HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:30:30 GMT

In article <1hu562INNjvb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>	And regarding denial of a donation to a given person, I have no
>>	problem with that either.  Let's say I'm one o' dem po' stupid
>>	niggerz.  Why should I donate my organs to, say, a KKK member or a skin
>>	head that would just as soon turn around and kill my kin?  I might
>>	rather see that bastard die than to give them a second chance to
>>	do me or mine some serious harm.  I see no obligation whatsoever to
>>	offer my organs unconditionally to one and all.
>>
>A most selfish, immoral and narrow view of humanity, imho.  

Not at all.  It's an accurate one.  Just because it's not pretty doesn't 
mean it's incorrect.

>Also illegal in
>this country...you may not designate which person or class of persons your
>organs will go to once you are dead.

True.  And in my opinion, immoral.

>It is also extremely rare...in fact, I don't know of a case, and I work
>in this field.  Given the high emotions this topic carries, I would think
>it would have come up by now if it was widesxpread.  And it wouldn't be
>that hard to prove.
>
>As for substantiation...you are the proponent of this idea.  It is up to you
>to prove that it is something to worry about.

That he has concern is proof enough.  His organs, his choice.  Not the 
state's.

>>	The senior administration persons might smile VERY kindly upon the
>>	doctor that  secured the organs for Sen. Joe Scumbag's daughter,
>>	thr reception of which would get that juicy million dollar donation
>>	to help build that new wing or trauma unit.
>>
>This is utter nonsense.  No one would know in advance who the recipient(s)
>would be, and the doning hospital would not know even after the fact, as the
>recipient's identity is protected by law.  

My right to keep and bear arms is also protected by law, but if I carry a 
gun in this city, I will be arrested.  The real world ignores laws when they 
are inconvenient.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:25:17 GMT

In article <1hu44gINNjet@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>        Does it matter how if they can?
>>
>Yes.  It is so remarkably unlikely that you need to demonstrate how this is
>possible.

No he does not.  All he has to do is state that he does not want to be in a 
situation where it is possible.

YOU must make the case for the state having the right to cut you up for 
organ donation without your consent.

[snip]

>>        The words "ranting" and "bullshit" do not indicate much of an
>>interest in reasonable dicussion of the issue.
>>
>>
>Neither do your wild, unfounded accusations against the organ procurement
>system indicate a serious interest in discussion.

It was neither wild, nor unfounded.  It addressed the issue from the 
direction of rights and choices, rather than warm fuzzy feelings.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:12:22 GMT


In article <2783@grivel.une.edu.au>, 
drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson) said:

> Or better still, how about the cost to society of smoking?  Once
> upon a time, not all that long ago, the tax on cigarettes in
> countries like Britain and Australia covered the health costs of
> treating smoking related diseases.  Now, apparently, it doesn't come
> anywhere near ....  probably because expensive heart surgery is
> becoming more commonplace.  Even the cost of leg amputatations
> because of smoking have probably risen by more than inflation.  Not
> to mention the cost of expesive drugs to treat childhood asthma, two
> thirds of which seem to be caused by smoking.  How many of you want
> to deny people to freedom of choice to smoke in the privacy of their
> own home if they wish?  Even so, I would certainly like them to pay
> for the additional health costs which must be massive compared with
> the original theme of compulsory bicycle helmets

It's not clear to me how smoking costs society anything.  Indeed, I'm
not even sure what you mean by the word "society."

If you mean that some people are being forced to pay for other people's
medical treatment for conditions brought about by their (the other
people's) voluntary actions, such as smoking, then it looks to me as
though the villain is whoever it is that's applying the force, rather
than the people who happen to be the beneficiaries of these forced
transfers of assets.

(By the way, please note that I'm talking only about people whose
medical needs are caused by their _own_ voluntary behavior; I'm _not_
including second-hand-smoke victims like children who essentially had
the damaging air pollution forced upon them.  I consider such people to
be the victims of civil and possibly criminal violations of their
rights, and I believe that they should be compensated as best as is
possible by the wrongdoers for the harms done to them.  It's the people
who pollute their _own_ lungs who have no one to blame but themselves.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:29:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.163610.5577@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
> In one article, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> >[In another article] bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
> >>
> >> "Judge not, that ye be not judged." -- Jesus Christ
> >
> >He's about as interesting as Jeanne Dixon.
> 
> Jesus, according to reports, managed to piss off a whole slate of government
> officials and both the religious right and religious left of his day.  I'd say
> that puts him a few points up over Jeanne Dixon.

Point taken.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)
Subject: Re: FREEDOM, SOCIAL RESPO
Organization: Jostens Learning Corp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:34:03 GMT

In article <4046958105.23@inode.com> andor@inode.com writes:
>Libertarians I've talked to maintain very strongly that they don't support
>monarchy or oligarchy. That is -- they don't support the idea of there being
>one or a few people who own everything. 

	I won't pretend to represent all Libertarians, only myself and what 
I call my libertarian theory. The basic premise is that no individual or 
group of individuals may initiate force or fraud against another individual 
or group. A corollary to this is that all associations must be voluntary.

	Now if a group of people all (it must be unanimous) agree that a few 
people can own everything, that's their problem and I won't tell them it's 
wrong. I don't know any people that would agree to this arrangement, though.

>
>And yet they are not willing to accept any laws that would prevent one person
>from owning everything. 

	I cannot imagine how anyone could accomplish this without laws. In 
the absence of coercion, this is just not possible. Only by passing a law 
that says Joe Special owns everything (and using force to make sure its 
true), can this be achieved. You might consider that laws are the crux of 
the problem, not the solution.

	To look at it another way, if one person owns everything, then 
everyone else dies from starvation. If Joe gives things away to avoid this, 
then he doesn't own it all anymore.

>
>With the natural tendency (pointed out by Adam Smith) of wealth to concentrate
>and of companies to become larger and larger, it seems obvious that after
>several hundred years of complete free enterprise one or a very few people
>would own everything.


	I'm not familiar with this (it has been a while since I studied 
Smith). You'll have to help me understand this theory. It seems flawed to 
me. Competition alone would negate this tendency. When a company becomes too 
large they are vulnerable to rivals that don't have the inertia to overcome.

>
>Everyone else would be merely glorified slaves or bondsmen.


	I submit that this is more or less the current situation in most of 
the western world.

>
>That is not the future I want, nor is it the future the libertarians want.
>Yet their refusal to support limits on expansion or ownership virtually
>insures that this would be the outcome of their policies, if implemented. 

	Nor I. That is why I am in favor of no such laws. What would prevent 
the Joe Specials of the world from getting together and making laws that 
would guarantee their unlimited ownership? And using all the guns and other 
weapons controlled by the lawmakers to enforce it. Laws work both ways. I'm 
not willing to risk the latter situation to avoid the impossible scenario of 
one person owning everything.

>
>Responses, please.

The same, please.	

Rob Carlson
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.170206.3076@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.155850.232@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>I agree the vast majority of people are decent, but I don't want to
>>take any chances that I would be helping some evil person.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ...
>
>  Since I too agree that the vast majority of people are decent,
>I consider that the odds of an organ donation being in good cause
>are sufficiently high that I chose to sign a Uniform Donor Act
>card.  The possibility that I will help an "evil person" exists,
>but doesn't deter me from the better odds of helping a decent person.

I would agree with this completely except for one thing, which leads
me to a different conclusion.  I believe the vast majority of people,
while decent, are also cowardly sheep who just stand by while the
republic burns.  I cannot for the life of me bring myself to be so
generous to someone who will not stand up and resist this insanity.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good
men to do nothing -- maybe Edmund Burke ...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:13:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns


|I'm interested in furthering my values and ideals even after I am dead.
|Helping someone who is opposed to those values and ideals is inconsistent
|with that goal.  This is not /harmless/ to me, hence I'm complaining.

Curiously, I recall a case where a Nazi-type died in the USA, and willed
his assets to organizations willing to carry on those values. Some Jewish
group or individuals went to court to block the asset transfers, and the
courts AGREED.

Interesting that PC applies even AFTER you have bitten the dust; who
the hell is some f***ing judge to say that willing your assets, for
the entirely 100% legal purposes of advocacy of some political viewpoint
is to be forbidden????
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:19:40 GMT

In article <casseres-040193094041@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws, and
>absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.

In order for there to be a contradiction, there must be a statement in 
opposition.  All you have cited is an omission.

Further, there is only so much energy to go around.  Most libertarians I 
know would consider clothing mandates to be an absurd waste of time, money, 
and energy, and would vote against them.  

>
>> 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
>> "indecent exposure", which they would not consider an initiation of force,
>> to "assault", which they would, and libertarians will be in favor of the
>> law because it protects one from others.  But a libertarian would never
>> favor a law that protects you from yourself.
>
>Yes, there's a difference of intent between helmet laws and clothing laws. 
>But it's irrelevant to my argument, which is that both are irrational
>restrictions of individual liberty.

Um, no.  IF indeed clothing laws "protect others" then they are not an 
irrational restriction on individual liberty.

>Libertarians are so damn funny.  What did I say in my very first paragraph?

Why do you say that?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7296 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1392 alt.atheism:25189
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oath/Affirmation of Office of the U.S. House of R
From: silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith)
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:06:20 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0Eus5.70I@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I heard the Oath (given by Speaker of the House Tom Foley) on the
>radio today.  It went something like:
>
>"I do solemnly swear [...] So help me God."
>
>In contrast, the Presidential Oath is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
>that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the
>United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
>and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
>The Constitution says this about the represenative's affirmation:
>
>"3.  The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and  the  members  of
>the  several  state  legislatures,  and all executive and judicial officers,
>both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by  oath
>or  affirmation,  to  support this constitution; but no religious test shall
>ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under  the
>United States."
>
>So were did Foley get on the religious stuff? What would happen if a
>Quaker or agnotistic represenative-elect refused to take Foley's oath?
>
>It seems to me the Foley Oath violates the very Constitution it claims
>to binding representatives to.

The "so help me God" tag is not mandatory. Indeed, the oath need not be "sworn"
but merely "affirmed" if one's religion so requires. And if you remember Bush's
oath, he did conclude with a reference to "God" when he became President.

-- 
Jolyon A. Silversmith __________________________________________________________
Mather House 100             Director: Civil Liberties     These opinions aren't
Cambridge, MA 02138          Union of Harvard  College     necessarily  those of
silvers3@husc.harvard.edu ________________________________ CLUH.  But who knows?
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7348 sci.crypt:6686
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSAREF and RIPEM now available via anonymous FTP
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:12:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1993Jan10.235739.14767@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> The U.S. is sovereign in its own territory and may make whatever laws
> it wishes with respect to the activities of non-nationals within our
> borders, regardless of where the non-national is physically located.

A ``nation'' is an association of people.  The ``border'' of which you
write is between members and non-members, and has nothing to do with
territory or geography.  Some of those members may claim that the
nation has jurisdiction over some geographical territory, but that's
just a claim.  A person who does not consent to join the nation is not
entitled to the benefits of membership and is not responsible for the
obligations of membership.  Such a person is a non-national and is
outside the U.S. and all other nations.  A ``non-national within our
borders'' is any oxymoron.

> Thus non-nationals who would trade in encryption software may freely
> do so outside the U.S. within their own laws,...

Good.

Follow-ups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.bellcore.com (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Leave The %$#@#$% By-Laws ALONE !!!
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:58:59 GMT

Reguarding organ donors and making money.
I did not pay much attention to a news article
I read several months ago, but I do remember that
in several south american cities and in the far
east that people have been known to dissappear and
the bodies turn up later missing specific parts that
were surgically removed.It would not be too hard in
a society with socialized medicine to run a few compatability
tests for "donor receiptivity" and maintain this in a
data base. It is done now with bone marrow transplants
here in the US. It is not much of a stretch to see where
an individual or family who needed a "spare part" for
a family member, had the money to pay for it, might
offer a compatable individual monetary compensation for
"donating" a kidney, of which you only need one.
Or in the case of say a heart put out a contract to locate
said "spare part" from a currently living individual,
arrange a sutable "accident" and viola` a fresh heart.
Much more profitable than sticking up a liquor store.
The Sci-Fi writer, Larry Niven wrote some interesting
stories on this along with "revived" individuals from
cryo storeage, some interesting ideas there.
Anybody have any idea how many people "disappear" here
in the US every year who were young, healthy and maybe
had extensive medical tests done say a year or two before
vanishing. Anyone ever hear of "extremely wealthy" families
having to wait for donors, everyone I ever hear of that
waits for donors is busy trying to raise the money for
the operation. Maybe that next carjacker wants your 
liver and not your BMW. :-\
Just my $.02 worth
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: FREEDOM, SOCIAL RESPO
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:09:42 GMT

In article <3047042418.23@inode.com> andor@inode.com writes:
}
} -=> Quoting Alex Andor to Leecr@microsoft.com <=-
}
} To me, one of the most glaring problems of libertarianism is the
} following inconsistancy:
}
} Libertarians I've talked to maintain very strongly that they don't
} support monarchy or oligarchy. That is -- they don't support the idea
} of there being one or a few people who own everything. 
}
} And yet they are not willing to accept any laws that would prevent one
} person from owning everything. 

What libertarians do not support is government intruding into the honest
and peacable activities of individuals.  This arises from the basic
libertarian premis that no individual or group of individuals has the moral
right to initiate the uise of force or fraud.  The above alleged
"incocnistancy" is an attempt to sidestep this premis.

}
} With the natural tendency (pointed out by Adam Smith) of wealth to
} concentrate and of companies to become larger and larger, it seems
} obvious that after several hundred years of complete free enterprise
} one or a very few people would own everything.

This reads like the classic fallacy of free markets leading to a coercive
monopoly.  This has no basis.  No coercive monopoly has ever existed
without the support of governmental action (legislation backed by physical
force).

With the natural tendency of government power to consistently increase and
consolodate itself, it seems obvious that after several hundred years of
unchecked government an oligarchy would rule over everything.

}
} Everyone else would be merely glorified slaves or bondsmen.

Sounds like the result of unchecked government.

}
} That is not the future I want, nor is it the future the libertarians
} want. Yet their refusal to support limits on expansion or ownership
} virtually insures that this would be the outcome of their policies, if
} implemented.  
} Responses, please.
} 

The refusal of statists and their apologists to support limits on
governmental action virtually insures a further decline and elimination of
the rights of individuals.  This is not the future I want.


}
}
}--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
}#! rnews 2


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns