"
> and "NATURE". What you have is a tiny glass capsule containing a passive
> radio re-transmitter designed to be injected directly under the skin of
> the animal. These things are very tiny - looks like maybe 0.75x2.0 mm.
> They are designed to derive energy from an RF field and then re-transmit
> at another frequency. The transmission contains a multi-digit ID code that
> allows each animal to be positively identified. 
> 
> KIDSCAN is the same principal ... but is being sold as something you have
> implanted into your children - for their health and safety according to
> the seller. These versions appear to be a little larger and can transmit
> for a several block radius. The idea is to have a transmitter/reciever
> every few blocks ... kinda like a small cellular phone system. This way,
> the exact location of your precious progeny can be tracked every few
> minutes and, I suppose, a time-map of your childs activities can be
> provided. There is no reason that sensors could not be added to detect
> cocaine/reefer/alcohol/nicotine/contraceptive substances/neural and 
> brain activity etc.. 
> 

> Another obvious use is for felons - especially those on parole or out on
> bail pending an appeal. Their location, and perhaps their activities, 
> could be easily monitored. After felons comes the mentally retarded, 
> altzheimers patients, petty criminals, 'suspicious persons' ... right
> down to every single human being. 
> 
	I can see a justification for using this device on convicted 
non-violent criminals as an ALTERNATIVE to a minimum-security prison. One 
problem might be that with increasing use of it, minimum-security prisons 
would be closed down enough that someone who chose not to have it 
implanted might be forced into a higher-security, higher-risk prison.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2323 alt.politics.correct:3602 alt.save.the.earth:530 austin.general:1513 sci.environment:5971 sci.skeptic:7913 soc.culture.usa:2808 talk.environment:1415 talk.philosophy.misc:970 ut.general:413
From: amck@emx.utexas.edu (Alan McKendree)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.correct,alt.save.the.earth,austin.general,sci.environment,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.environment,talk.philosophy.misc,ut.general
Subject: Lecture:  Refutation of Environmentalism
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:42:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Distribution: austin
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

What is the environmentalism movement?  What arguments must one accept
in order to accept the conclusions of environmentalism?  What scientific
basis is there for its claims?

Hear for the first time the case _against_ environmentalism.


                  Topic:  The Toxicity of Environmentalism

                  Date:  Wednesday, April 15, 7:00 p. m.

		  Place:  Batts Hall Auditorium, U.T. campus
			  (just southeast of the main tower)
		  
		  Speaker:  Dr. George Reisman
			    Professor of Economics, Pepperdine University
		  
		  Admission:  $5, general public
			      free to U.T. students and faculty

                  A question and answer period will follow.


Dr. Reisman will not merely challenge the scientific claims of
environmentalism; he will challenge its moral and philosophical base:
the idea that nature has intrinsic value apart from and against man.

Dr. Reisman will demonstrate that the inherent nature of production and
economic activity is to improve _man's_ environment.  He will defend
science, technology and capitalism against the reactionary "greens" who
wish to return to the pre-industrial era--even to the stone age.

If you are uncomfortable with arguments that "everybody knows" the
environment is in trouble; that living standards must inevitably decline
if we are to "save the planet"; that we must "take charge" (beginning
with kindergarten students) to "rescue spaceship Earth", you need to hear
this lecture.  If you believe these arguments, you need to hear it even
more.

For more information contact:
Dan Fordyce, 512-280-8450 or
Alan McKendree 512-338-3464  ai.amck@mcc.com
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2307 talk.politics.guns:11321
From: amck@ut-emx.uucp (Alan McKendree)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:56:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Apr1.175659.22188@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>In article <10675@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@uofs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>|> In article <1992Mar27.185537.8790@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:
>|> > What is his stance on gun control 
>|> 
>|> I have not heard him state a policy on gun control.
>
>On "60 Minutes" he stated he was in favor of gun control.

I don't know on what _60 Minutes_ you heard or were told you heard this,
but if you mean the March 29 interview (the only _60 Minutes_ I am aware
of in which Perot spoke), he said no such thing.  I have watched the
tape 3 times including once to verify my recall on this point, and the
subject never arose.

It did state that he was pro-choice on abortion and favors a law
limiting executive's salaries in the private sector.

>"You are getting hung up unnecessarily by the use of the words (and
>their associated meanings).  What you should be doing is _ignoring_
>the actual words...the words themselves are completely unimportant."
>--brian@coombs.anu.edu.au

On the slight chance you actually believe the quote in your sig, here
are a few "unimportant" words for you to ignore on your way to divining
their "associated meanings": jfjdsl jfsljefi anlfien nf selinfesnnf mnv

Alan
-- 
Alan						amck@emx.cc.utexas.edu
         $100/month for 30 years @ 15% interest = $692,327.96
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser)
Subject: Re: Lecture: Refutation of Environmentalism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: austin
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:30:44 GMT

amck@emx.utexas.edu (Alan McKendree) writes:

>What is the environmentalism movement?  What arguments must one accept
>in order to accept the conclusions of environmentalism?  What scientific
>basis is there for its claims?

>Hear for the first time the case _against_ environmentalism.


>                  Topic:  The Toxicity of Environmentalism

>                  Date:  Wednesday, April 15, 7:00 p. m.

>		  Place:  Batts Hall Auditorium, U.T. campus
>			  (just southeast of the main tower)
>		  
>		  Speaker:  Dr. George Reisman
>			    Professor of Economics, Pepperdine University
>		  
>		  Admission:  $5, general public
>			      free to U.T. students and faculty

>                  A question and answer period will follow.


>Dr. Reisman will not merely challenge the scientific claims of
>environmentalism; he will challenge its moral and philosophical base:
>the idea that nature has intrinsic value apart from and against man.

>Dr. Reisman will demonstrate that the inherent nature of production and
>economic activity is to improve _man's_ environment.  He will defend
>science, technology and capitalism against the reactionary "greens" who
>wish to return to the pre-industrial era--even to the stone age.

>If you are uncomfortable with arguments that "everybody knows" the
>environment is in trouble; that living standards must inevitably decline
>if we are to "save the planet"; that we must "take charge" (beginning
>with kindergarten students) to "rescue spaceship Earth", you need to hear
>this lecture.  If you believe these arguments, you need to hear it even
>more.



   I'd never call myself an environmentalist, but isn't this a little bit
childish? From what I gather, most environmentalists want to cut down on
pollution, waste, dangerous chemcials, etc. Sure there are flakes who want
to turn the clock back and associate environmental destruction with 
capitalism (a ridiculous association...you want to see a ravaged environment
look at any Eastern European country) but in all fairness, I don't think most
environmentalists consider themselves as part of some large political
reactionary movement. You should avoid making such generalizations.

--
Richard J. Rauser   "I like fighting Chun Li.
rauser@sfu.ca        Especially when I slide under her legs and glance up."
WNI                                       -Dhalsim

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:58:29 GMT

In article <56969@cup.portal.com>,
atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>
> >>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
> >>political party.
> >
> >Is it really the fastest growing?  Is it growing at all?  By what measure:
> >votes, money raised, TV and newspaper coverage, or what?  Please post the
> >relevant statistics or retract this claim.
>
>Paying membership in California is now up 100% over a year ago.  In San
>Mateo County, up 230%.

Well, I wasn't going to toot my own horn quite that much but
actually San Mateo membership is now well over three times what it
was about one year ago and closing fast on quadrupling.  :-)

/June
(Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,misc.entrepreneurs
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:43:08 -0500

In article <whtjhfg.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>In article hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>
>>The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank[United States v.
>>Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)] held that no indictment could be
>>properly brought since the right "of bearing arms for a lawful
>>purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it
>>in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
>
>Is this correct?  I was under the impression from your post that RKBA is
>a right, but the above, as I read it, says something different.
>
>Jon Noring

The Constitution neither creates nor grants rights, it merely recognizes 
the existence of certain rights among others not enumerated. The RKBA
pre-exists and is independent of the Constitution as are the others
rights recognized there.
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2455 talk.politics.misc:18242
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:22:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.145442.11702@watson.ibm.com>,
platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703198965@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:
>|> >ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
>|> >ei> employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
>|> >ei> Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
>|> >ei> a beauty salon and training program without a license.
>
>This is not typical of the kind of legislation that would be
>considered 'liberal.'  It does not have anything to do with job
>safety.  It does not have anything to do with job security, or
>health benefits.  It looks like the kind of thing that would
>have come from a special interest group (existing cosmetology
>businesses) trying to cut back on competition.

It's certainly not classical liberalism, but it fits in perfectly with
what passes for liberalism today in the US.  It has to do with the
government increasing its power, size, and control.  Special interest
groups are one of the best tools it has for this purpose.
-- 
Two is company, three is an orgy.
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2399 talk.politics.misc:17833
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Involuntary Servitude/Military Service
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:54:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Apr13.035408.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.224730.8177@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> "Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for
>> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
>> (emphasis added)
>
>	Does this amendment preclude us from being forced into military service
>like in Vietnam?  Was this ever argued then?

Don't recall this one being successfully used.  The First Amendment was, though.









--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2417 alt.society.civil-liberty:3405
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:49:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr7.051443.3843@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.154631.7425@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>I submit that a libertarian has virtually no chance of getting past
>>the primary (if that far) running in either major party unless
>>there is an unassailable incumbent running for reelection on the
>>other side.  Just look how the Democrats have treated Larry Agran.
>>At least this way we can campaign all the way to November.  And just
>>how many libertarians do you know who've been elected as
>>Republicans?
> 
> Depends what you mean by a libertarian.  If you mean someone who tows
> the extremist Libertarian Party line, then this person has little chance
> of winning or of being noticed regardless of what he does.  Even in this
> case, however, the Republican route offers benefits: a massive advertising
> campaign in New Hampshire *might* yield results, after which the person
> would have to be taken seriously; of course, if he didn't disguise his
> views, his campaign would probably implode shortly thereafter.
> 
> But if you take a more inclusive view of what counts as a libertarian,
> then there are plenty of libertarian Republicans.  Governor William Weld of
> Massachusetts is very libertarian, as are Pierre Du Pont (former Deleware
> governor and presidential candidate), and Congressman Tom Campbell.

	Republicans may be libertarian on economic issues, but they tend 
not to be on personal liberty issues (which I find distinctly more 
important). Admittedly, conservative Democrats aren't any better.
	-Allen
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:34:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr6.154631.7425@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes...

I believe June is being a little overpessimistic about "Libertarian
Republican" chances, although I agree that in general the Libertarian
message is lost when surrounded by the right wing of that party.

Colorado's Attorney General is a former member of the Colorado
Libertarian Party.  She was elected as a Republican.

The leading candidate for the Republican nomination to run against
Senator Tim Wirth is a "l"ibertarian former State Senator.  Very popular.
(Note, I call him a libertarian based on his positions, not on any claims
by him).

So, it can be done.  But, it requires some kowtowing to the Republican
establishment and the absence of a good "right wing" choice.  In fact,
Wirth only won election in the first place because this
libertarian-leaning State Senator was denies nomination by the
Republicans in favor of a more traditional republican.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:37:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.145442.11702@watson.ibm.com>,
platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703198965@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:
>|> >ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
>|> >ei> employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
>|> >ei> Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
>|> >ei> a beauty salon and training program without a license.
>
>This is not typical of the kind of legislation that would be
>considered 'liberal.'  It does not have anything to do with job
>safety.  It does not have anything to do with job security, or
>health benefits.  It looks like the kind of thing that would
>have come from a special interest group (existing cosmetology
>businesses) trying to cut back on competition.

Dan, you simply don't understand how these games are played.  No one
*ever* proposes licensing as a way to limit competition.  It's
always in the interest of protecting the public from unscrupulous
operators who would gouge and defraud us at every opportunity
without it.  It is, of course, only a mere coincidence that the
people who are calling for such legislation are the existing
practitioners who already meet the proposed entrance requirements.

>Further, this kind of legislation is implemented on a state
>level, and is usually agreed to by both parties as a way to
>raise revenues (licensing fees).

This particular case was in Washington, D.C.  as I recall.  And most
license fees claim they are only to recover the cost of
administering the licensing program --- at least when they're first
proposed.

>Dan

/June
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2421 talk.politics.guns:11591 talk.politics.misc:18006
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Involuntary Servitude/Military Service
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:54:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <1992Apr8.224730.8177@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> "Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
> (emphasis added)

	Does this amendment preclude us from being forced into military service
like in Vietnam?  Was this ever argued then?
	Just wondering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:12:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.180831.18189@cs.rochester.edu>,
fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>So that's their problem, you say?  When chemicals back up into the house
>water, they can also back up into the water mains and poison the neighbors.
>The only way to prevent this would be the installation of anti-backup valves
>on every individual house line, at enormous capital and continuing cost.

My water comes from a small (10 house) water co-op in the Santa Cruz
Mountains.  Our supply is an untreated surface supply -  yes I said
untreated.  Everyone on the line knows the risks and every time we
see a "For Sale" sign go up we make sure that any prospective
buyers are also informed of the risks.

We also do all our own plumbing.  When I replumbed the line from the
main to my house I installed both a check-valve and a bypass
line around it so I could take it off-line for replacement or
repair.  As I recall it cost me under $15 for a two inch plastic
valve.  Now admittedly if the valve had had to be installed by a
licensed plumber and inspected by the building department (I suppose
the building department would claim they should have inspected it
but we're also a bit loose about permits in our part of the world
too :-) but it has worked just fine ever since and I have the peace
of mind of knowing that I can't accidentally poison anyone but
myself if I turn some valves the wrong way someday and send
fertilizer into the waterline (actually unlikely as all irrigation
lines have anti-siphon valves as well).

/June
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Involuntary Servitude/Military Service
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:39:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.035408.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Apr8.224730.8177@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> > "Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for
|> > crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
|> > within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
|> > (emphasis added)
|> 
|> 	Does this amendment preclude us from being forced into military service
|> like in Vietnam?  Was this ever argued then?
|> 	Just wondering.

   Apparently in our governments infinite wisdom, military conscription
is a proper punishment for the heinous crime of being 18. If this argument
was used in the 60's wrt the draft, it wasn't a very load part of the debate.
To my knowledge, no cases of this sort ever reached the supreme court.
Perhaps Mr. Frank or Mr. Starr might know whether this argument was ever
made in lower courts, and if so what happened. I'd be interested as well.
-- 


		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)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism