HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:36:45 GMT

fj> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)`

fj> I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a belief
fj> that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of happiness, and
fj> conscious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements in life, 

  Libertarianism doesn't mandate that these things exist in at "100% levels",
  rather, we recognize that individuals have *sufficient* quantities of these
  qualities to make a libertarian society possible.

fj> with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
fj> like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

  I disagree strongly. Are you rational? Note that I *didn't* ask if you were
  "perfectly" rational. Are you rational enough to avoid sticking a lit match
  into your eye? Are you rational enough to avoid running onto a freeway? Are
  you rational enough to avoid eating rotten meat? Add in a few more ques-
  tions, and yes, you are a sufficiently rational person. Now, why do you be-
  lieve so few others are?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:37:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.211327.29535@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin  
Collins) writes:
> 
>  It is a relative term. But let me give an example: A Mexican labourer
> works 8-12 hours a day/50c an hour  and lives in a slum. His corporate  
overlord
> may earn millions a year in an air-conditioned office and never touch
> the production process in his entire lifetime.
> Most people think that reflects disproportionate wages (not on this
> newsgroup perhaps, but most people in the real world.)
>        

I would contend that the Mexican "overlord" is exactly that, a feudal lord that  
has been placed there with the consent and support of the ruling party.  His  
postion and the peasants have to do with the socialist government that has been  
ruling Mexico for decades, not with capitalism.  You seem to be assuming  
because someone runs a business they are automatically capitalists. Since most  
of the major Mexican businesses are run by the goverment or rigidly controlled  
through the bureaucracy and corruption, your use of Mexico for an example only  
counters your arguments rather than supports them.  

If you want an example of a disproportionate wage, I would suggest rock and  
sports stars salaries.  :-)  I don't think there worth a tenth of what they  
get, but since I believe in free markets and I'm not paying them, more power to  
them.


--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: jpalmucc@bbn.com (Jeff Palmucci)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!!
Date: 21 Jul 1992 16:44:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:

>In article <1992Jul17.075157.10383@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> AGRSS@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (SUBBAIAH,Santharam) writes:
>>
>>	I plan to propose a series of reforms that could be considered by a
>>feminist when he or she becomes the president of the USA, or better still,
>>when he or she becomes an influencial leader of the strongest lobby in the
>>corridors of White House. 
>>
>>REFORM 1.
>>	"All women who deliver normal children should be compensated in
>>monetory terms for their child bearing services".
>>
>>RATIONALE:
>>

[stuff deleted]

>> The rationale for making the society to pay for child 
>>bearing services is that the society ultimately gets the benefit from 
>>children born without any abnormality. This rationale becomes particularly
>>reasonable when a Supreme Court can ask a mother to compensate for the 
>>abnormality of her child.

Actually, since the population is growing at a phenominal rate, a
reward for childbirth would not be in order. If anything, there should
be a fine. Especially for large families that cannot support themselves.

[stuff deleted]

>O.K. so why limit these benefits to women who bear "normal healthy babies"? 
> Thepregnancy/childbirth process is no less a burden for a woman who bears an      
>"abnormal" or "unhealthy" baby; in fact, the burden (financial, emotional and
>physical) is GREATER for a woman who bears a less than perfect offspring.
>She also has no control over whether or not the baby turns out normal.

If I agreed with the original post, I would agree with this too. 


Jeff


Xref: sparky alt.activism:13261 soc.motss:32132 talk.politics.misc:35262 alt.individualism:4407
From: peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 12:32:44 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

| Past experience has shown where private discrimination takes us.
| Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced
| by the masses.  Yet one young fellow in town has not converted.  Hell, he
| still believes in outdated concepts like civil rights.  Well, to teach him
| a lesson all the merchants in town decide that they won't sell any of their
| goods to this fellow.  No mechanic will fix his car.  Nobody will hire him.
| They don't like his politics.  Is this legal?  Well, in fact, this is legal
| even today.  There is nothing in the law that prevents discrimination based
| on political views.  However, change the above story to replace political
| views with race.  The young man is black.  And the townsfolk don't like
| blacks.  So he can't work, eat, drive, live... hell, he can't _exist_ in
| such a town.  

Let's try a probabilistic argument.  Suppose your hypothetical town has
a population of 1000 and is governed by a council of 8 plus one mayor.

Which is more likely:  every one of 999 people individually refusing to
serve the outcast, or 5 members of the council voting for an ordinance
making it illegal for the 999 to serve the outcast?

I contend that the former is much, much, much, much less likely than
the latter.

In fact, we have a clear example of just this type of "public
discrimination":  it is currently against the law to hire illegal
aliens.  But even though 218+51+1 people have declared penalties
for hiring illegals, many of the 249,999,730 other people in this
country risk fines and jail sentences to employ them.  In a free
society, illegal immigrants would indeed find people willing to
employ and trade with them.

| I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
| a life.

Today illegal immigrants are denied life in this country, not by
boycott by a quarter billion people, but by edict of a few hundred.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13446 talk.politics.misc:35842 alt.individualism:4557 sci.econ:6527
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:16:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA


	{redirection to soc.motss removed, they will be glad to hear no doubt}

In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl>, fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
# gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
##jb> Jim Burke
##jb> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
##jb> a life.
# 
##  Then work against socialism and become a libertarian. It's up to *you* to
##  decide whether or not you're going to deny someone a life, but it's *not*
##  for you to decide for others. As long as enough people like you and me ex-
##  ist to assure that anyone who wants to live a decent life can do so, there
# 
# I don't think they will exist. Not after enough time, not in every
# community. Just look around. there will be a lot of places where people
# can and will be denied an existance.
# 
# 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.
# 
#						FJ!!

	You have probably hit upon the key difference between Libertarian
philosophy and that of other political parties.

	If one decides that people aren't rational, then there is a temptation
to impose ones own view of rationality upon them for their own good. Make
them wear seat belts. Stop them from bungee jumping. Take their money and
spend it rationally on their behalf.

	I suspect that Libertarians divide into two camps. Those who say "Yes,
people aren't rational, but they have a right to their own lives anyway and
good luck", and those who say "I'm not sure if they are rational or not, but
I am too humble or disinterested to impose my views on them".

	Many psychologists would argue that an observation of irrational
behaviour in an individual is flawed - you are missing something important
to them which makes their actions rational in their context.

			regards,
--				Tony Cox, Stanford, CA

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,general
From: pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: I'm 69% organized today
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.072220.21631@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul24.053416.535@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
|> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr), whose mind seems to have been
|> lost somewhere in the Renaissance, writes:
|> >philosophy man is essentially St. Augustine's.  More recently, Libertarian
|> >activist David Bergland called it the PANG premise, an acronym for People
|> 
|> Libertarian Activist?
|> 
|> Why should anyone need to engage in "activism" in support
|> Libertarianism?
|> 
|> I mean, it's the Right and True Way of conducting yourself, isn't it?
|> And people will just naturally tend in that direction if you give them
|> a chance, won't they?  So why do you feel this need to win over
|> converts to your religion?

People do not naturally acquire and analyze enough information about differing
economic/political systems to make a wise choice, because it takes lots of time,
as long as choices are made via statist mechanisms such as the ballot box. If
instead, people could choose between competing judicial systems with differing
rules concerning employment discrimination, they would be able to compare the
results and would naturally tend towards the best system out of those that had
been tried. Which is why it is a waste of time for Libertarian activists to
work to change employment discrimination laws, when they could be fighting the
effects of a monopolistic judicial system.
On a related note, I would like to know if any supporters of antidiscrimination
laws wish that they could impose an antidiscrimination rule on Usenet, such as
requiring any site that carries soc.singles to also carry soc.motss and soc.bi.
I'm asking whether you want such rules to be enforceable - I assume we agree
that such rules should be followed.    
-- 
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, 
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant 
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:50:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  

     I see no reason why it shouldn't be.  

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece)
Subject: Third Parties
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:34:50 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG

Apologies if you've seen this before (I have reason to believe
it never got distributed.)

A journalist friend of mine is looking for information on people
trying to organize a third party (that is, people trying to build
a viable national political party, not people trying to elect a
particular candidate in a particular election). If anybody can
provide information (especially names/addresses of contacts)
please let me know (mark@cambridge.apple.com).

Many thanks. I'll post the article when she's finished it.

Mark Preece.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:25:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.194625.18019@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
}In article <1992Jul21.052510.5743@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}|> Of course.  All sorts of vicious, stupid, nonsensical things like this should
}|> be permissible, no matter how absurd.  Refusal to deal doesn't violate anyone's
}|> inividual rights; only violations of individual rights are prohibitable.
}
}Past experience has shown where private discrimination takes us.
}Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced
}by the masses.

Contradiction and falsehood.  The contradiction s in the appeal to history,
then offering a hypothetical.  The appeal to history itself is the falsehood,
to my knowledge.

I seem to have started a snowball rolling, so I'll try to stamp out some of
the errors I find point-by-point.

If you'd read the book I referred to before letting your fingers do the think-
ing, you'd know that Jim Crow was the result of the combination of private
prejudice and the use of the police power to violate individual rights,
codifying prejudice into law, often against the will of substantial, if not
majority, fractions of the populations.  For example, railroads were forced
to segregate against their will.  See not only the reference I previously
mentioned, "Forbidden Grounds," by Richard Epstein, but also Walter Williams
"South Africa's War on Capitalism," and "The State Against Blacks," as I
recall the titles.  Williams is a black libertarian economist at George Mason
University.  Both authors chronicle this identical pattern.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:54:19 GMT

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

>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.

The assumption is that the aforementioned government restrictions are from 
the US Government, as opposed to State/County/City/etc. Government.

In this example, you have made a choice to conduct business with your 
particular insurance company (I will not discuss the implications of the 
state controls on insurance companies).  They tell you their terms; you 
choose whether or not to agree to do business with them.  "Choice" is the 
key.  In a free market, an insurance company can put discriminatory 
clauses in a policy.  That's not illegal; that's just stupid.  You have 
the ability to choose another insurance company, or start your own if you 
so desire.

When government forces associations, your freedom to choose has been 
expropriated.  You must comply or face fines and/or jail.  You cannot 
choose whether or not to follow the policy.  You cannot either choose 
another national government within the country, or start your own if you 
so desire (this was attempted in the 1860s).

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:39:25 GMT

In article <18783@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>But the rest of the commumity also gets those same services which are also paid
>for by that same business person.  So, neither owes the other anything.

Individualism: "neither owes the other anything"

Communitarianism: "everyone owes everyone"

I'll take the latter any day, thank you.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:58:07 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>Past experience has shown where private discrimination takes us.

Past experience has shown us where private discrimination backed up by
the government takes us.

>Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced
>by the masses.  Yet one young fellow in town has not converted.  Hell, he
>still believes in outdated concepts like civil rights.  Well, to teach him
>a lesson all the merchants in town decide that they won't sell any of their
>goods to this fellow.  No mechanic will fix his car.  Nobody will hire him.
>They don't like his politics.  Is this legal?  Well, in fact, this is legal
>even today.  There is nothing in the law that prevents discrimination based
>on political views.

Good thing.  The beauty part is, since his political views are
outlawed nowhere, he can move to another town.  If they don't want to
do business with them, they should not have to.


>However, change the above story to replace political views with race.

Uh oh, the deceptively close-appearing analogy raises its head...


>The young man is black.  And the townsfolk don't like blacks.  So he can't
>work, eat, drive, live... hell, he can't _exist_ in such a town.  

If he can't exist in such a town, positing the ridiculous assertion
(unless the town was tiny) that the entire town were racist scum who
would starve him to death, then it's time to find another town, or
work to reform that town.  However, even if you can show such a thing
happening even at the height of racism, with segregation laws, I'd be
surprised.  The allure of cheaper labor is too much.



>I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>a life.

You live in one right now.
-- 
He suffers from delusions of adequacy.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:46:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.052510.5743@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

|> Of course.  All sorts of vicious, stupid, nonsensical things like this should
|> be permissible, no matter how absurd.  Refusal to deal doesn't violate anyone's
|> inividual rights; only violations of individual rights are prohibitable.

Past experience has shown where private discrimination takes us.
Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced
by the masses.  Yet one young fellow in town has not converted.  Hell, he
still believes in outdated concepts like civil rights.  Well, to teach him
a lesson all the merchants in town decide that they won't sell any of their
goods to this fellow.  No mechanic will fix his car.  Nobody will hire him.
They don't like his politics.  Is this legal?  Well, in fact, this is legal
even today.  There is nothing in the law that prevents discrimination based
on political views.  However, change the above story to replace political
views with race.  The young man is black.  And the townsfolk don't like
blacks.  So he can't work, eat, drive, live... hell, he can't _exist_ in
such a town.  

I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
a life.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: wlarkin@panix.com (Ward Larkin)
Subject: Re: FMLN guerrillas = freedom fighters
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:36:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul29.064003.28366@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.045255.11659@uvm.edu> coan@griffin (Brian M Coan) writes:
>>Well, just so you right-wing freaks know this, the FMLN
>>guerrillas who executed the American helicopter pilot
>>and the other serviceman were tried and found guilty by
>>an FMLN tribunal because an important part of FMLN
>>strategy was adherence to international law.
>
>So what happened to them?  The US has executed people for such crimes.

I'm curious if you can site any examples.

The 1968 My Lai 4 and My Khe massacres, in which 300 defenseless
Vietnamese were killed by U.S. soldiers under the command of
Capt Ernest Medina and Lt. William Calley Jr., is not a good
example. 

Only Calley was brought up on court martial charges.  He was
found guilty of killing 22 people.  No other U.S. soldier was
even reprimanded.  And Calley was not executed.


Xref: sparky alt.activism:13337 misc.headlines:4968 talk.politics.misc:35549 alt.news-media:816 alt.censorship:6195