HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Booklist + What is Anarchy (long)
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:25:59 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec28.164941.3322@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>Well, I find the claim that one can do without police of some kind
>amusing. As a base example, without someone willing to use at least
>retaliatory force, who will stop the psychopathic killers of the
>world?

There are a lot of police around, and still a lot of psychopaths.  Retaliation
will not deter psychopaths, by their definition.  There is no easy solution
to this kind of antisocial behaviour.

>You might find working, the "fetishization" of goods and services,
>etc, to disgust you, but I'm not aware of any way that I could make
>sure that I had enough to eat otherwise. Regardless of their hopes and
>desires, I have yet to hear a single concrete idea from a socialist
>anarchist on how society could be structured to assure that even
>basics like food and the transportation system to assure that that
>food got to the people who needed it to survive could be provided for.

I suggest that you and your socialist anarchist colleagues read some history.
I'm not used to hearing this kind of calumny from self-professed anarchists. 
I just posted a list of books that describe exactly this kind of society.
Libertarian communism in Spain from 1936-39 encompassed the city of Barcelona, 
where the workers ran the transportation, electricity and other industries for 
over four months without _any_ government at all, and the collectives continued
for at least a year before being crushed by the communists.  Agrarian collectives
at a conservative estimate, half a million people.  All this in the middle of
the war, and with hostile foreign goverments denying vital imports. The 
experiences of the Spanish anarchists were not all positive, but the provision 
of the basic services you describe was one of their successes.


ian

---
	 Ian Heavens			ian@spider.co.uk                 
 	 Spider Software
 	 Spider Park, Stanwell Street		
	 Edinburgh, EH6 5NG, Scotland	+44 31 555 5166 (Ext 4347)
--
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:958 alt.individualism:6144 talk.politics.misc:65469 talk.politics.theory:5558
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 29 Dec 1992 03:13:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) says:
>225323.28356@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu:

>Ain't that the truth.  The only way I have found to effectively deal with
>this when talking to the theoretically uninitiated is to just say flat out
>that there is no relation between Somalia and anarchy period end of story.
>It sucks to have to be so closed about it, but I'm out of steam on it.

	Gang rule & warring pseudo-governments.  Sounds like Somalia
and sounds like anarchy.  Oh, you mean "there is no relation between
Somalia and cool comic-book images of anarchy period end of story."
If you meant that, then I agree 100%.

>>How do they suppose the country got armed to the teeth, anyway? 

	With money.  Anybody with a few bills to rub together can
buy a gun.  In a country like Somalia, or anywhere where there is 
anarchy or psedo-anarchy, people will buy a gun before they buy food, 
because they know being defenseless against the type of human predators
that thrive in an enviornment of anarchy means a short life.

	Even if you _could_ stamp out money it wouldn't matter.
It takes a few hours and some tools to make a gun.  No country is
so poor that people won't get AKs and the like if they think their
enviornment requires it.

>>Permissive upbringing of children, maybe?
>That would the the Liberal/therapy position, but the conservatives don't
>buy into that one.  Of course the conservatives also have an attack of
>convenient amnesia about how those M-16's got into the hands of the population.
>Paul

	AKs are more the style.  Cheap to manufacture with minimal tools,
use cheap ammo, function very reliably even if abused and neglected.
	

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:968 alt.individualism:6155
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 30 Dec 92 12:54:09 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:

>ah, yes, for those old 'comic book' days [meant ironically] of Spain in
>the mid 1930s and the Mahkonivist insurrection/commune in Russia in
>1917 and the Ferrer Colony in New Jersey and a zillion small
>collectives and communes in the '60s some spanning right up until
>today.  good thing the 'realists' are around to let us all know how
>utterly impossible it is to get along without a government unless (of
>course) you just want to live like a bunch of savages--otherwise
>someone might actually check the historical record and find otherwise.

What historical record are you referring to?  The references to Spain
and Russia look like references to the fish that got away.  I don't
know anything about the Ferrer Colony, but the collectives and communes
in this country that I do know about didn't work well or last long
(a few religious communities may be exceptions).

seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:

>I will add Viking Iceland (look it up!) and USENET (anarchy isn't chaos;
>anarchy means no government and voluntary agreements are fine).

The Icelandic sagas suggest that Viking Iceland had its problems if you
don't like violent death.  Take a look at _Njal's Saga_ or _Laxdaela_
Saga -- they're available in Penguin editions and are both great books
apart from any relevance to the workability of anarchy.  As for USENET,
it's a great institution but not a complete social order.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur."  (Cato)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<1992Dec14.225323.28356@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
	<1hofpnINN1gf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<29DEC199209093797@mivax.mc.duke.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:42:51 GMT

In article <29DEC199209093797@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:

>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.

>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.

    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.

    	    	    	    	    	--Jeff Turner
From: robohen@ocf.berkeley.edu (Henry Robertson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: REVOLUTIONARY JAPANESE CARTOONS FOR SALE $1
Date: 26 Dec 1992 02:03:47 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

Hahaha-ha, yes I plan to take over the world with my revolutionary enterprise.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Now that I have trimmed down by manga collection to only the very best,
I would like to share it with manga fans of the world.  By sending me
ONE DOLLAR, you get a 10-page sample of very rare, out-of-print works
by author Maruo Suehiro, with English subtitles.  One dollar is not a very
big risk to take, folks.  And I can promise you won't be disappointed by their
quality.  These very non-mainstream works are artistic, inspired, and 
bound to give you a crack-high.  So, if interested, send the cash or
money order in a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:

Henry Robertson
2206 Durant Ave. #5
Berkeley, CA 94704

Feel free to ask questions by e-mail.  I have a whole catalog here.
I'll be looking forward to your response....

Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Re: Looking for Anarchism refs to read
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:57:52 GMT

Why not write to A Distribution, one of the biggest distributors
of anarchist books in the U.S. (there's also a U.K. branch).
They have a free mail order catalog, which includes brief
discriptions of the books.

A Distribution
339 Lafayette St., Room 202
New York, NY 10012
From: apb.4819@nd.edu (voluptua love)
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Re: REVOLUTIONARY JAPANESE CARTOONS FOR SALE $1
Date: 28 Dec 92 06:58:51 GMT
Distribution: alt.society.revolution
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In article <1hgei3INN85q@agate.berkeley.edu> robohen@ocf.berkeley.edu (Henry Robertson) writes:
>From: robohen@ocf.berkeley.edu (Henry Robertson)
>Subject: REVOLUTIONARY JAPANESE CARTOONS FOR SALE $1
>Date: 26 Dec 1992 02:03:47 GMT

>Hahaha-ha, yes I plan to take over the world with my revolutionary enterprise.

>Ladies and Gentlemen,

>Now that I have trimmed down by manga collection to only the very best,
>I would like to share it with manga fans of the world.  By sending me
>ONE DOLLAR, you get a 10-page sample of very rare, out-of-print works
>by author Maruo Suehiro, with English subtitles.  One dollar is not a very
>big risk to take, folks.  And I can promise you won't be disappointed by their
>quality.  These very non-mainstream works are artistic, inspired, and 
>bound to give you a crack-high.  So, if interested, send the cash or
>money order in a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:

>Henry Robertson
>2206 Durant Ave. #5
>Berkeley, CA 94704

>Feel free to ask questions by e-mail.  I have a whole catalog here.
>I'll be looking forward to your response....




henry, do you think you can make enough money
with this crazy project to support both of us?
i *do* hope it works, but *color me doubtful!!*

now what is this manrou person?
what kind of photos are these?
this isnt porography, is it?

sign me up as just another cuddlesome
but concerned citizen!

love ya!

yours till the mountains fall into the sea,

voluptua
 
------------------------------------------
voluptua love
University of Notre Dame
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 23:40:03 EST

In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>>In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  Will it not
>>discourage those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of
>>future retribution?
>>
>>Well *that* sounds like an excellent effect to me.
>
>I would not argue with you on the surface of your statement and due to it's
>superficiality it's difficult to go farther.  I do, however, believe that
>this investigation is an attempt to criminalize what was, inarguably, bad 
>policy and is therefore misguided.  The long term effect on the Presidency
>could very well be such that it curtails the ability of the executive branch
>to take action.  I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
>greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
>perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.

Hold on a second.  Yes, most of us agree that the iran-contra stuff was
"bad policy."  So?  Most of us agree that *plenty* of policies were "bad
policies."  Yet the implementers of all those other policies don't get
investigated and (perhaps) prosecuted, as in this case.

The key here is the question of *legality* not *stupidity*.

What's more, when it comes to the recent past, present and future of the
investigation/prosecutions, it seems to be aimed at the *cover-up* of the
policy, afterward--as opposed to being directed at the policy itself.

So I don't see any merit in claims that such prosecutions threaten the ability
of the executive branch to actively pursue various policies (in a detrimental
way).  Bad policies will always draw criticism, and perhaps political failure.
*Illegal* policies *should* draw investigations and prosecutions where
appropriate.

And without question, attempted cover-ups should be *vigorously* investigated
and prosecuted.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:31:25 EST

In article <1992Dec22.211935.14260@athena.mit.edu> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes:
>"People should come to see organ donation `as a social duty, as an act on
> behalf of our fellows and the community...that is to be routinely expected'
> and that would reduce `the wastage of a precious human resource,' said
> the Communitarian Network."
>[source _Boston Globe_, p. 17, 22 December 1992]
>
>The article goes on to talk about how the CN is pushing for legislation
>to create "implied consent" for organ donations; i.e. unless you say
>otherwise, you are presumed to want to be an organ donor.
>
>While encouraging organ donation is a noble goal, this, IMHO, goes too 
>far.  The whole idea that some hazy group ("soceity", "the people", etc)
>should have a claim on me solely on the grounds that I am a potential
>organ source is disgusting and repulsive.
>
>An all around "bleah!" on this one.

Well, I'll need some more convincing that this is a terrible thing.  I'm a
little iffy on the idea that one has too many rights after they are dead.

In any case, this proposal doesn't really remove anyone's rights.  It just
changes the default when one doesn't specify how they want things to be
done after they are dead.

This strikes me as similar to changing the law regarding inheritance when
someone dies intestate.

Considering that there is a rational purpose, and this *doesn't* revoke
anybody's rights, I'm inclined to believe that the proposal is reasonable.


So tell me why I should think otherwise.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:12:33 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

[re Bill's restrictive wordings for organ donations, allowing their
use in some jurisdictions rather than others]

>Almost every proposal int his post is in violation of federal law.  All
>donated organs must be processed through a national data base, and it is
>illegal for any considerations other than medical ones to be used in deciding
>who gets which parts.  You cannot say, "Only residents of Goodstate" or "Only
>bikers".  These clauses are also unenforceable, since the recipient's
>identity is protected by the same law....you will have no way of proving that
>your conditions were adhered to.

The way this is worded makes it appear that the organs could be used in
any state as a result.  Doesn't the opposite result apply, i.e., the
organs are donated on an express set of terms; since the donee cannot
guarantee the fulfilment of those terms (for the reasons outlined by
Brandon), the entire donation fails, and the organs get buried or cremated
with the rest of the body.  

Do you agree, Brandon?

peter.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:55:35 GMT

In article <C03tqx.HH@demon.co.uk>
gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>In article <168CD11F58.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David eal) writes:
>:        It's a matter of action versus inaction.  It is reasonable and
>:logical to operate under the assumption that while an action which
>:brings about someone's death (the pulling of a trigger on a gun) is
>:morally indefensible, that the withholding of action (refusing to
>:come to someone's aid) is not.  The law, as a matter of fact, supports
>:this position (not to say the law is a good measure of morality, but)
>:and does not require you to go to someone's aid, even if they are in
>:imminent danger.
>
>Depends what country you're in.  Certainly in France, not going to
>someone's aid when their life is in danger is a criminal offence.

        Point taken.  I am unaware of how other countries deal with
that question.  (And if my newsreader have me that option, I might have
restricted my posts to the US, since that is where the change being
discussed is being proposed).
        However, since this may *actually* wander back to something
on-topic (self-defense and defense of others with a firearm) exactly
how *is* this dealt with in France?  Are you required to go to someone's
aid even when you are at great physical risk in doing so, and arguably
have no chance of aiding them, only endangering yourself?
        What exactly are the parameters and penalties?  (Anybody from
France out there that might have insights?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:18:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.161134.10962@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>If you want my organs to be available for transplant I want control over
>where they end up.

i couldn't agree more.  this whole thread of "we're taking your organs
unless you've jumped the hoops to prevent us" assumes that i, the donor,
agree with the philosophies of the recipient.  i would not appreciate
my organs prolonging the life of someone who later turned out to be
a key player in destroying civil liberties in this country (including,
of course, gun rights).  hence, "libertarians only" seems entirely
reasonable to me - in all other cases, destroy them.

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:09:06 GMT

In article <scottj-291292090620@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
:That being said, it is an error to equate helmet laws with clothing laws. 
:There is a fundamental difference.  Clothing laws are meant to protect
:*others* from the sight of your naked body (rightly or wrongly).  Helmet
:laws are meant to protect *you* from injury.  Change the violation from

I thought helmet/seat-belt laws were to protect society from the direct
and indirect costs of your accident.  I've never noticed governments (even
our british 'nanny knows best' one) going out of their way to protect us
from hurting *ourselves*.

And clothing laws aren't about protection.  They're about restriction and
religious prudery.  I wonder if 'indecency' (wrt clothing) laws were
repealed, whether many people would actually take advantage of them
in inappropriate conditions?

G
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:51:55 EST

In article <1992Dec29.222537.26253@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>>As Lawrence Walsh has stated, the pardon by Bush of Caspar Weinberger
>>shows terrible disrespect for the principle that ours is a government
>>of law.  The idea that a President can have his/her [<= someday?]
>>underlings violate the laws and then pardon them when leaving office so
>>that they serve little or no time is reprehensible.  Something should
>>be done to close this loophole.  I suggest a constitutional amendment
>>along the following lines:
>
>While you may address this issue in general as you may wish.  The action
>by Bush to pardon these underlings is by no means universally considered
>as reprehensible.  In fact, after watching Walsh after the pardons, Walsh
>showed himself to be the very likeness of a persecutor that those who
>decried MacCarthy's rule so oft lament when speaking of Republicans.

This is certainly not clear to me, but I won't dismiss it as a possibility.

In any case, this has little to do with the problem of having *blatantly*
political pardoning--as this would appear to be, whether or not you believe
it serves justice.

And certainly, the issuance of a "pardon" prior to a conviction will always
have a foul stench.


>Also, consider the evidence - it seems true that Poindexter and North were
>guilty of covering up evidence but Casper Weinberger is on record as being
>against this policy.  What we have here is Walsh persecuting these people
>and is attempting to do so by criminalizing what was, in effect, bad policy.

No sir.  Poindexter and North were prosecuted for, among other things,
instituting illegal policy (what you call "bad policy").

Weinberger was being prosecuted for allegedly helping to cover up that "bad
policy" afterwards.

The fact that Weinberger opposed the policy has nothing to do with the
possibility that, afterward, he may have intentionally obstructed justice.

(Similarly, the apparent fact that Nixon was uninvolved in the Watergate
break-in has no bearing on the apparent fact that he was involved in a
cover-up, afterward.)


>In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  Will it not discourage
>those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of future 
>retribution?  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
>and I would like for you to address this issue.

I don't see how it will have any such detrimental effect.

And if it *did* act as a deterrent to *illegal* (which is *not* equal to
"bad") policy, I'd have to say that would be a *good* effect!

I don't like the prospect of an executive that is assured that it can
institute *illegal* policy, and find immunity in Presidential pardons.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:49:21 GMT

>
>I wouldn't give Sarah Brady the time of day, why would I give her my organs !?!
>I'd rather my organs were burned up than to be transplanted into her.  Not
>being sure where they would end up, I would have them burned up as well.
>
>If you want my organs to be available for transplant I want control over
>where they end up.
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com


This maybe a bit of a sick idea, but what if the NRA started issuing organ
donor cards "Organs available for donation only to persons belonging to the NRA
prior to the death of the donor".

Might get some new members.

                                        rob b.

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7042 alt.activism:19810 alt.individualism:6133 talk.politics.misc:65250