HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:43:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.205551.18554@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct1.161333.461@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes: <This first line is taken from another
    >of Phil's postings. Sincere <apologizes if I misinterpret the
    >intent>:
    >
    >>Slavery could not have existed without the coercive State.
    >>
    >How is this?? This sounds like there were laws mandating
    >slavery.

Oh yes. What do you think the Dred Scott decision was all about?

    >>The coercive laws of the State were the very mechanisms used
    >>to place less than equal status on women, blacks.
    >>
    >Which laws do you mean? (voting rights?)

Laws requiring segregation, laws disabling women from property control
and inheritance and ownership and professions.

    >Most areas of inequality are not mandated by law: (i.e. there
    >were no laws requiring that a woman get paid ~85% what a man
    >would get paid for performing the same job.)

Many of those have been removed, and in their place we now have laws
requiring people not capabale (or not as capable) of doing the job
geting paid the same as those that do.

Of course, thank whatever, those laws are now under (rightful) attack,
such the Boalt admission policies (a slimy little set of racist policies
if ever there were some).

    >>Child labor laws are stupid and immoral.
    >>
    >Child labor laws limit the exploitation of children (aka
    >cheap labor). How is this stupid and immoral?

When you have economic conditions that require every member of the family
to work to ensure survival, then self-serving unionist and yellow
journalism (Upton Sinclair et al) that cause child labor laws to be enacted
impact that survival.

Consider a family of settlers in a brand new land -- clearly little 7-year
old Johnny has to be up at daybreak to milk the cows and so on -- to work
as hard as any man on the farm, for that family to survive. Now, just WHAT
would a stupid child labor law do? Require little Johnny to be an idle hand.
Great.

Of course, there were some pretty outrageous excesses. But, what do you do
when literrally millions on untrained, unskilled, essentially illiterate
people (in English) arrive on your doorstep?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:55:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <97061@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <st+p4#n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>2. The State forces a belief monopoly on schools (and on
    >>private tutoring as well in many states), thus making hard to
    >>impossible for some parents to have their kids taught as they
    >>wish.
    >>
    >And if measure #9 on the Oregon State ballot is approved this
    >November, it will require that all state schools teach that
    >homosexuality is wrong.

Eaxctly. Which is why our current public school system is so wrong.

Every homosexual parent will have a nice time in that school system
if it passes.

But, live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you use the State to impose YOUR morality (acceptance of homosexuals
for example) on others, then that same coercive mechanism can be turned
around and be used to bite you.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5687 talk.politics.misc:48330
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:02:23 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Sep26.150949.12977@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>What if it has nothing to do with their private life, but with the way
>they behave in public. Doesn't the employer have the right to do bussiness
>in the way he/she considers the best to make the most money?
>What if the employer looses clients because of an homosexual employee that
>has a very "homosexual" behavior?
>
>AAP
>

This is the type of thing that makes it difficult to make progress...

The statement fragment:  very "homosexual" behavior

Whatever that is-  so I would be able to extrapolate, like so many others do
on these threads- that if I had a business, and I am Irish, and I have an
Italian employee who was seen as acting  very "Italian", then I could fire
him/her because that may not be good for my Irish business.

So what are the 'rights' of an empolyer?  This may be a nice new subject.


Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:03:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.205317.1113@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <26595@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>    >Phil Ronzone writes:
>    >>In article <26583@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael
>    >>Helm) writes:
>    >>>it. What do we do about children who can't afford "shoes", or
>    >>>whose parents irresponsibly smoke up the "shoe" money [&c]
>    >>>
>    >>1. We say "too bad".
>    >>
>    >[Who the hell is this "we" who "say"s?]
>    >
>    >Do you mean that it doesn't matter, the children of these
>    >cases are just out of luck, they don't get an education?
>
>Yes. And the "we" is you and me. Unless you can show me proof that
>every single cent you make over and above that which is needed for bare
>survival, then you too say "too bad" -- too bad about the millions of
>children starving to death now in parts of Africa for example.
>
>Show me proof that any $$$ above the utter bare minimum survival amount
>that you make is donated to those children, and I'll take you out of the "we".
>
>O.K.?

No. This line of logic is extreme and immature. No, the poster
is not saying "too bad", he's saying he disagrees with your opinion.


Patti Jazanoski


Xref: sparky ba.politics:5684 ca.politics:8244
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Gay Bill?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:44:21 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Does anyone have the text of the Gay Bill that the governor signed?

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 11:54:53 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <2494@tymix.Tymnet.COM> <1992Oct1.193721.14758@Cadence.COM>

>Actually, KQED-FM is the *ONLY* media outlet around where I regularly hear
>about the Libertarian party.  A week or so ago, Andre Marrou was on (I can't
>remember whether it was on the local Forum with Kevin Pursglove or the
>national Talk Of The Nation).
>
>This morning another representative of the Libertarian party (I forgot her
>name, already -- a mind is a terrible thing to waste... -- it rhymed with
>"jingle", I think) was answering questions on Forum...
>
>-Pete Zakel
> (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Mary Gingell, National Committee chair.  She was on C-span a couple months
ago when they covered a press conference that she had called.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5660 ca.politics:8220 soc.motss:40621 talk.politics.misc:47991
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:06:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: insert anything here

In article <n00nx#=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

	Follow-ups redirected out of soc.motss, per the soc.motss FAQ.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:37:21 GMT

In article <2494@tymix.Tymnet.COM> jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow) writes:
>KQED radio did mention June a couple of weeks ago (the day after the
>campain HQ opened?)  The gist of the report was that she is positioning
>herself as a moderate between Boxer and Hershensohn.

Actually, KQED-FM is the *ONLY* media outlet around where I regularly hear
about the Libertarian party.  A week or so ago, Andre Marrou was on (I can't
remember whether it was on the local Forum with Kevin Pursglove or the
national Talk Of The Nation).

This morning another representative of the Libertarian party (I forgot her
name, already -- a mind is a terrible thing to waste... -- it rhymed with
"jingle", I think) was answering questions on Forum.

And I've heard June Genis mentioned several times over the past few weeks,
and I think they've mentioned Richard Boddie at least once.

Of course, since KQED is about the only radio station I listen to, I have no
idea if the Libs get mentioned on other stations, but I do read the SJ Mercury,
and I don't recall seeing much mention of our party there.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Howe's Law:
	Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5826 ca.politics:8401
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:42:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA

In article <1992Oct1.013218.25077@ntmtv>, jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.160646.12644@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >PJ writes:
> >    >The whole purpose of public education is to provide a decent
> >    >education for everyone and provide people some means to
> >    >bootstrap. This voucher system is just people throwing up
> >    >their hands in frustration, and then protecting their own
> >    >interests (children). It the system isn't working, then it
> >    >should be fixed, not fled.
> 
> >Like communism, some things are inherently "unfixable". 
> 
> If the public school system is inherently "unfixable", why would
> a private school system not have the same problems? 
Well, for one thing, a child going to a private school is more likely
to get the same message at home and at school-this is inherently less
confusing to the kid and more likely to create some enthusiasm on
the part of the parents towards the educational process.

For another, public schools have the same trouble innovating as do 
_any_ large, capital intensive institutions.

> Hmmm. Did you really mean this? (did slave do very well or just
> the rich white men that exploited them and paid taxes?)
Come on, don't be such a bigot. Slavery never existed where most of 
the population of this country lived.

> 
> >Indeed, some people would say a "decline" in our society can be correlated
> >to the increase in public schools for the last 100 years ... :-)
> 
> How has society declined in the last 100 years?
Well, lets look at things like crime rates, the degree of social cohesian
and the extent to which people identify with the institutions that govern 
them. On the balence, I'd say the progress is positive, but it is not
without its costs.


> Technological
> advances only are amazing: the automobile, phone, flight, computer,
> space exploration, etc etc. 
The question is to what extent have these developments been encouraged or
discouraged by public education. The first three inventions were developed
by people who were not brought up in a system of public education(i.e.
folks like Edison) much like what we have today. What public schools existed,
were small(except in the cities). I like computers, but they have yet to _do_
very much to increase real productivity outside a few specialized niches
(i.e. most office work is part of a zero sum game).


 
>children (no child labor) etc etc 
Personally, I was fortunate to be excused from child labor laws, my father owned
his own business, so I actually learned how to work at an early age. I pity the
folks who did not.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:32:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.160646.12644@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>PJ writes:
>    >The whole purpose of public education is to provide a decent
>    >education for everyone and provide people some means to
>    >bootstrap. This voucher system is just people throwing up
>    >their hands in frustration, and then protecting their own
>    >interests (children). It the system isn't working, then it
>    >should be fixed, not fled.

>Like communism, some things are inherently "unfixable". 

If the public school system is inherently "unfixable", why would
a private school system not have the same problems? (Because 
the "problem elements" would be eliminated.) I can appreciate
that parents want their child to have the best education, and I
can see benefits for private schools, but abandoning or leaving
the system in a shell is not so good.

>Considering
>that the bulk of our population in this country, for the first 100
>years did NOT have a public tax supported school system, and that we
>did very well, I don't think it would be a great disaster if we
>went to a private system.
>

Hmmm. Did you really mean this? (did slave do very well or just
the rich white men that exploited them and paid taxes?)

>Indeed, some people would say a "decline" in our society can be correlated
>to the increase in public schools for the last 100 years ... :-)

How has society declined in the last 100 years? Technological
advances only are amazing: the automobile, phone, flight, computer,
space exploration, etc etc. Plus the majority of the population has
much greater rights: women, blacks, children (no child labor) etc etc.
Please explain what you mean. 

Patti Jazanoski

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:55:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.205714.2281@morrow.stanford.edu+ GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
+phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
+>I AM still VERY suprised to hear a Libertarian candidate support
+>coerced taxation for schools though .. tell me I'm wrong June ...

+An I am surprised that you have such a poor understanding of what
+the Libertarian Party is attempting to do in the real world.

Now really, June, you are *surprised* by this?!?  An admission like
that bumps you down a notch in my book ;-)

(just kidding)

jb
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5769 ca.politics:8335
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Recruiting Devices? (was Mr. Cramer's strange views)
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:18:24 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct1.163115.2137@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>The only figures with sources place the homosexual % as 1%, maybe 4% in
>the extreme. Which makes the per capita indicidence of homosexual
>child molestors 20 to 5 times greater than homosexual.
						^---------[sic]
No, no, no...

The incidence of MOLESTATION, NOT MOLESTERS, is 20% homosexual, when we
define the use of "homosexual" to mean molestation of the same sex, as
opposed to adult sexual orientation.

The survey I presume you refer to is the CDC survey, which reported 1.75%
of the general population was exclusively homosexual, of course referring
to adult sexual orientation.

If you take the victimiatization stats that Clayton provided, you find out
that since molesters of boys do so with much higher frequency, there are
a paucity of them capable of doing much damage. The percentages are miniscule,
being around 2 - 2.5%, depending on how you model the distribution of the
data and calculate the average number of victims per molester. Take the
uncertainty as 0.5%.

The average percentage of exclusively homosexual men who molest boys is then
2.25%, with an uncertainty of about 0.5%. This is statistically insignificant
compared to the CDC data which show 1.75% as the general incidence of
adult exclusively homosexual orientation.

>But hey, take YOU OWN ADVICE and post sources.

I'd welcome the reference to the recent nationwide survey of gay populations,
which show percentages ranging from 8 to 14% depending on the region. That
would suggest that homosexuals are UNDERrepresented among child molesters.

Until then, the stats don't mean much.

Brian
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5698 ca.politics:8258 talk.politics.misc:48435
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:52:50 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12531@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <96860@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

># Gee, I didn't know that anyone had to agree on private activities.

>So if some guy comes up and says, "Let's go to your place so I can
>beat you with a whip and have sex with you," you shouldn't have the
>right to say no?

You know what I mean! I don't have to agree with what you do with your
wife in private.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:57:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.161527.13263@netcom.com>,
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Well, I'd much rather NOT be taxed for this at all. Indeed, although
>it is not a moral way, wouldn't it be MUCH better to NOT tax people
>for schools, BUT to require by law that they send their kids to
>schools?

Well of course it would be better not to be taxed at all but I'm not
going to get that approved tomorrow.  People will never approve
things they fear and as long as they fear that there will be no
education without education taxes they will never vote to get rid of
education taxes.  If however we can show them that education will
still exist -- and work better -- when the private sector can
compete with the public sector we will have established an important
first tep in allviating the fear.  Yes, people will still be forced
to pay for education under what I'm proposing but at leastt hey
would be able to buy exactly the kind of education they want which
is more than they can do now.  That's a step in the direction of
more freedom.  Rome wasn't built in a day.

>But apparently some people, perhaps, June among them, do not like
>this approach -- "I want a lot to say about what kind of education
>I'm buying".

I haven't got the foggiest idea what point you're trying to makee
here.  You would have far more control over the education you buy
with tax credits than you do now.

>It surprised me -- I'd thought June would be against taxation for
>this. And vouchers are merely the return of taxe monies forced
>from you in the first place.

"Let me make this perfectly clear."  I'm against taxation for
EVERYTHING.  But do not expect to replace all taxes in one fell
swoop.  I have no magic wand.  I have only my powers of persuasion
and that is limited to getting people to take small steps in the
right direction no to, from their perspective, jump off a cliff.

I'm not a political scientist.  I'm a politician.  I all dealing
with reality not theory.

>But *my* interpretation of this is that June would rather have the
>taxation to A). reap the benfits of an educated next generation
>and B). to impose HER education slant on the next generation.
>
>I think both A and B are somewhat anti-Libertarian.

It is unlibertarian to make anyone pay for anything they don't want
to.  It is more libertarian to allow them as wide a range of choices
as possible to spend their money on if we can't prevent the money
from being extracted in the first place.

>However, this is my interpretation and perhaps June can expand on
>this.
>
>I AM still VERY suprised to hear a Libertarian candidate support
>coerced taxation for schools though .. tell me I'm wrong June ...

An I am surprised that you have such a poor understanding of what
the Libertarian Party is attempting to do in the real world.

>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:06:40 GMT

In article <n00nx#=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Naw, just a lower than usual tolerance for lying idiots. 

Self-loathing is such a pitiful thing, even in those
in whom it's so clearly justified.  

Anyway, the information was published in the Ithaca Journal
over the summer. Local Law C passed last December, so I'd head
right down to my library and start pouring through IJs from,
say, late December through early February if I were you.

>Note I put my money where my mouth is.

Maybe it's time to try putting your brain there, instead.  If
you can find it.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics