HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:17:11 GMT

In article <viking.717392712@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
Sorenson) writes:
> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
> 
> >Specifically, I strongly believe in the following ethic:
> > 
> >   The less pain I inflict, the better. 
> > 
> >Does everyone agree with this? More to the point, does anyone disagree with 
> >this? 

I agree. Even if this statement may not be perfect.

> 
> 	I disagree with it in selected instances.  An increase in felt
> pain my in fact be beneficial in some instances.  Two examples that come
> to mind are in warfare and medicine.  In warfare, pain is good because it
> stops your enemy and three of his buddies to care for him.  No pain in
> warfare means death, which only allows his buddies to shoot at you
> unhampered with wounded.  In medicine, one need only go to a physical
> rehabilitation ward to see how intense pain is ultimately for the good
> of the patient.  Pain is not the only, or even ultimate, measure of
> harm to another, or the measure by which we can do the most good.  As
> a thought, can you imagine the consequences of having no nerves for
> pain?  We'd kill ourselves off in no time.

The nerves for pain tell us that it is a warning signal.
It shall help us to avoid overloading forces. It is unwanted.
Pain in medicine is a byproduct, it can't be avoided always.
Pain in war is avoidable if we do not deliver e.g. weapons
to dictators against that we have to fight some time later.
And pain in war may double your enemies hatred. As a example
see vietnam. A war with much pain on every side.
Some hours ago I have seen two reports. One about Somalia
and one about test animals (apes) in japan. We name them
man like apes (??? Sorry, I found no translation in my dictionary)
but they were treated like waste.
There must be a way to test without these tormented beings.
And do we really need so much (and cheap) steaks?

Udo.

PS: Even if you do not agree with me, please try to help
the people in Somalia now. There the pain is unspeakable.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Jewish view on fur
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:54:21 GMT



ISRAELI RABBI BANS WEARING, MANUFACTURING OF FUR COATS

TEL AVIV (MARCH 15) DPA - The chief rabbi in Tel Aviv has issued a ruling
forbidding the wearing of fur coats or the killing of animals for the
purpose, the Ha'aretz daily reported Sunday.

The ruling followed an argument last week at a religious music recital
between fur-wearing concert-goers and animal rights activists demonstrating
outside.

Called in to adjudicate the dispute, Tel Aviv chief Rabbi Haim David
Halevi said that since Jewish law forbids the causing of pain to animals,
the wearing and manufacture of fur coats is forbidden.
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:27:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvvFur.Hw9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
I wrote:
>> Challenge to Russell:  Take your debate to one of the religion groups.
>
Russell responded:
>Challenge to Mary: If my articles are disturbing to you, why don't
>you skip them?  You won't hurt my feelings.

I take it you are afraid to debate the issue with the theologians.
Perhaps their arguments might be even tougher than mine.  That's
why it's a CHALLENGE.

Mary Otto
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:51:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.040248.24701@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct2.163842.7950@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <1992Oct2.011020.23107@clipper.ingr.com>
    >>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >>>Coercion comes in too many forms to be argued as a simple
    >>>matter of freedom of association. My boss coerces me, I
    >>>coerce my kids, my wife coerces me, we all coerce each other
    >>>to some degree, on the freeway, in social settings. But
    >>>perhaps we have a semantic problem here. The definition of
    >>>"coerce" which seems most universal is: "to compel to an act
    >>>or choice." Coercion is not necessarily the use of force, in
    >>>other words, so it cannot automatically be classified as
    >>>immoral, and again, the connection to the FOA seems remote.
    >>>
    >>Do you have a choice with respect to boss and wife? Can you
    >>not say, "Sorry, but this is not for me. Let's not associate
    >>anymore."?
    >>
    >>You can't say that to the State now can you? Hey boss, I'm
    >>not going to work here anymore, and you of course won't pay
    >>me anymore.
    >>
    >>Hey State, I'm not using your services anymore (like, say,
    >>the Amish) so let's not associate anymore ...
    >>
    >>
    >Well, you may certainly choose to join the underground
    >economy, go live in the hills, or start your own country in
    >the South Pacific. But you may find that you are being
    >coerced to an even greater degree than you are now.
    >
    >Certainly one may exercise one's freedom of association if
    >one feels that one is overly coerced in a given relationship.
    >But one would exercise one's freedom of association for a
    >million other reasons as well. The link between the FOA and
    >coercion is only incidental inotherwords. I suppose enough
    >coercion could be applied that your FOA would be rendered
    >useless (as if you were chained in the Gulag) but this is a
    >moral abomination for other reasons than the denial of FOA.

Huh?

Freedom Of Association (FOA) exists ONLY WITHOUT coercion.

You post is meaningless.

How can you "exercise FOA" if one "feels" that one is "overly coerced"?

Tell me -- how does your wife "coerce" you?

I don't coerce you.

Just WHAT is this initiation of force that your wife enages in? And
have you considered calling the police the next time she does this?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4491 alt.politics.libertarian:783 alt.society.anarchy:430
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Nozick on Anarchy (was: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right)
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:34:33 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Tim Starr and Mark Sulkowski report theories refuting Nozick; 
could one or both of you post summaries?  
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:39:27 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Oct12.000511.19890@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu
(Allen Smith) writes:

>       It's still offensive to libertarians, since it states that a 
>company and an individual can't agree on whatever wage rate they wish.

individuals rarely agree on wage rates, at least not the lower-paid ones.
they submit.

-dave
From: jirasanen@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: The Consumist Manifesto
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:22:02 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

This is about "The third road". Not between capitalism and socialism, but
far away from those two: CONSUMISM. Consumism is an economic system,
where power belongs to the consumer. When in contrast in capitalism the
power in the economy belongs to the producer and broadcaster and in 
socialism to the worker. (And in so-called 'real-socialism' to the
nomenklatura.) 

I am looking some information about A CONSUMIST ECONOMIC THEORY.
So far I have found only one book, but there surely must be others!
So if this sounds somehow familiar, if you remember having read somewhre
something like this, please let me know!

I am really enthusiasted about this. What is the whole economy for if
not for the consumers needs? The economy would work most efficently, if
consumers had the ruling power in the economic system. 
	Only some people are producers and not all the people are
workers. So any economical system based on power of one of the two 
creates classes.
	In the same time we all are consumers. That is why the only
economical system capable of creating a society without classes is a
economy where the consumers make the most important decisions in the
economy. 
	
But I am not propagating, only looking for information. 

Jiri Rasanen                             Jiri.Rasanen@Helsinki.fi
Finland
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Philosophy 101
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:13:54 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I would not go so far as to say that we can't map the
behavior of social entities like corporations; given the
apparent bandwith between their component entities (per-
sons) and the degree of complexity of interconnections
possible in the corporate structure (not much) I think
they're basically not very bright.  More loosely structured
groups would seem to be even less bright.

Where I disagree with von Mises is where he apparently says 
that, in studying society, we _have_ to start with 
individuals.  Even a very dumb structure can do things 
apart from what its individuals do as individuals -- look 
at cellular automata or the wires in a screen.  Humans
have manifestly exported a lot of their activities into
social structures and most of what they perceive and know
is generated by them or filtered through them.

To go back to the original issue which raised this 
question -- the acceptance of racism in a racist society 
-- even if an individual, through Reason or divine 
revelation, were to reject it totally, the aggregate of 
individuals would most likely go right on perceiving 
things through racism and acting racistically.  That 
would create a political fact.  If we wanted to study
the political fact, we would have to take into account 
the effects of the society on the individuals it was 
comprised of, which is what I was doing when I was
talking about a free market distributing racism.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Discrimination in a Libertarian Order
Summary: How would discrimination fare in a Libertarian order?
Keywords: Discrimination,Libertarian,Libertairianism
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:12:18 GMT

I saw some postings that raise the question of discrimination in a
Libertarian political order. In a pure Libertarian system the only
publicly held property would be those facilities the Government needed to
carry out its legitimate functions. These would be for the most part
police stations, law courts and army barracks. Everything else would be
privately owned. 

In a public facility supported by taxpayer money, I would probably be
illegal in a Libertarian order to discriminate arbitrarily by race, gender
preference or religion. However in private matters, discrimination surely
would not be *foribdden*. To say that such and such is not forbidden, is
not to say that such and such would be widely practiced. For example,
racial discrimination in business dealings or employment could cost
discriminaters profitable opportunities, or access to good employees. I
assume that if one wishes to enlarge profit, one would pursue rational
policies to that end. If, mayhap, someone still wished to discriminate, he 
would do it and incur some disadvantage. 

To put a point on it, discrimination in private matters is right that
flows from freedom of association, and absence of coercision in the matter
of formulating contracts and relationships.  I doubt if many Libertarians
would advocate arbitrary and irrational discrimination, but it they are
true to the principle that freedome of association is an immdediate
consequence of freedom from slavery or other coercian, they could hardly
forbid such discrimination (except in the public, taxpayer supported domain).

Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:05:11 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <dliebman.1uce@terapin.com>, dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
> instead of fixed minimum wage, why not establish the minimum as a percentage
> of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices this: the most
> trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation no less than
> X% of that of the highest-paid.
> 
> unlike other manners of redistributing wealth, the tiered-wage system would
> not incur the offense of the libertarians or laissez-faire marketeers among
> us.  in fact, such a system would seem to stimulate the practice of efficiency
> among our corporate leadership, as their profit would be tied to what they
> could afford to pay their employees.  and the worker's interest in the
> success of her business would follow the executive's, linked by that little
> percentage sign.
> 
	It's still offensive to libertarians, since it states that a 
company and an individual can't agree on whatever wage rate they wish.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:35:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct14.184213.1351@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
> 
>> instead of fixed minimum wage, who not establish the minimum as a
>> percentage of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices
>> this: the most trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation
>> no less than X% of that of the highest-paid.
>
>If this were done, I would imagine that the tendency would be to
>contract out the lowest-paid or highest-paid jobs.  For example, law
>firms or investment banking houses would fire all their clerical
>workers and contract with someone to provide clerical services to a
>shrunken firm consisting solely of high-paid professionals.


  This is happening anyway.  Business Week reported recently that this
  is a major trend all over the country.  Companies save money by not
  having to pay benefits, and having more flexibility to resize.

  The interesting thing is that since traditionally workers have
  relied on employers for retirement and health insurance, this
  will greatly increase the political pressure for programs like
  national health insurance.   It would be one of history's great
  ironies if, ultimately, it was the collective decisions of good
  ol' Republican Corporate America that gave the final impetus
  to national health insurance in the U.S.  

  I've said many times that the best way for conservatives and 
  free market enthusiasts to beat back the rising tide of statism
  and Big Government is to show that free markets can meet people's
  needs without those things.  And they used to: steady jobs with
  good benefits in the US are the main reason we haven't succumbed 
  like Europe to "social democracy".  But today corporate America
  seems intent on doing just the opposite, and I'm afraid they will
  deserve exactly what they will get.   But it us, the ordinary
  working (if we can get a job) people, who will suffer the results.



---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Nozick on Anarchy (was: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.053433.15892@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}Tim Starr and Mark Sulkowski report theories refuting Nozick; 
}could one or both of you post summaries?  
}-- 
} )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
}( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

In his article, "Justice Entrepreneurship on the Free Market," George Smith
notes that Nozick's argument that a minimal state will develop necessarily out
of competition between private defense agencies depends on a positivist
conception of procedural rights, such as the right to an attorney.

Smith goes on to derive procedural rights from natural law, making them matters
of knowledge, not force, as much as any other natural rights.  'Tis a very
subtle point, and it seems to overturn Nozick's argument nicely.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:32:44 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <dliebman.1v5m@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:

>individuals rarely agree on wage rates, at least not the lower-paid ones.
>they submit.

They submit or they go elsewhere.  The ability to choose the most
favorable offer from several possible employers is at least as useful
as the ability to dicker with a single possible employer.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4459 alt.politics.libertarian:667 alt.society.anarchy:393
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Nozick on Anarchy (was: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right)
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct7.160528.471@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
>Speaking of Nozick, it seems to me he makes a pretty conclusive
>case against "right-wing" or propertied anarchy in _Anarchy_,
>_State,_and_Utopia_ (I think that's the title).  Among so many
>libertarians, I think I need not repeat it.  I was so convinced
>by his arguments that I decided that if I were going to be a
>principled anarchist, I'd have to be a communist and a pacifist
>as well -- since a theory of property implies a theory of force 
>or violence to maintain the property.  Before going off into
>that, though, I'd like to know what you all think of Nozick's
>argument.

	I wasn't impressed by Nozick's argument.  I also read an excellent
refutation of it by an old philosophy teacher of mine by the name of John
Sanders.  He really trashed Nozick's argument.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Nozick on Anarchy (was: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:05:28 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Speaking of Nozick, it seems to me he makes a pretty conclusive
case against "right-wing" or propertied anarchy in _Anarchy_,
_State,_and_Utopia_ (I think that's the title).  Among so many
libertarians, I think I need not repeat it.  I was so convinced
by his arguments that I decided that if I were going to be a
principled anarchist, I'd have to be a communist and a pacifist
as well -- since a theory of property implies a theory of force 
or violence to maintain the property.  Before going off into
that, though, I'd like to know what you all think of Nozick's
argument.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when the USA goes bust?
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:53:24 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

Your recommendation for a line-item veto is poorly supported.  Do you 
REALLY want to give the President the power implicit in a line-item veto? 
Governor Thompson of Wisconsin uses his line-item veto to strike various 
phrases that change the meaning and effect of legislation.  This put 
legislative powers in the hands of the executive branch.  The WI S.C. 
ruled that Thompson may only use his line-item veto for purposes that do 
not set policy, but who's going to pull him into court every time he gets 
a little frisky with his pen?

There is no grant of legislative power to the President, and no reason 
why Congress cannot make appropriations without the help of the Prez, a 
process he has no business interfering with in the first place.  The 
problem lies int he economic policy that has driven this country for 
twelve years.  Trickle down economics doesn't even work in theory, why 
would anyone risk it in practice.  Look to Marx for the answer to THAT 
one.

Todd
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4453 ba.politics:5909 alt.individualism:5684
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,ba.politics,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:02:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct2.163842.7950@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.011020.23107@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>    >Coercion comes in too many forms to be argued as a simple
>    >matter of freedom of association. My boss coerces me, I
>    >coerce my kids, my wife coerces me, we all coerce each other
>    >to some degree, on the freeway, in social settings. But
>    >perhaps we have a semantic problem here. The definition of
>    >"coerce" which seems most universal is: "to compel to an act
>    >or choice." Coercion is not necessarily the use of force, in
>    >other words, so it cannot automatically be classified as
>    >immoral, and again, the connection to the FOA seems remote.
>
>Do you have a choice with respect to boss and wife? Can you not
>say, "Sorry, but this is not for me. Let's not associate anymore."?
>
>You can't say that to the State now can you? Hey boss, I'm not
>going to work here anymore, and you of course won't pay me anymore.
>
>Hey State, I'm not using your services anymore (like, say, the Amish)
>so let's not associate anymore ...
>

Well, you may certainly choose to join the underground economy,
go live in the hills, or start your own country in the South
Pacific.  But you may find that you are being
coerced to an even greater degree than you are now. 

Certainly one may exercise one's freedom of association if one
feels that one is overly coerced in a given relationship.  
But one would exercise one's freedom of association for a
million other reasons as well.  The link between the FOA
and coercion is only incidental inotherwords.  I suppose
enough coercion could be applied that your FOA would be
rendered useless (as if you were chained in the Gulag)
but this is a moral abomination for other reasons than
the denial of FOA.  


--Al Date
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory