HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:56:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>Consider that in most of those TV ads, the lawyer usually goes on to
>say something like "You may have rights which you're not aware of,
>rights which you may lose if you don't take certain actions in time."
>Is it a bad thing that people are being informed of this fact, and
>that if they do go to a lawyer they learn exactly what these rights
>are and what they have to do to enforce them?  (And please note that
>this is a separate question entirely from "Should anyone get rich from
>informing people of their rights and helping to enforce them?")

You are confusing legal and moral rights here.  You think it's a
good thing if people's rights are enforced -- that's rights in the
moral sense, but then the tv ads are about legal rights.  If you used
consistent naming for the "rights" what would your argument become?

>....The point I'm trying to make
>is that while the current system may benefit lawyers, it -- contrary
>to some popular beliefs -- isn't the lawyers' fault.  Whether or not
>the services that they provide _should_ be needed in a "good" society,
>they do seem to be needed in the society we've got.

Agreed.  However, since the rules governing the relationship between lawyers
and clients are complex and not understood by the general public, many lawyers
take advantage of this and created the image of the evil lawyer.  I have no
problems with this behavior since it's a free market, but we do need to close
this information loophole by either simplifying such rules or educating the
public sufficiently about them.  (The latter may not be feasible.)

>(And _please_, don't anyone bring up the old idea that it is too the
>lawyers' fault because so many elected officials are lawyers who have
>a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is... even if all
>that is true, in a representative democracy the responsibility for
>choosing the representatives must lie with the electorate, not the
>elected.)
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

The electorate must understand the concept of the person as an information
processor, before any real progress can be made.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3851 talk.politics.misc:41820
From: Roy Wells (Roy H. Wells)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Reply-To:  (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:19:19 GMT

I recall several years ago taking a course in Soviet Studies, and the 
professor noted that under the Soviet system, the theory was that all 
rights came from the State, and the State could therefore take them away.

(laughter at the idea of anything that could be so easily taken away as a
"right")

Wait a minute, he noted.  Under "our" US system, all rights come from God
and/or Nature.  They are inalienable.  Try telling that to a black in the South 
during the 1950s.

It certainly gave us all something to consider...


----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:42:39 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Gordon Fitch is right.

-*-----
In article <1992Aug28.152530.20307@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> I'm not interested in discussing the comparison between the
> social-reactionary fascism recommended by Buchanan and Robertson,
> and the pathetic NEA, as if they were somehow equal. ...

My libertarian stripes are as deep and long as anyone else's, and
I agree with Gordon Fitch.  The NEA is a flea.  Perhaps the most
dangerous current example of repression engendered by cultural
conflict is the war on drugs.  Its only notable successes have
been the erosion of our civil liberties, and the destruction of
many inner city areas.  And it is a popular, bipartisan effort,
with both liberal and conservative supporters, e.g., both Jesses
(Jackson and Helms) are for it. 

Other examples include the infamous censorship laws proposed by
Dworkin and McKenna, the censorship law now in Congress parading
as a law for victims' redress, and Tipper Gore's well-known
censorship efforts.  Again, these are supported by both the left
and the right.  These are the kinds of efforts I would expect to
see forwarded by a Buchanan presidency.  

But what is the point of this discussion?  Yes, Buchanan's speech
was scary.  (Of all the popular media personalities, Arsenio had
the most appropriate response.)  And yes, our liberties are
threatened by those who would use the government to forward their
cultural values and repress what they view as threats to these.  
And yes, these threats come from both conservatives and liberals.  

Gordon, where do you want to go from here?  (And why did you never
respond, in prior threads, to my challenges regarding the affects
you allege of capitalism?)

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: big government conservatives
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:07:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <farenebt.714925021@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>I did not mean to imply that ALL conservatives share these beliefs. I know
>that I am not liberal on every issue but in general I am. When I say 
>conservatives, I meant "the conservative viewpoint".

  I question that there IS a "conservative viewpoint".   There have been
  articles on this recently in both The National Review and the Utne Reader
  (yes, I read both: does this make me "liberal" or "conservative"?  Hint:
  I'm also a card-carrying member of the NRA and ACLU)   It seems that there
  is quite an identity crisis in American conservatism these days.  There
  are a number of factions who all claim the moniker "conservative":
  
  (in <>'s I've indicated possible non-US examples)

     Religious "God and Country" types : Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, etc
               < Le Pen in France >

     Activists:   people who want to use government agencies (e,g, HUD) to
                  promote new, experimental, or radical solutions to social
                  issues, or promote government-private cooperation: Jack
                  Kemp, Ross Perot   <Singapore>

     Libertarians: William Weld   <I think libertarianism is a US-only concept>

     Traditionalists: avoid change or sudden movements, benign neglect but
                      no strongly developed ideology, nostalgic romance with
                      the past (often one which never existed): George Bush,
                      Ronald Reagan.  < John Major >

     Racists:   Play on white Christians' fears of non-whites, Jews, and 
                modernity:  David Duke.  (Britian's National Front>

  Of course there's overlap, e.g., a George Bush might run on an ad
  employing racist fears, but what's different is that while Bush might
  use this as a political pragmat, for a Duke it's a central part of his 
  belief system.   

  Naturally "liberals" face the same factionalism.   I've been claiming for
  years now that, while these terms are convenient verbal shorthand in some 
  situations, they are appallingly limited and these limitations are not
  recognized of respected by most people.


---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4026 soc.women:16131
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.women
Subject: Shmamily Values
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:47:35 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center



         There has recently been an ongoing controversy between Dan  Quayle
    and Murphy Brown, regarding family values and single mothers.  Now I do
    not know  if this  is the  FIRST example  of a  dispute between  a real
    person and  a fictional  character.  It  is a  little like those movies
    where cartoon figures and real actors appear together.  Perhaps we will
    even see a day when one of these characters will actually get  elected.
    It is only one step further  from electing actors to the Presidency  as
    in the US, or actors to chief ministerships of states as in India.

         Anyway, it is being contended that talk of family values is just a
    mask for homo-phobia or hatred of unusual families.  That is why,  even
    though the Democrats  also HAVE these  family values,  many consider it
    bad form to TALK  about them.  There is  a similar situation with  "law
    and order" which is again claimed to be just a mask for racism.   Thus,
    it is claimed, the famous Horton ad could not possibly have been an  ad
    against crime, but MUST have been an ad against black people.

         This is fine and  no doubt the Democrats  are right about this  as
    they are about everything else.  But we are still left with a  problem.
    What if someone  wants to ACTUALLY  talk about what  used to be  called
    family values?  That person cannot use the expression "family  values",
    because THAT stands for homo-phobia and so on and a person who does NOT
    hate gays cannot use this expression.  So what IS such a person to do?

         The solution is to  use a device that  Quine and other have  used,
    and may have been used  before Quine.  You GIVE the  expression "family
    values"  to  the  Democrats.   From  now  on it will mean "homo-phobia,
    hatred of single mothers, etc.  etc."  But you invent a  NEW expression
    "shmamily values" which  will, from now  on, mean what  "family values"
    used to mean at one time.  Then we can again talk as we did before.

          Of course,
    the time  may come  when people  will complain  that "shmamily  values"
    stands for "homo-phobia...".  But then  we can just go back  to "family
    values"!.

         To take up this issue just a bit more seriously,  It is quite
    possible that Dan Quayle is not really serious when he talks about fami-
    ly values, and perhaps the Horton ad DID have a racist motive.  But we
    still do have the problem that there are real issues to talk about and
    if we impoverish our own vocabulary for political reasons - then free
    speech ceases to have any meaning.  We can make sounds, but we cannot say
    what we WANTED to say by making such sounds - because the meaning has been
    taken away.  Thomas Mann used to complain that Hitler had ruined the
    German language.  It would be a pity if this happens also to English.

         Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:25:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Sorry, reposting.  Last attempt used messed up file.

The real problems is that OUR RULES OF BEHAVIOR ARE TOO COMPLEX AND ARBITRARY.
That's why people don't even know what their rights are, and why there
exists a fundamental contradiction of our system that assumes people
know the exact rules when they make decisions but which makes this
knowledge impossible in many situations.

The whole idea of legal "rights" is too often an
arbitrary set of rules about what responsibility belongs to whom under this and
that circumstance.  They are arbitrary in the sense that if we massively
simplify or change them AND everybody understands and behaves according to
the new rules, no one will be better or worse off.

We must simplify these rules to reduce the overhead of working through this
mass of information.  We used to be able to afford this overhead but it has
grown to a point that threatens our future economic growth.

I don't blame the lawyers because SOMEONE has to provide that kind of services,
given our system.  However the fact remains that we have to change this
system and it is not and has not been in the lawyers' interest to do so.
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: re: socialist?
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:00:34 PST
Organization: BBS

one aspect of a socialist economy is a centralized economic authority.
the majority of wealth in this state is manipulated by a contiguous minority
population; this economic extra-(sometimes)-governmental authority is
responsible for directing the flow of capital within mechanisms of
production and regulation; such direction is enabled by direct control
of capital and by the political deployment of that wealth.  we might
tag a 'democratic' to that 'socialist' so long as we understand this
'democracy' to refer to the somewhat dialectical, but largely manipulative,
system of communication that we call 'the market'.

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: thales@cwis.unomaha.edu (Martin Joseph Craig)
Subject: The POLITICAL ASSOCIATION
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:29:26 GMT

		"Man,  when perfected,  is the best of 
		 animals;  but if he be isolated from
		 law and justice he is the worst of 
		 all.....Justice (which is he salvation)
		 belongs to the polis (state);  for
		 justice,  which is the determination
		 of what is just,  is an ordering of 
		 the political association."
				Aristotle - Politics

	If justice (understood as man's salvation) belongs to the
	polis (understood as the State of which he resides within)
	which determines together what is just, and becomes an order-
	ing of the political association (the State),  but cannot
	finalize that which is found to be just (the execution of
	a criminal),  does not the State relinquish the power of
	justice back to man,  isolating him from the law and jus-
	tice that he so particularly creates to free himself to
	be the best of animals?

	Please respond.....
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3894 misc.legal:16524
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:25:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug25.135539.7497@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.

How often are these fines applied.  A right that is not used is of no use.
Make the fine mandatory, payable to the winning party, give a fairly
loose definition of frivolous and you just might have a winner here.

>Not completely true.  Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC $ 2412, an 
>individual with a net worth less than $2 million or a corporation with a net
>worth less than $7 million or a 501(c)(3) non-profit group can recover
>attorney's fees if they prevail against the government in a suit.

Is the net worth calculated before or after spending millions to defend
yourself.  Seems to me that by putting a net worth limit on this rule is
just class envy at work again.

>42 USC $ 1988 allows the court discretion to award attorney's fees to the
>prevailing party in a civil rights suit.

Once again, how often are such awards made.  Allowing the judges to decide,
judges are lawyers after all, is a mistake.  Make the awards mandatory,
and make it so that if the client can't pay, then the lawyer is
responsible for the tab.

>             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
>             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
-- 
--Mark
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3916 misc.legal:16621
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:50:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

>Right.  And settling is, in this case, winning.  The more meritorious
>the case, the more likely the defendants will settle.  This all goes
>into the calculus.  My point is simply that contingent fees don't give
>carte blanche to plaintiffs to extort money from deep pockets.  They
>(or their lawyers) take a risk when they litigate, as do defendants.

Let me add that it is often a VERY SMALL risk compared to the amount to be
gained.  This is carte blanche for practical purposes.
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:47:16 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep2.173625.27207@oracle.us.oracle.com>, kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl
Wee) writes:
>
>The very reason for the existence of rules is to SIMPLIFY the management of
>society.  This is why people are punished for breaking laws, whether or not
>their actions have been beneficial to society.  We have rules for individual
>behavior precisely because we simply cannot, as judges and as individuals,
>deal with the complexity of judging all actions and combinations of
>actions by their ultimate effects on whatever goals we set for society.
>

'the management' you speak of is not simply part of a noun phrase -- there
is a management, with a vested interest in, among other things, managing.
one ideal of this management -- the State -- which you echo -- is the
manageable.  the management is interested in predictability and stability,
for these qualities permit the management to manage more efficiently.
we need no conspiracy here; that is a matter of content, while we are
discussing form.

it is true that every moment of every individual's behavior cannot
be judged in what we might consider a truly adequate sense.  if a demonstator
breaks a law -- say, trespassing -- in the course of demonstrating, we
cannot at that moment set aside Law because we would then be left with
a rather unruly jousting match of values, beliefs, and interests.  but
we _have_ developed a mechanism to moderate that competition in a way
that we -- or at least some of us -- consider agreeable.  that mechanism
is, of course, Law.  so here's another justification for the existence of
rules: to moderate, and thus, inevitably, modify.

i agree that, as you say (elsewhere in your post, which i inadvertantly
deleted), if two systems of rules are absolutely equivalent in terms of the
outcomes of their application, we would prefer, of course, the simpler.
but this would rarely be the case.

who would decide when the boundary of simplicity has been crossed?  who
would be responsible for distilling a complex mess into a neat, manageable
form?  the achievement of simplicity would just tip the balance of power
towards one side or the other.  and the State would, of course, participate.

the tangle of our legal system is, at
least, honest -- again, in form, not in content.  simplicity would be a
mere gloss, a pretense of agreement.

--dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Social "Nature"?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:08:57 GMT

In article <17mh5vINNft6@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>Other examples include the infamous censorship laws proposed by
>Dworkin and McKenna, the censorship law now in Congress parading
>as a law for victims' redress, and Tipper Gore's well-known
>censorship efforts.

Among Tipper Gore's well-known censorship efforts are there any proposals
involving legislation that will actually forbid the distribution of certain
materials? As I understand it, all she has been pushing is some kind of
rating system, similar to the movie rating system (to which few object).

>
>Russell


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4044 talk.politics.misc:43786 misc.legal:16893
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Libernet, an electronic digest and forum
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:11:36 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:25:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I'm not interested in discussing the comparison between the
social-reactionary fascism recommended by Buchanan and Robertson,
and the pathetic NEA, as if they were somehow equal.  If you 
regard both of these as equal dangers to your liberty, please
don't send me mail about it; we live in different worlds.
Thanks.

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: big government conservatives
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:43:09 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>>There are conservatives who actually believe in being conservative;
>>i.e. looking to the past to see what worked, and trying to hold
>>on to those things in the face of inevitable change.

>Many of us want someone to look to the future.

I think everyone on the net has a predisposition to look to the
future; but we all see different things.  The world is far too
complicated to have accurate models of, at least at present, so
we have to select causal relationships and approximate potential
futures.  The conservative wishes to minimize the rate of change,
so that there can be enough feedback to see what is actually
going to happen, allowing for possible modification of actions
(this is the traditional, paternalistic conservative).  The
danger is that critical windows may be missed (e.g. the window
for a Marshall Plan to Eastern Europe is closing fast); the
advantage is that misconceived theories produce less drastic
effects (e.g. privatizing the National Health Service could be
stopped in time, so that most people would continue to receive
an adequate level of health care).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.