HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:38:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

>A well regulated militia is an armed people NOT under the control of
>govt, thus "being necesary for the security of a free State" is not
>redundant.  It protects the people's independent military power (of
>govt both local and federal), even more so than Article 1, section 8
>does with respect to the states.  It also limits govt's military
>power.  See Scarry's "War and the Social Contract: Nuclear Policy,
>Distribution, and the Right to Bear Arms", University of PA Law
>Review, Volume 139, Number 5, pg 1257 (may 91).  Halbrook's "That
>Every Man be Armed" is also relevant.

    Well, ok, but it's been a good long time since the American people
  have had independent military power.  I think a man by the name of
  Lincoln was president then...
    You see, this talk about the people arming themselves against the
  government is all well and good, but practically speeking, it's a right
  that was squashed over 100 years ago.  Bearing arms as a protection for
  yourself against the government is just a good way to get yourself killed.


>to bear arms.  The history of its formulation and invocation makes
>clear than whatever its relation to the realm of individuals and the
>private uses they have devised for guns, the amendment came into being
>primarily as a way of dispersing military power across the entire
>population.  Like voting, like reapportionment, like taxation, what is
>at stake in the right to bear arms is a just distribution of political
>power."

    Yes, I see your point about the second amendment.  But I feel that it
  has outworn its usefulness.  A modern society with a large population
  just can't afford to have people running around with weaponry.  The
  results could easily be anarchy.

    Also, I ask a question -- how many people own guns for the reasons
  originally stated in the second amendment?  My guess would be very, very
  few.

                --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:13:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: hunting

hmmm.
several arguments FOR hunting:

from fred:
>2) Hunters do not shoot cows....These people are called a**holes and you
>find them in every walk of life.

the worst an asshole can do to me in the Super Fresh is run over my foot
in an effort to get in front of me in the checkout line, and then glare
at me when s/he is foiled.
the worst an asshole who is hunting can do is accidentally kill me while
i am out in the wilderness or perhaps my parents back yard.  the difference
is the gun.  there are assholes in every walk of life, indeed, but you
need not let them have guns.

incidentally, while i understand what you are saying about hunting in rural
areas and am not really that much against it (i have been in areas where
people hunt in order to survive during the winter, and do not object to
this), hunting in densely populated areas is 1) just plain stupid and
2) tolerated by the law enforcement officials.  i grew up in a suburb of
philadelphia, and it was not uncommon, even out of season, to hear
people shooting in the woods behind my house.  these woods were private
property and were posted against hunting, but this did not deter these
people, and the people living behind us had on several occassions been
forced to lay prone on the ground in the sandbox where she and the kids
were playing because of the bullets flying over their heads.

basically, what i am saying is this: i will admit to your right (no,  i'm
not talking constitutional here) to own as many weapons as you choose, as long
as you can guarentee my safety.

other arguments:  guns are not designed to kill.  this is patently false.

hunting is a wonderful bonding ritual for adults and children.
well actually, it is a bonding ritual for fathers and sons, generally speaking,
and most mothers and daughters, to my knowledge, are not involved.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:22:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

In article <tfilt200143@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>>(ditto).  The court has said that the due process clause of the 5th
>>applies equality to an extent to the federal gov't too.
>
> Could you explain what you mean by this?
> The Due Process clause of the Fifth seems to be directed more at the
> fed than at the states. But it just says that citizens shall not
> be deprived of x y or z without due process of law. Right?
>
> Jamie

pardon my rambling on the subject of the constitution; obvious I have
much respect and interest in explaining what it means, but I tend to
drop such things like this without explaining myself. Sorry.

   Anyhow, I was thinking of the standard of the Supreme Court in
Bolling v. Sharpe and other decisions expanding the "due process"
clause of the fifth amendment to include the "equality under the law"
standard of the 14th.  In this case, desegregation was applied to
D.C., i.e. the federal government, by this technique. So, all I meant
was for abortion, homosexuality, and others areas the federal gov't
would have to apply similar standards as the states over say D.C.,
federal territories, etc.  I don't know if the court applied the
equality standard as throughly on the federal gov't in areas besides
civil rights for blacks, so I said the protection may not be complete.


          -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:17:56 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Liberatians FYI

For all you libertarians:

Someone named Andre Marrou is scheduled as a guest speaker for the 1992
state convention of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina. He will
speak on Friday, June 26, at 7:30pm, at Jordan Hall, Cary, NC (a suburb
of Raleigh).
Further info from: LPNC
                   1708 Bayleaf Trail
                   Raleigh, NC 27614
                   1-800-292-3766
Hamlett
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:14:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: predictions for Tuesday

Minnesota's primary is non-binding, but I believe both parties will vote in it,
what is being gotten from it, I believe, is a "sense of the country," or at
least Minnesota about voter attitudes about the race. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:08:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Lilith

In article <tfilt204633@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         K-A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
>
>>Is it me folks, or is this a classic case of "shifting
>>the blame?"  Maybe I am wrong but wasn't it Adam that
>>ate the apple?
>
> Kaveh,
> Eve ate it first. Adam tried to avoid responsibility by blaming
> her.
> But anyway, I thought it was Lileth who ruined everything, wasn't
> it? Or is that apocrypha?
>
> I love this sin stuff.
>
> Jamie
>
That's apocrypha to make sense of the fact there are two versions of
how man and women was created (one humans themselves, one the Adam's
rib version) are present.  Lilith was the first woman, she was so bad
she was killed by God or something and Eve came along.  _Adam, Eve,
and the Serpent_ by Elaine Pagels is a nice book on the Adam/Eve
"myth" and sexuality (homosexuality can be thrown in too).

> p.s. Constantijn and Travis et al.: American culture *IS* better
> than anyone else's. This is obvious.
>
for Constantijn, I believe (can be wrong) this is sarcasm, not mean
to be taken seriously as you did.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:48:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

From:         Mark Susskind <NY911179@PACEVM.BITNET>

>Guns and similar weapons are not designed specifically to kill people, even
>though it is well within their ability to do so,if they are used improperly or
>carelessly.  Just like automobiles are not designed specifically to kill
>people, even though it is well within their ability to do so, if they are used
>improperly or carelessly.

>Mark R. Susskind <NY911179 @ PACEVM.BITNET>

Not true.  One of the specific purposes of guns is killing/
wounding people/animals.  The other two purposes that I can
think of are target practice and collecting.  Can you think
of any other purpose(s), (saving propelling projectiles :-) ?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:18:25 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

In the end, all this talk of the 2nd ammendment is academic.

If the government cannot protect me from harm, then how can the government
prevent me from defending myself?

That is the essence of gun control.  Such laws are not intended to deter
criminals, just the lawful.

The anaology between cars and guns is bad, but...

There is no "right" to own a car, even though they kill lots of people, and
are sometimes abused by dangerous people.  Yet we still have the (regulkated)
option to own a car.

Why should guns be different?

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:20:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

>    the thing is, derrick, someone has to pay for these things. who?
>the people who worked their asses off to get ahead in this life and
>now are treated by many people as lepers? the last statistic i heard
>was that the top one percent of earners in this country pay 20% of
>taxes.


     That's because the top 1% of earners make 20% of the money.  Remember
   that it's total income that's taxed, no matter who happens to be
   making it.



>   let's get real, derrick. either we jack up taxes to pay for these
>things or we resign ourselves to doing without. and please, don't
>give me the crap about germany or canada or england doing all these
>things and doing well. if they had been paying for their own defense
>all these years, they wouldn't have much more than we do in the way
>of social programs.


    The fact is, the US has lower taxes than just about any other
  industrial country.  It is the combination of this fact and our
  inflated defense budget that causes our social programs to suffer.
  I was actually surprised to see a Nobel Award winning economist
  on television recently actually saying that the US SHOULD have
  higher taxes.  He stated that in the long term, it would prove to
  be a boost to the economy.  Something about the fact that it's better
  to save money and provide a strong basis of capital than to borrow
  (like the federal government does).

>   i would love to see cradle-to-grave security and all the frills in
>the u.s. however, as long as this remains a dangerous world, we won't
>have it. i hear the dutch and the danes are pretty good at it, though.


   Who died and made us police of the world?  We did.  We brought that
  upon ourselves.  And frankly, if it hadn't been for our meddling,we
  wouldn't have half the global problems we do have today (Iran,Iraq,
  Panama, just about the rest of South America,, etc.)

     --G. Racz
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Brown, Reagan, Laffer, Napkins???
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:50:44 GMT

I have read in a number of places that Reagan was convinced of the
"efficacy" of supply-side economics by Arthur Laffer who used graphs
made on cocktail napkins to illustrate his points.  I have also read
a similar napkin story relating to Laffer's persuading of Jerry Brown of
the "efficacy" of his flat and Value-added tax proposal.  It's bad
enough that Laffer has so much sway, but are both napkin stories true? 
This is the stuff urban legends are made of.  What is it with Laffer,
regressive economic policies and ex-governors of California, and
(possibly) napkins?   
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:13:20 CDT
From:         craig richard camelio <crc2@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

r
a
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:40:58 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>   Oh, come on.  If that were true, then people would hunt and not kill.
>  If the challenge is in the hunt, then why don't you hunt with non-lethal
>  weaponry?????

Because that's something other than hunting.

>  The fact is you hunt with a gun, a tool designed to OBLITERATE THINGS,
>  not just to send some projectile at high velocities.
>  All else is secondary.

Again, actual hunter behavior is inconsistent with the theory.  When
hunters ask "will this obliterate the animal?", if the answer is yes,
they choose a different weapon.  Within economic constraints, hunters
appear to try to hunt with the minimum gun necessary to cleanly kill.
(The economic constraints are that few can afford a different gun for
every different type of game, let alone different sizes of a given
species.)  The errors they make are in direction of "too little gun".

>  However, I
>  don't understand people who go out and kill a deer for the fun of it.

Fine, but that's the fantasy of anti-hunters; it is very rare among
actual people who kill animals.

>  I also object, by the way, to people who let others go out and kill their
>  food.

I object more.  The killers are doing it for money and the buyers are
keeping their hands clean.

-andy isn't a hunter
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:21:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Conviction of a thug

>With the guilty verdict of Noriega, a chance for the left to whine has been
>lost.

That's sure true, given the blatant disregard of the sovereignty of Panama,
there's more need for shouting than whining.

>But, even with the administration's victory, I will clearly state my opinion
>that it doesn't matter.  We did not do JUST CAUSE to get one drug pusher.  It
>was about restoring democracy and installing a legtimate government, about
>abiding by our treaty requirements, and about protecting the lives of US
>citizens (recall, the trigger was the abduction, torture, and sexual assualt
>of the PDF on US citizens).

It seems more like the CIA recalling its' errant servant; after all Noriega
was a CIA employee from the time he was a teenager.

>Innocent or guilty, Noriega is only a thug, not a world leader.

No problem there.

>Anyway, the real winners are the Panaminian people who not only have their
>democracy back, they now need not worry about him returning.

No, they are the losers because once again they have had the opportunity
to impose their own government and their own justice usurped by a foreign
power. "Real" democracies run their own affairs and set their own justice.


>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>University of Chicago

-other Andy

>"I smoked pot, but don't worry, I didn't inhale."  - Bill Clinton

"Pot is an herb, Reagan is a dope." - slogan on a Yippie smoke-in announcement
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:07:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!

In article <tfilt203694@drew.edu>, J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
> I can't speak for the rest of the country, but up until the Federal Militia
> Act of 1903, New England communities held an annual muster day in which all
> able-bodied men were expected to report to the village common or to the
> local armory parade ground to drill and train with arms. (Thoreau offers a
> humorous discussion of Concord's 'muster day'--to which he reported--in
> Walden). Those arms were drawn from the armory and were the property of the
> state, and rarely, of the town. The unorganized militia was not expected
> to supply its own arms

> this that I stand by my earlier contention that the "right to bear arms"
> refers to the civilian's right to participate in his own defense, but in an
> organized or community fashion.

    Article 1, Sec. 8 speaks of various powers over the militia by
Congress, allowing them to call them to serve and organize them.  This
shows that the militia is both a right and an obligation that is an
essential part of society.  "A well regulated" militia obviously needs
some regulating, the question of how far the gov't can go remaining,
but the powers of the Congress over them show that the militia is not
a totally independant force of society.  To argue this, would argue
that the Constitution supports those who would usurp its power,
something not meant for such a document.  This power over the militia
being large, the second amendment safeguards the people by giving the
people a right to arms to prevent the Congress or any gov't body to
disarm the people using their militia powers.  So besides not using a
standing army as sole defense, the people are further safeguarded by
the assurance that they won't be disarmed in another way.  Elbridge
Gerry was really worried about such things, and probably had such
things in mind at the time it was written.  Wasn't it Aristotle who
said an armed citizenry is one to be reckoned with?

          -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:59:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

>From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>I would like to support the bill pushed by Common Cause to limit spending on
>campaigning.
>
>BUT....
>
>How can it be constitutional?  Jamie, you have elsewhere advocated some form
>of spending limits.  How can this possibily survive constitutional scrutiny?

Notice that the header does not accurately describe the topic.

What I've advocated is limits on the total amount of contribution,
not spending limits. I don't see how this would be unconstitutional.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:03:31 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              9 Apr 1992 14:04:27 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> So when we "gun" down a person, we are just propelling a
>> projectile into their chest.  The act of killing is simply
>> a side effect.

> No, the gun is propelling the projectile.  The targetting and intent,
> the purpose, are the shooter's; neither the gun nor anyone involved in
> its design or manufacture have any effect on them.

I made an implicit challenge sometime ago but (not to my
surprise) you did not take it.  I said with the standard
that you are using I can refute almost any statement that
says the main purpose/function of X is Y.  In fact I can
even refute your statement that the main purpose of guns
is to propel projectiles: OK, I can say the main purpose
of guns are to ignite a chemical powder behind a piece of
metal.  Or if you say that the main purpose of books is
to convey information, I can say no, the purpose is to
print specific shapes of ink on plain pieces of paper and
then bound them together.  Now whether one uses books to
hit his child on the head, or use it as paper weight, or
use it as an educational tool, that choice is not dictated
by the manufacturer.

>> But then again you are withholding the designation of
>> hunter from a person who kills only for the joy of killing.

> Yup.  That's reasonable because we're using "hunter" to refer to a
> subset of people who actually exist and KAT's "pleasure killers" don't
> seem to exist in significant numbers outside KAT's mind.

Speaking of fantasies, when did I say pleasure killers exist in
significant numbers?  I said I do not approve of those hunters
who kill for the sole purpose of killing.  Then you became the
spokesman for the hunters and said such hunters do not exist and
now you are saying they do not exist in significant numbers.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:03:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy
              13 Apr 1992 11:29:50 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> In simple terms.  if you tax at 0% the government takes in $0.
>> if you tax at 100% no one produces anything so the government takes in $0

>> There is no big revalation in this, The argument is whether the current
>> tax rates are the the right or to the left of the peak.

> Hmm.  Is maximizing revenue the primary goal of a tax system?  (If so,
> the marijuana tax rate is obviously wrong, as is the "birth" tax.)  It
> appears that we tax for lots of reasons and I'm not convinced that
> maximizine revenue is, or should be, one of the biggies.

I agree with this.

Also there are two major issues:

      1. the total amount of tax collected by the government
      2. who pays how much (i.e., poor v. rich)

In other words, how big is the pie and what is the share for
each segment of the population.

The original poster's point addresses number (1) but does
not speak to (2).

And then the question is which is better: people making $100
and paying $20 in taxes or making $90 and paying $30 in taxes.

If we assume I=income and T=taxes, do we want to maximize I, T
or I-T??  Why not maximize (I-T)xT.  Assuming T=R x I (rate times
income) we can then try to maximize (I - RI) RI = I**2 (1-R)R.

Now to complete this problem one has to know the functionality
of I vs. R (i.e. how income depends on tax rate).

Since I have no idea how to get that functionality (Lorin?)
I will do the honorable thing that any engineer will do (BTW:
I am a scientist not an engineer -- Jamie: you be quiet! :-)
and assume I does not depend on R.  Upon differentiation:

         d/dR ((1-R)R) = d/dR (R-R**2) = 1 -2R = 0

         R=.5

Voilla, a tax rate of 50% on the rich would maximize our
economy.

I always knew a 50% tax on the rich made sense, now I know
why.  :-)

> -andy

KAT, who wrote this post JUST to welcome Tim back.