HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:50:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul27.224708.3014@rice.edu> kamine@is.rice.edu (Jorge Hershel Kamine) writes:
>Not having first hand experience in many of the arguments offered
>in the excerpts of Chomsky's work, I feel it would be
>inappropriate to argue their accuracy without questioning the
>accuracy of my indirect sources.  I would ask a question of those
>who feel the Castro dictatorship has been vilified by the U.S.
>government and not by its own hand.  Why does Castro's government
>maintain such tight emigration regulations? 

Where in Chomsky's article is there any support for the Castro
government?  Well let me skip to the answer, there is none.  In fact, I
don't think Chomsky feels there is a single good, moral government on
earth.

There may be some problems with Chomsky's viewpoint but support of Casto
(whom Chomsky most certainly doesn't) isn't one of them.

Paul.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13578 talk.politics.misc:36172 soc.culture.latin-america:2740
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:43:30 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
: 
: :                       I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
: : would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  
: 
: And, why should they have to? Why should I be required to sell my goods,
: which I own until you pay me for them, to you if I do not wish to do so?
: There are others that will sell to you, if I do not - maybe I do not like

But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
Blacks.  

: "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
: have a reason for complaint.
: 
But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  


Kathy
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13200 talk.politics.misc:34864
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: The history of the Red Army Fraction (RAF)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:16:39 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Jul20.161609.26645@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.024354.2700@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
...
>>     In August, the George Jackson Commando of the RAF/AD
>>attacked the Rhein-Mein Air Base due to its role as "a centre for
>>war against the Third World." In order to gain access to the
>>airbase, the RAF executed an American G.I. and used his I.D. card
>>to get them in.
> 
> In particular, mind explaining why this killing was anything but a
> cold blooded murder?  If the RAF is justified in killing its enemies
> then why shouldn't the Germans and the US kill RAF members on sight
> instead of trying to arrest them?

	Actually they should be tranked and staked up in the hometowns of their
victims.

	Let the public pass judgement.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13490 alt.society.revolution:421
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:07:43 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <rdippold.711843594@maui>, rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?
|> 
|> No, crime isn't acceptable when it's done by a private individual _or_
|> a government.  That's one of the big distinctions, in fact.  Statists
|> usually give government the right to do something that would be
|> considered a crime if it was committed by a group of people.
|> 
Gee, I thought it was the other way around.

I thought libertarians gave companies the right to do something
that they would consider illegal if it were done by the
government.  

For example, libertarians would allow my
insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: scottj@gumedlib.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Georgetown University Medical Library
Followup-To: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:17:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.georgetown.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <l6ttlaINNsl8@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael
Polen) wrote:
> 
> In article <archer.156@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> |> In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> |> 
> |> >For example, libertarians would allow my
> |> >insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
> |> >forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
> |> >with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
> |> >me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
> |> >think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
> |> >are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.
> |> 
> |> Un uh.  At that point, your insurance carrier is infringing on YOUR right to 
> |> free association, at the Libertarian POV is that the government IS 
> |> responsible for preventing individuals from infringing on each other's 
> |> rights.
> |> 
> So it is the governments responsibility to prevent a golf club from letting
> me invite to lunch whomever I want to freely associate with?  I assume
> you don't believe that (please correct me if I'm wrong).  So the questions
> boil down to who decides what the rules are when two peoples rights come
> into conflict.  Libertarians?

Actually, T. Archer got it wrong.  The insurance carrier is not infringing
anybody's rights because there is no threat of force.  You are free not to
sign the contract.  In practice, the insurance company would be insane to
place such an inappropriate and useless clause in the contract.  And if
they
did, another insurance company would be insane not to take advantage of the
situation and offer you (and *millions* like you) a contract with no such
clause.  This goes double in a libertarian society with no government
mandated insurance where insurance companies would be forced by the market
to provide maximal services for minimal fees.  An insurance company in such
a marketplace would be committing suicide if even a small percentage of
their
potential customers refused to sign their bizarre contract.

-John L. Scott
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13202 talk.environment:2861
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Do libertarians assume everyone is rational?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:25:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.135635.23047@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
>Subject: Do libertarians assume everyone is rational?
>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:56:35 GMT

>In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>>belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>>happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>>in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>>mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

>We don't assume that everyone is rational. All we assume is that, on
>the balance, most people behave in a self interested manner. Evolution
>has indeed made people that way; those that don't try to survive
>rarely leave offspring. Overall, we've got lots of empirical evidence
>for our positions, so it seems like a good bet.
>--
>Perry Metzger           pmetzger@shearson.com
>--
>                  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
>                         Extropian and Proud.
Excuse me, but I thought 'acting on self-interest' was of the very essence 
of rationality? Maybe not. I don't see what else it could be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Masturbation to Ayn Rand
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 22:38:59 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> There is only so much I can take from these long, painfully
> sophist temper-tantrums...If you would only pass your
> conclusions through the most rudimentary reality check, you might
> realize how your inane mutterings ring so painfully hollow...
>	You harp and scream and whine ....all the
> inherent contradictions of your bourgeous, private property dreams are
> close to tumbling asunder under the mere glance of critical thought...
> a self-aggrandizing, knee-jerk philosophy which places at its 
> centerpiece the sophist, self-pleasing, masturbation to ayn rand and
> the me-first, lazy, knee-jerk rationalizations of our social status...
>
> And think about why you are always SO SO SO defensive.

This is the BEST satire I have ever seen of optimally cretinous PC
babbling.  I plan to run off a hard copy and read it at the next
Libertarian Party meeting.  We'll laugh our asses off!

Thanks for making my day.   :-)


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13414 soc.motss:32410 talk.politics.misc:35747 alt.individualism:4534
From: chas@netcom.com (Chuck Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:34:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>statist government.
>
>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

Sorry, but I refuse to accept that this issue only has two approaches.
Rather, I think that there are a spectrum of responses.  Some people
seem to forget history--there have been reasons why we have the system
that we have today.  I'll agree that there has been a curtailment of
"individual freedoms" in recent years, but I wouldn't blame that wholly
on "liberals".  The biggest threat I see today are from moral
fundamentalists who want to codify their moral precepts for all of
society.  I see these people as an analog to Moslem fundamentalists in
the Middle East.

Chuck

-- 
Chuck Fisher                                  Work: (800) 359-7997 
chas@netcom.com  IP address: 192.100.81.100   Home: (415) 964-2819
{apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:31:10 GMT

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
: In article <1992Jul22.183932.520@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
: 
: 
: >In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
: 
: >>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism
: >>and me: a belief that people are guided by rationale,
: >>maximalisation of happiness, and concious thinking about the
: >>cutting edges of judgements in life, with total disregard of
: >>things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
: >>like-me-not-like-me instincts.  People aren't rational.
: 
: >Bingo!
: 
: >Well said and said well.
: 
: 
: So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
: of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
: statist government.
: 
: I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider 
voting libertarian. You are an unenlightened idiot if you think that makes 
me anti-liberty. 

By the way, how's Dr. Pangloss?


Kathy
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Jul26.032226.28052@seq.uncwil.edu>
	<1992Jul27.005959.4228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
	<1992Jul28.002538.19066@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.002538.19066@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

   In article <1992Jul27.005959.4228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
   >
   >Ah. You have an "Al Gore Degree In Scientific Studies", eh?
   >
   >MD
   >-- 
   >--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
	^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^
   And just what exactly does this mean?  To me it looks like you're trying
   to make yourself out to be something more than you are.

   Paul.

Sorta like Patent Pending. It works just as good as a patent.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.


Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob  
Strom) writes:

> For example, libertarians would allow my
> insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
> forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
> with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
> me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
> think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
> are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.
> 
Come on! How would the insurance company "coerce" you in a libertarian society?  
You have a right to switch insurance companies or start one of your own.  The  
government right now coerces you to associate with groups of its choosing. You  
don't see it because you think the activity is morally correct.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: 'terrorists' vs. 'freedom-fighters'
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:06:25 GMT

According to a (rather intelligent, by usenet standards) post by Greg Alt,
George Bush once described the difference between 'terrorists' and 'freedom-
fighters' as follows: apparently, terrorists "...kill and maim defenceless
men, women, and children...Freedom fighters, in contrast, seek to adhere to
international law and civilized standards of conduct."

Hmm...is this the same George Bush, former CIA-head, who helped put Pinochet
in power in Chile? Who turned away as China slaughtered dissident students
and workers? Who helped arm Iraq and Saddam "Hitler" Hussein and ignored his
genocide of the Kurds? Who waged war against this same former-ally Iraq,
resulting in the deaths of thousands of "defenceless men, women, and 
children"? Who forcefully repatriates Haitian refugees, against international
law? 

Hmm...the FMLN guerrillas were strict adherents to international modes of 
conduct; the same can't be said for El Salvador's death-squads which were
armed and trained by the US. And what about Iran-Contra? Not only were the
contras 'terrorists', that clandestine scheme violated all national and
international laws...but none of the government officials responsible are in
prison.

A note to the Net right-wing: think before you write.


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

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bill@ihpds1.att.com (Bill Duncan)
Subject: Any one have phone # for AMA?
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:42:00 GMT


I'm trying to get info from the AMA about insurance
guidelines they set up last year. It would appear that
according to their guidelines, if something happens
to a child before the child acquires speech, speech
therapy is to be considered "education" and not "therapy".

Does anyone have their phone number - they don't have
an 800 number listed in the directory and I can't find
any way of contacting them.

Thanks,
Bill Duncan
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Bill Duncan                        AT&T Bell Labs  |
| bill@ihpds1.att.com                Naperville IL   |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:

>For example, libertarians would allow my
>insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
>forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
>with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
>me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
>think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
>are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.

Un uh.  At that point, your insurance carrier is infringing on YOUR right to 
free association, at the Libertarian POV is that the government IS 
responsible for preventing individuals from infringing on each other's 
rights.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: mojo@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: political prisoner Alan Berkman is free!
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.143331.13122@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
>subject: Alan Berkman is free!
>posted by: AF/ATS
>--
>
>	POLITICAL PRISONER ALAN BERKMAN IS FREE AT LAST!
>
>	We are pleased to announce that on Friday July 10, political
>prisoner Alan Berkman was finally released from prison. Alan had been in jail
>since 1985, serving a prison term relating to a series of armed political
>actions against US military installations and corporations which support
>imperialist world policies. These actions were carried out in the early 80s 
>and included actions by the Red Guerrilla Resistance and the 1983 bombing of
>the US Capitol building in protest of the US invasion of Grenada; this action
>was claimed by the Armed Resistance Unit.

Hmm.. five postings recounting the history of RAF terrorism since 1974,
and now this. Gosh, I'm all kinds of happy for Berkman.
Sure makes me a believer in the RAF!

Is it possible that this is an automated posting from the John Birch Society?

Usenet is so confusing sometimes..



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	mojo@polari.online.com		USENET: The art of noise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jcm@amara.UUCP (John Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: one more data point on third-party candidates
Summary: lost the original query; Larry Holden, candidate for prez
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:47:38 GMT
Reply-To: jcm@squid.adi.com (John Martin)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Applied Dynamics, Ann Arbor, MI  USA


Someone posted a query a bit over a week ago seeking info on
third-party presidential candidates.  I recently came upon some
literature about a fellow named Larry Holden.

The contact info is:

    Jerry Kvasnicka
    303-667-6319

or

    Dr. Larry Holden
    P.O. Box 1026
    Loveland, CO  80539

From the literature I saw, it looks like Holden is on the road most
of the time, so the phone-number route is probably the quickest way to
find out more.

Holden is trying to form a new political party called the Human Party
for elections to all levels of government, and "is reaching out for
support from all groups and individuals concerned with personal and
societal transformation, social and economic justice, environmental
protection, world peace and other international concerns."

I've no affiliation with his campaign and know nothing about him apart
from the literature I've received (BTW if there's anyone with an OCR
near Ann Arbor who'd be willing to scan the literature, I'll be happy
to post if there's interest).  Anyone out in netland know anything more
about him?
--
John Martin, Applied Dynamics International, Ann Arbor, MI, (313)973-1300
           jcm@adi.com   ..OR TRY..   ...!heifetz!amara!jcm
           last resort:  jcm%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: Preferred Discrimination
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:31:58 GMT

In article <archer.193@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>You cannot know how others have suffered, or why, because you have not been 
>them.  Do not belittle the suffering of others.  
>
>I was not annoyed, I was beaten senseless on a fairly consistent basis.
>
It probably felt no better despite the fact that no "hate crime" was involved.
When people abuse you, the reasoning behind it is of little importance.
You don't have to be a member of an easily identifiable minority group.

Jens
Newsgroups: alt.activism