HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:54:49 GMT


From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
>huzzah, Mr. Shein! you cut an entire article into 2 tiny fragments, 
>ignores the relevant parts, and proceed to utilize that terribly 
>effective ad hom. method of argument. truely, your powers of reason 
>are astonishing.

Sorry, but you have removed the evidence and then denied it?

OK, here it is again:

pjs>> >I don't want big companies to be responsible to repair damages they
bzs   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pjs>> >make.  Currently the government taxes us, using guns if necessary, 
pjs>> >to pay into environmental clean-up funds.  Libertarians would have 
bzs>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pjs>> >wanted to have Exxon to pay for all the clean-up of their actions.
bzs>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
bzs>> Huh?
>
steiner>great retort. what is it that you don't understand?

RECAP: the ^^^'d lines appear to be in complete contradiction and both
appeared in the same paragraph from someone else. I noticed the
contradiction and said "Huh?". Then Mr Jason "reading R us" Steiner
comes back with "great retort, what is it that you don't understand?"

I pointed out, in response, that had he bothered to read the above he
would have seen the contradiction which prompted the "Huh?" Now, he is
annoyed at having been made to look silly.

As such, good night.

>straight into my killfile. g'day.

There is little doubt that were he not a child angered by public
embarrassment (at his own hand) he might have something to say here...

Ah well, please put me in your kill file, it is far too annoying to
have to point out that your entire objection is based on a simple
inability to read what is plainly there, and even worse to try to deal
with someone who, when so informed, throws a tantrum!

At any rate, the fact that the original poster quickly thereafter
pointed out that his own words were in error (an honest mistake) it
doesn't leave much doubt as to what is going on here.

And as to Mr Steiner's complaint of being the victim of an "ad
hominem" attack: 1. You should look the term up in a book of rhetoric,
it is not synonymous with "insult" and 2. Pointing out that you are an
idiot is simple matter of fact and relevant to countering your
argument, since you cannot read what you are responding to that is
worth documenting.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:50:16 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan7.154932.27455@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>An analogy:  You invite a person for a cruise on your yacht.  Your spouse/lover
>thinks the person is a total bore.  You're days, maybe weeks from the nearest
>port, and that might even take you off course, you can't bear this person's 
>presence any longer, so you force him to leave.  And if he might be able
>to make it on a life raft, that would make you look bad, so it's better to
>just kill him now and avoid any embarrassment should he survive.  Even if 
>you're only a day from port and the poor guy can't swim, you can still
>throw him overboard.
>
	But there was a probably an assumed contract between you and the
guest that you would provide for him for the duration of the cruise.  He
would not come if he thought you could chuck him like that.  But it is
arguable whether a woman has made any such assumed contract with the fetus
[ASSUMING, of course, for the sake of argument that a fetus is human
enough to speak meaningfully of its 'liberties' regarding contracts and
existence.]
			-- Damien R. Sullivan  [X-) Kiljoy]
42 | AIXELSYD | Phoenix (Brand shall return to Amber!) | Neo-anarchy now!
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's right. | "Nee!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3047 comp.org.eff.talk:8350 alt.amateur-comp:489 soc.culture.usa:9486 alt.activism:20089
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:10:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.224901.25018@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.024553.15531@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan11.132106.24656@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
>bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan11.005426.11142@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>> >>In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu  
>(Mr. Grinch) writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
>> >>>the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
>> >>>Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
>> >>>explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
>> >>>
>> >>	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
>> >>alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original  
>consent.
>> >>
>> >
>> >*I* will agree that the Constitution *is* a social contract (at least
>> >as long as the *government* also abides by it) . I think
>> >however, that the Southern point of view in the pre-Civil war period  
>was 
>> >that the Consitution which they agreed to was not necessarily a  
>*perpetual* 
>> >contract.  I think they also believed that the government was exceeding  
>the
>> >intent of the original contract and had violated it, thereby
>> >making it null and void. The real issue of the Civil War was
>> >states rights IMHO. 
>> >
>> 	Agreed.  That's why I through in withdrew.  All I was arguing was
>> that they originaly concented.  Besides, the contract doesn't contain an
>> experation date, and in the preambe explicitly states that it is to
>> continue on after the authourship is dead.  There is no way the south
>> could argue it is not prepetual.
>How did they orginally consent? All the people in the states did not  
>consent to the consitution and although the consitution does say it will  
>continue on perpertually it cannot bind people who did not consent to it  
>unless the living can bind the dead.
	the legitimate govt. of the south signed the contract.  Though it
seems to me, more and more what your really arguing is that there is no
such thing as a legitmate govt. because the people do not neccesarily all
sign a contract.  If this is what your arguing, I'll drop out and leave
you to enforce contracts in states like Labanon and Somalia.

--JMB
From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Paying for education
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:32:43 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

Mike Huben writes:
>Considering that room, board, and tuition at most top-notch universities costs
>close to the median family income in the US, its pretty obvious that
>Libertarianism would tie quality of education to family wealth as closely as
>it is tied in most third world nations

Whenever one sees "of course", or "it is obvious", one should look at
the statement carefully.  In this case, Mr Huben's "obvious" statement
does not fly.  The difference between our nation and the third world
is obvious: money!  We got it.  They don't.  Education -- a capital
intensive affair -- can be arranged here in ways that could never work
in the third world due to the far greater affuence of our society.


>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  

The government does not owe you an education, nor is the government
capable of generating wealth, as you are implying.  The government is
certainly capable of redistributing wealth -- but that wealth has to
ALREADY be there, somewhere, to be redistributed.  In this case, the
government took money from many folks to pay for your education.  This
is a sense fair, however, since you will now be forced to pay money
until you die, partly for other folks' educations.

An education IS worth it, even at today's prices.  It may cost $60K
for your four years at Uppity U., but that amount will be easily
recovered via the increased salary you can expect to command over the
course of the rest of your life.  Therefore, it should be worth it for
students to BORROW their $60K from a financial institution, subject to
repayment over, say, a ten year "mortgage" starting in four years.
This would have the pleasant effect of cutting the government, with
its inherent inefficiency and complication, out of the system.  Also,
and morally more importantly, it would remove the need for the use of
force currently maintained by the government in order to force
"repayment" from the educated and non-educated alike.

The main problem that our society would need to address before such a
system could become real is the lack of any system for financial
institutions (including, sadly, our own government) to recover money
from ex-students who default repayment on their loans.  It would be
nice if people could contract with the government to "tax" them
"extra" at some rate to pay into things like student loans or IRAs.
(I know taxes aren't LibPC, but insofar as this "tax" is voluntarily
contracted for, it doesn't count as a tax.)  Lenders could then merely
stipulate such a contract for their repayment as a term, freeing them
from worrying about your default except via your own unemployment or
death, for which they (or you) would get insurance.

-Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:04:18 GMT

In article <1ivu91INN8ha@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.015935.13567@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>> >What, we base the law on the sender's intent? 
>> 
>> 	Yes, we generally do this.  For example I could get charged with
>> murder ! (death or life imprisonment) or Manslauter 2 (probably just
>> probation) based solely upon intent.  Besides, werre talking about
>> property rights here.  Generally the owners opinion is an important one.
>
>No, such laws are based on the OFFENDER's intent.  In your case, the 
>offender is the listener, not the broadcaster.  According to your rules, 
>the listener is or is not committing an offense depending solely on the 
>motives of the transmitter.  Not bloody reasonable.
>
>> >How about police radar?
>> >How about police scanners?  How about FBI radio bugs?  
>> 
>> 	What about them?  I don't see what your getting at.
>
>Well, police don't WANT you to detect their radar, and many of them
>would rather you don't listen to their voice transmissions (at least,
>for example, not in a parked car outside a bank).  Using your own
>logic:
>
>> >("I swear, your honor, at the time I broadcast,
>> >I really DIDN'T want anyone else to hear that.") 
>> 
>> 	Then why did you braodcast it.  My guess it the Judge would think
>> you were full of it.
>
>the police could not complain that I intercepted their radar.  Right?
>
>Sorry.  Having the criminality of an act depend on the unprovable motives
>of a third party is a little too nondeterministic for me.
>-- 
>
>cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
>
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 9 Jan 1993 21:02 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan8.232301.21934@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>	Yes a radio reciever is sort of a decryption device, however when
>one braodcasts a radio signal the intent is for the people at alarge to
>listen to it; you have the owners consent.  When one broadcasts a encrpted
>signal the intent is the opposite.  How doesn't it follow that the law
>should be different?
> 
>--JMB
> 
> 
Here we come to the critical issue:  the law.    The ethical questions are 
quite complex,  but as far as law goes it seems pretty clear to me.
Lets say you make it illegal to intercept and decode encrypted signals.
I'll assume you agree with me that it's a bad idea to have laws on the books
that are generally not enforced.  How the hell do you plan on enforcing this 
law?  By outlawing equipment that might be used to decrypt signals?  By
making anyone who owns such equipment register it and breaking down their 
doors on anonymous tips to see if they're using it illegally? By forbidding 
anyone from pointing out that a piece of eqipment could possibly be used for
decryption?  There's no way to enforce a law like this withiut trampling all
over people's liberties!

Mr. Grinch after a few


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@caine.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:19:31 GMT


> 
> 	I'm sorry but I couldn't let this one slip by.  Take a look at who
> is forming this contract, the constitution:
> 	
> 		WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to FORM a
> perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide  
for
> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  
Blessings
> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
> 
> 	At the bottom it signed by the representatives of the people and
> later ratified by the states.  If this were a corporate contract  
wouldn't
> you consider it binding?
> 
> --JMB

No. For starts the representatives were NOT given the power to make the  
constitution by anybody other than themselves. Additionally as I wrote in  
my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone who is  
bound by the constitution consented to it. Many people opposed the  
constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention did a  
sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional conventions.  
And the orginal consitution was not signed, signatures were added by  
publishers of copies later. Also the US is not a corporation. Even if the  
people alive had consented to it they could not have bound their posterity  
(us) to it. Read my original post carefully and you'll see I addressed  
these arguments.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:00:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.050733.29236@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>In article <1ib136INN99s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don Pavlish) writes:
>>become quite strained. The 20-30 percent chunk that gets sent to
>>Washington would certainly go a long away towards tuition, no matter

>I agree with everything you said, except your "20-30 percent chunk" is
>far, far too small. Remeber that 15% of your income goes for Social
>Security alone. Add to that your 15-30% income tax, the 4-10% tax on
>everything you buy, the tax on the gasoline you put in your car, the
>tax on the tobacco you may smoke, the tax on the alcohol you may drink,
>the tax on the property you may own, the tax on your utilities, and
>the dozens of other taxes, and you're into quite a large percentage
>-- perhaps even a majority-- of your money going to the government.

Yeah, if you leave out huge middle class tax subsidies like the home
mortgage deduction.

And if you're willing to abolish the department of defense, too.

And if you're arguing that you wouldn't purchase through private
industry many of the services the government provides you, now.  Maybe
they would be cheaper, but they'd still be there.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: caforce@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (DALE FORCE)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: inet
Date:  7 Jan 1993 11:11 EST  

In article <5JAN199322005903@venus.tamu.edu>, gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes...
>In article <1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
> >In article <4JAN199322424251@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
> >>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
> >> >> >>>
> >>Most taxes are paid by the middle class.  The middle class can't possibly
> >>save money by paying taxes to subsidize universities rather than paying the
> >>university directly.
> > 
> >Actually, it can.  Simply because meritocratic distribution of college funding
> >can have better results than nepotistic funding.  And that's exactly my point
> >above: in most third world nations, college funding is primarily nepotistic. 
> >Reliance on nepotistic funding guarantees waste of the talents of the pool of
> >candidates that haven't wealthy relatives.
>[lot of stuff deleted]
>Your argument seems to be that there is a social advantage if the rich pay for
>educating the mentally gifted poor,  which may be true but it is essentially
>irrelevant;  government subsidy of education is primarily a transfer from
>the middle class to the mddle class.
> 
This can occur without government involvement. My father was trained as an 
engineer by his employer.
>>>
> >[lots more stuff deleted}
> 
>>Mike Huben
> 
>Mr. Grinch
> 
>"Governments grow for the same reason that dogs lick their own balls:
>because they can"
>-anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Netcom
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:18:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.134440.25280@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>In article <BZS.93Jan9194221@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>
>>So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
>>something we don't disagree on ... but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
>>paradise....
>
>Errrr, hate to jump in here, but are you saying we don't have a
>"bloated lawyer's paradise" under the current system?

Of course you're right, but those who insist on raving will conveniently
ignore such sensible comments and go right on raving.

Hans
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:51:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan9.053537.6950@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

|		WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to FORM a
|perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
|the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
|of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this
|Constitution FOR the United States of America.

|	At the bottom it signed by the representatives of the people and
|later ratified by the states.  If this were a corporate contract wouldn't
|you consider it binding?

There is a big difference between the constitution and the type of social
contract that Mike has been talking about.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3463 comp.org.eff.talk:8650 soc.culture.usa:9751 alt.activism:20507
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 08:23:57 PST

In <1ihg75INN52p@armory.centerline.com>, Mike Huben writes:

>In article <C0Gxry.92C@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg
>(Ed Ipser) writes:

>[Typical libertarian education rant omitted]

>>One Democrat, at least, has recognized this, if only in terms of decisions
>>in his personal life and that of his family.

>What an incredibly stupid conclusion.

>Clinton's daughter was in public schools in Arkansas.  It strikes me as
>more likely that Clinton resents the decay and neglect of public schools by
>recent administrations, and is resolved to make them better (as he did in
>Arkansas.)

>Let Clinton represent his own views.  Your second guessing to twist his
>actions to support your views is shameful.

Yes, I agree.  But...

Most (though not all) liberals I've talked to are hypocritical about this
issue.  If it were George Bush's or Ronald Reagan's child being sent to a
private school, they would bash Reagan/Bush as "elitists" and call their child
"a spoiled rich kid."  These are the same people who would defend the same
action if done by a good Democrat.

How many times have liberals complained about the actions of the Kennedys?
Rarely if ever--their politics are more important then their behavior.  If
the Reagans did half of what the Kennedys did, they and the media would bash
them forever.  What if Ronald Reagan were involved in Chappaquiddick?  Hoo,
boy!  The same people who say "let it rest, it was 23 years ago" would *still*
be all over Reagan's ass about it.

It's the Clintons' money and it's their decision.  I can live with it.  What
I can't accept is the hypocrisy of those who defend them for it.  They would
be a pack of attack dogs if a conservative did the same thing.

I'm very tolerant of opposing viewpoints.  I'm less tolerant of lies and hypo-
crisy.  There's enough in both major parties to go around--don't get me wrong.
I just see a bit more of it from liberals and Democrats.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51