HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:09:29 MST
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

In article <1993Jan12.144230.24440@starbase.trincoll.edu>
	nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>Peace, Mr. T. The debate, such as it is, has to do with the theoretic
>underpinnings of libertarianism.

I asked you to substantiate your assertion that libertarians want to
live in a world devoid of interpersonal dependencies, such as
relationships between spouses, or relationships between parent and
child (both your examples).

>Somehow I get the impression that your interest in such matters is minimal.

Yes, you're right in saying that I don't have an interest in
discussing your straw man.  I want you to address this assertion that
you've made and for which you can't cite any supporting evidence.

>At any rate you don't seem to understand a word of the discussion.

I suspected that at some point you would simply drag out an ad-hominem
attack against me so that you could simply dismiss me because I insist
on you backing up your assertions with facts, or at least a quote from
a usenet article posted here.

>Maybe you'd do better examining the _ideological_ roots of your faith.
>But that's for another occasion.

...and here is the dismissal I expected.  Mr. Miller, I suggest that
you keep your keyboard silent if you can't back up the things you
assert.  Instead of providing evidence for your assertions, or (heaven
forbid) admitting that your assertion wasn't based on fact but on your
own personal opinion of libertarians, you insult my intelligence and
suggest that the problem of your lack of evidence is merely in my own
mind.

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: Kurdish guerillas raid Special Forces HQ
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:49:41 GMT

subject: Kurdish guerrillas raid Special Forces HQ
posted by: autonome forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PKK Guerrillas raid Diyarbakir Special Forces HQ
14.December.1992

	Last night (13.December) at about 19:05, a large ARGK (Kurdistan
People's Army for National Liberation) unit attacked the headquarters of
the Special Forces (para-military police) in the town of Diyarbakir. They
raided the headquarters with heavy machine guns. The attack lasted for 46
minutes. Sources in the region put the number of police dead at 27.
	After the guerrilla unit had withdrawn, there were clashes in the
suburbs which lasted for two hours. In these clashes, the Kurd-Ha news
agency put the number of dead Turkish soldiers at 10. They also reported that
police and army units made hundreds of random arrests.
	At about the same time, another ARGK unit ambushed a military convoy
on the road from Hani to Diyarbakir, killing 11 soldiers. This battle lasted
for 45 minutes.

For more information on the liberation struggle being waged in Turkish-occupied
Kurdistan, contact:

	Kurdistan Information Centre
	11 Portland Gardens
	London N4 1HU
	ENGLAND

	tel: 081-880-1759
	fax: 081-802-9963

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.activism:20380 talk.politics.misc:67177 alt.philosophy.objectivism:537
From: baresson@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (pete.oram)
Subject: Re: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche: 12/28/92
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:27:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.031811.8750@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>In article <231-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> covici@ccs.covici.com writes:
>>
>>{The following interview was conducted with U.S.  economist 
>					     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and statesman Lyndon LaRouche from his prison cell in Rochester, 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Minnesota on Dec. 28, 1992
><titter, chortle, guffaw....>
>
>You forgot CONVICT and CRACKPOT... 1/2 :-)
>
>	-Phil
>-- 
>PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229

Phil - why don't yourself and others like you concentrate on
trying to refute some of the ideas expressed by Lyndon LaRouche
and his associates rather than cheap jibes. 

LaRouche strikes me as a highly educated and erudite man well
able to handle any factual or philosophical argument put to him.

As for the 'crackpot' label - well, they laughed at Noah too: 
building his inland boat and preaching for 120 years with no results. 
Count me in with the sane minority.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:09:45 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <pa142548.637.726418308@utkvm1.utk.edu>, pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T.
Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan07.100312.2861@deeptht.armory.com>
rstevew@deeptht.armory.com
> (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>Out of all the liberties that could be contrived, most of them contradict
>>each other. I have the right to put my face somewhere, but you have the
>>right to swing your fist. Which prevails? 
>
>Your right to put your face.  If you deliberately and consistenly put your 
>face in the way to stop me swinging my fist, you are abusing your liberty to 
>restrict my freedom of movement, and if swinging my fist is important 
>enough, I will sue you to get you to stop.

always?  what if you happen to be swinging your fist in a very important
place, such as, say, my need for food and shelter?  what if you have
hundreds of fists and i've only got one face?

>
>> and some, including myself, believe that
>>everybody has the right to be someplace unhindered, 
>
>Sure.  "Someplace," not necessarily "anyplace."
>
>>or as one judge put it
>>when striking down a "camping" ban against the homeless, "What would the
>>state have me do, issue them all helium balloons so they could float
>>around?!" Every liberty or right that could be claimed conflicts with other
>>rights or liberties claimed. Thus, since we must make a world in which
>>people can live peaceably, then we must do away with things like "camping"
>>bans and let people take over unused structures or property, 
>
>No.  That is theft.
>
>>by natural
>>right; they have to exist somewhere! 
>
>Sure.  Where the owns choose to admit them.

unfortunately, that often turns out to be nowhere.  thus, sometimes,
people have the right to exist nowhere.  this is acceptable to you?

>
>>There is no sense denying it. Also,
>>libertarianism is amusing because they would decline to pay taxes and then
>>wonder why they had no rights to use the streets that others pay for and
>>own together by agreement, perfectly acceptable in a libertarian society,
>>and they would be trapped on their little spot of land. 
>
>If you refuse to pay your way, then you should be ommited from the user 
>pool.  What is your problem with this?

if caring for the basic needs of all citizens is essential to the
stability of society, and if you refuse to pay to provide for the
basic needs of all citizens, you would have no right to enjoy
a stable society, one feature of which is that your property rights
are guaranteed.

also, are we talking about paying in labor or in money?  poorer people
often work at least as hard and as long as wealthier people, and
their labor is as necessary as that of wealthier people, but they
get less for it.  less money.  got roads, but can't afford to take
a week off to ride them.  can't afford no t.v.
From: dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: INDIGENOUS ENVIRO PERSPECTIVE
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:01:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500469:000:1168
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 19:01:00 1993


Pointer to alt.politics.greens, topic "INDIGENOUS ENVIRO PERSPECTIVE",
for a synopsis of:
 
             INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES:
                    A North American Primer
 
    A Discussion and Series of Case Studies of North American
    Indigenous Environment Issues and a Framework for Discussion
    of Sustainable Development.  Prepared for the United Nations
    Conference on the Environment and Development, and Protecting
    Mother Earth Conference, 1992.  The report discusses the
    impact of uranium and coal mining on native lands and other
    environmental burdens shared by native peoples, along with
    suggestions for future sustainability.
 
    For a complete copy of the report or to subscribe to the
    biannually published magazine, "Indigenous Woman" contact:
 
             Indigenous Womens Network
             PO Box 174
             Lake Elmo, MN 55042
             (612)777-3629
 
     The Report costs $6.00 and the Magazine in $10.00 per year.
 
If you do not have access to alt.politics.greens and would like
a copy of the synopsis, please send an email request to
"dmcmillen@igc.apc.org" and I will email a copy.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:29:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.064823.5779@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>The exclusionary rule protects our *rights*, like the right of the
>people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects...

Oh? When did the exclusionary rule become a defense against IRS seizure
of property for failure to pay protection monies? Against invasion of
privacy by ever-encroaching government regulation?

>Yes, civil liberties are downright silly.

The fact is, the pin-head civil liberties that are debated most are the least
relevant to life as ordinary people live it.

Civil libertarians have become fixated on such issues as the fourth amendment
and the eighth amendment precisely because the important rights, the right
to life, liberty and property, have already been surrendered to the state.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:20241 talk.environment:5395 alt.native:1617
From: ACTIV-L via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.native
Subject: NEWS: Texaco Poisoning Ecuadorans
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,alt.native
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:06:34 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: environment nuclear press

[Also Posted to ACTIV-L and misc.activism.progressive (by Somebody Else)]

================================================================
=> From: nyt%nyxfer@igc.apc.org
=> Subject: Texaco Poisons Ecuador

Via The NY Transfer News Service * All the News that Doesn't Fit

TEXACO POISONS ECUADORANS

By Charles Tucker

A continuous, long-term oil spill in the Amazon forest of
Ecuador is destroying the forest and the life system it
supports there.

Texaco has extracted more than a billion barrels of oil
in 25 years of pumping in the jungle. But the U.S.-based
multi-national corporate giant has ignored the effects on
the surrounding communities and the delicate ecosystem of
the region.  Ecologist Judith Kimerling made this assertion
in a report issued by a group called SALVAM (Save the Amazon).

"Indigenous communities in the region have lost their
livelihood:  there are no animals to hunt, the rivers are dead
and lack fish, and they can't plant because the land is now
sterile.  Residents of the area suffer headaches, lung, skin
and intestinal diseases, and birth defects," Kimerling reported.

There have been continuous minor and major oil spills over
hundreds of miles of oil pipeline through the region, according
to the report.  In 1989 one such accident dumped 294,000 gallons
of oil into the Napo River.

As a result 31 Quechua communities in the area lost their crops.
But they received no aid or indemnification whatever.

"Just in the past two months there have been three oil spills at
Texaco facilities," the report continued.  The biggest affected
21 communities.  "The cause of the spill was human error, but
[it] was worsened by the lack of a containment plan to limit
and clean up the spill to the extent possible, and aid those
affected."

A "firm" agreement between Texaco and the Ecuadoran government
to protect the people's right to a contaminant-free environment
has been completely ignored.  The problem affects not only
Ecuador, but all humanity, the report emphasized.

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted
if source is cited. For more info contact Workers World, 46
W. 21 St., New York, NY 10010; email: ww%nyxfer@igc.apc.org;
"workers" on PeaceNet; on Internet: "workers@mcimail.com".)
From: orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians  (Reference to book that refutes standard fallacies)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 12:25 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <ARCHER.723.726858604@utkvm1.utk.edu>, 
ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes in reply to  
Phill Hallam-Baker [my emphasis]:
> 
>Because society cannot have rights, as it has no existance except as a 
>framework of intacting individuals or, at most, a collective group of 
>individuals acting in concert.  **You cannot say  that "blacks have a right to 
>equal access to opportunity."**  What you can say is that everyone, regardless 
>of group identity has a right to equal access to opportunity.
> 

Given any knowledge of the external world, this statement is deeply
disingenuous, since blacks (and other oppressed groups) have been historically
denied their *human rights* based on this group identity.  A claim for `a right
to equal access to opportunity' is not, given the historical context,  a
divisive attack on the moral high ground of *universal* human rights, as the
standard Ayn Rand-style fallacy would have it; it is an affirmation of the
validity of universal human rights against the *fact* of prejudice and
oppression.

This standard Randian libertarian fallacy (so convenient as ammunition
for the defense of the status quo) as well as many others,
is discussed and refuted in some detail in the book:

"With Charity Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy"
by William F. O'Neill, New York Philosophical Library, 1971.
(Library of Congress Catalogue: B949 R234 O5).

While I'm on the subject, see also:
"It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand: A Libertarian Odyssey"
by Jerome Tuccille (Stein and Day, New York, 1971) which is extremely
entertaining.


Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: john@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (John Blasik)
Subject: Re: Political newsgroups on Usenet - statistics
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:45:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.200239.2898@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In November, I noticed that alt.activism ranks surprisingly high in
>the newsgroup statistics - though to me it seems that most of the
>discussion has little to with activism but rather "alt.us.politics" as
>in alternative (meaning something like "non-demopublican") U.S.
>politics.  Now it's even higher and exceeds talk.politics.misc
>readership by 20 thousand readers instead of the 10 thousand of
>October (though the counting method has apparently changed).
>
>Here's a grep of some political newsgroups (choice of groups biased by
>my personal interests) in the December 1992 statistics (see the
>monthly posting in news.lists for an explanation of the figures):
>
>egrep 'politics|activism|libert|censorship|eff|acad-freedom|privacy'
>
                                          +-- Crossposting percentage
                                          |
                                          V

>  15  83000  2324   69%   303  1545.3    57%  0.02   5.0%  alt.activism 
>  36  63000  1761   73%  1778  5320.4    62%  0.11   3.8%  talk.politics.misc 
> 141  41000  1154   60%    62   164.6    21%  0.00   2.5%  alt.activism.d 
> 160  39000  1090   66%   187   403.1    60%  0.01   2.3%  alt.censorship 

   ...


Articles read from the x-posted group can fool arbitron into thinking
the base group is followed.

-- john
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Has Bush Gone Mad?
Summary: The Bush Thyroid Gland is Acting Up
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: treachery trickery deceit deception
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:53:35 GMT

In article <C0GIoy.56o@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)                 writes... 
>Has Bush gone mad?
> 
>Is it just me, or does it seem that Bush is desperate to get a 
>good war going somewhere, *anywhere*, in his last two weeks of 
>power? Is it just me, or do you perhaps also feel quite uneasy 
>knowing that Bush may want to go out with a bang?
> 
I don't believe that it has anything to do with his psyche. I also don't
believe that it has anything to do with "what is right." Come on, what does
ground-to-air missles have to do with a no-fly zone?
	There must be some kind of hidden agenda that is forcing
him to do this. Can anyone guess what this might be? I bet it has something
to do with those billions of dollars that Iraq has defaulted on.

>Brian Redman
>(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
>"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
> 
-Garrett
From: nicanet@nyxfer.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: CIA Agent on Che's Assassination
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:19:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:u6aVwB18w165w@nyxfer.uucp:-545257917:000:2526
Nf-From: nyxfer.uucp!nicanet    Jan  4 14:19:00 1993


Subject: CIA Agent on Che's Assassination
From: nyxfer!nicanet (NicaNet NY)


Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

excerpted from...

         Nicaragua Solidarity Network of Greater New York
       339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 (212) 674-9499

             Weekly News Update #153, January 3, 1993


CIA AGENT DESCRIBES GUEVARA EXECUTION

In an interview that ran in the Oct. 9 issue of the Catalan
magazine La Vanguardia, retired CIA agent Felix Rodriguez took
credit for executing Comandante Ernesto "Che" Guevara in Bolivia
exactly 25 years earlier. Rodriguez, a Cuban-American Bay of Pigs
veteran, was sent to Bolivia by the CIA to help capture Guevara,
who was trying to establish a guerrilla movement in the Andes,
and bring him back alive; instead, he says, the Bolivian military
caught the Argentine-born Cuban revolutionary and ordered
Rodriguez to execute the prisoner. According to Rodriguez,
Guevara was a broken man, wounded and looking "like a beggar,"
but retaining "firmness and dignity." Rodriguez says he told
Guevara: "Comandante, I'm sorry. I've tried to save your life,
but the orders of the Bolivian high command are that we execute
you." Guevara turned pale, Rodriguez goes on, but then became
very calm and said: "It's better that way. I never ought to have
been taken alive." Rodriguez says he shot Guevara at an angle in
order to maintain the fiction that the Cuban leader had been
killed in combat. For the same reason, Rodriguez took only one
picture of the prisoner before executing him. Rodriguez, who
later ran the contra resupply operation from El Salvador, now
lives in retirement in Miami. [Semanal, supplement to La Jornada
(Mexico) 11/29/92]

                               -30-

These updates are published weekly. A one-year subscription is
$25. Back issues and source materials are available on request.
(Many of our source materials are accessed through NY Transfer;
back issues are also available on NY Transfer's OnLine Library.)
Feel free to reproduce these updates or reprint any information
from them, but please credit us. We welcome your comments and
ideas: send them via NY Transfer to <nicanet%nyxfer@igc.apc.org>

+ This article may not be re-sold or repackaged as part of any +
+ commercial "product."   FREE distribution only is permitted. +
+             For distribution information, contact:           +
+ NY Transfer News Collective    *  Direct Modem: 718-448-2358 +
+ All the News that Doesn't Fit  *  Internet: nyxfer@panix.com +
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Has Bush Gone Mad?
Keywords: treachery trickery deceit deception
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:45:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <C0GIoy.56o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
>
>Has Bush gone mad?
>
>Is it just me, or does it seem that Bush is desperate to get a 
>good war going somewhere, *anywhere*, in his last two weeks of 
>power? Is it just me, or do you perhaps also feel quite uneasy 
>knowing that Bush may want to go out with a bang?
>
>Just now I have heard that this most war-like of recent 
>presidents has drawn a line in the sand of Iraq and issued an 
>ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Hey George, can't it wait two weeks? 
>What's the hurry?
>
>[deleted]
>
	Perhaps he's campaigning for his
	next political office as

	U.N. Secretary General     :-(

>
>


-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain. And pick flowers in 
other people's gardens And learn to spit. -- "Warning" by Jenny Joseph
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Motivated libertarians (was: Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:38:37 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <C0F12L.LzH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, drhg9552@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Darrell
Roy Hougen) writes:
>pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>
>% It is unfortunate that
>% some of the best known libertarians did not have a sense of civic duty
>% (like Ayn Rand) and as a result have kept some people from examining
>% these promising ideas as a solution to many of the problems we face
>% today, such as poverty and war.
>
>I don't think it is correct to say that Ayn Rand did not have a sense
>of civic duty.  Afterall, she spent many years of her life trying to
>promote a philosophy that she believed would be good for everyone.  I
>think the above sentiment derives from a misunderstanding of her
>philosophy of rational self interest.  One must understand that
>helping one's self can also be a way of helping other people.  For
>instance, successful businesses are usually generated by people that
>work hard at finding ways to benefit other people.  For example, the
>founders of the airlines reasoned that people could benefit from rapid
>transportation and would therefore be willing to handsomely compensate
>the provider of that service.  Similarly, Rand knew that she would be

indeed.  the tobacco industry, for example, supplys products that
benefit consumers, and spend billions yearly to convince congress
and the public of this benefit.  United Fruit provides plump
morsels for middle class americans while workers in california and
south america get poisoned by pesticides for a few cents an hour.
you local electric company reasons that you will pay handsomely for
electricity and gas because you have little choice.  landlords
reason that you will pay handsomely for their apartments because
you need a place to live.  macdonalds reasons that people should
have cheap and plentiful meat while forests are razed and
indigenous peoples displaced.  some people benefit, some
people benefit a great deal, and a great deal of people get fucked.
this here is the free market.

>profits are not direct.  Even better is to find profitable ways of
>helping those that need it.  It is the ultimate moral triumph to find
>a way of benefitting everyone including one's self.
                      ^^^^^^^^

which necessitates limiting the extent to which oneself can benefit.

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: alt.activism