HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwl@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Gerry Lawrence)
Subject: MAGLEV trains: only in a vacuum...
Organization: /eng/wasp1/gwl/.organization
Distribution: alt
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:57:06



I agree with most posters to this newsgroup: MEGLEV trains would be a
horrible waste.  UNLESS they were underground in a vacuum tunnel.  A
MAGLEV train in a vacuum would use very little energy because you could
get back almost all the energy you used to accelerate during
breaking....

(Start the debate on the feasibility of actually BUILDING one ;-)

Not to mention the HIGH velocities you could achieve!  Like a space ship
only better: you don't have to carry propellant with you!

-Gerry Lawrence
gwl@eng.ufl.edu
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
Keywords: Carto
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:46:36 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay @ The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA) once wrote....
>In article <8087.20354@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com writes:
>
>>Actually I do believe that a *convicted criminal* cannot run
>>for president.  But now there's the rub, LaRouche was
>>railroaded into a prison, by the federales, on what I have 
>>heard to be trumped up charges of tax evasion; with a sentence 
>>*just long enough* to keep him there after the King George recoronation.
>
>Surely there are Yankee netters out there who can address this question. It
>was always my belief that felons lost their civil rights, including the
>right to run for presidential office, but others say no....
>
>As to whether or not LaRouche was 'railroaded' anywhere, the jury is still
>out from where I sit... given his connections (sorry, they ARE there) with
>Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby, which is a notorious neo-nazi, white
>supremicist organization, I tend to discount 99% of what he and his supporters
>have to say, and assume the other 1% are lies.


What do you think this connection is?  As far as I can find out, 
Liberty Lobby quotes LaRouche sometimes.  Is that a connection?  
can't remember LaRouche ever endorsing any of Liberty Lobby's 
positions.

Get real!



----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13803 talk.politics.misc:36790 alt.individualism:4798
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Do libertarians assume everyone is rational?
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:15:01 GMT
	<1992Jul21.225735.22795@ncar.ucar.edu> <15520@star.cs.vu.nl>
	<1992Jul23.135635.23047@shearson.com>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1992Jul23.135635.23047@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>>belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>>happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>>in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>>mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

>We don't assume that everyone is rational. All we assume is that, on
>the balance, most people behave in a self interested manner. Evolution
>has indeed made people that way; those that don't try to survive
>rarely leave offspring. Overall, we've got lots of empirical evidence
>for our positions, so it seems like a good bet.

But moreover, Perry, a Libertarian comes to someone and says "How can I help?"

The government comes to someone and say "We're here to help.  This is what
we're going to do..."

Yes, FJ, people are irrational and sometimes need help.  Who gets to decide
what form that help should take?  A libertarian says that the individual
is best suited to decide.  A statist says that the government is best
suited...
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:34:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.202110.15407@linus.mitre.org>, I wrote:

>There is an interesting book you should consider reading.  "Preferential 
>Policies" by Thomas Sowell, Ph.D.  This is a scholarly book on exactly
>that subject. 

By "that subject", I was not refering to insurance companies specifically, 
but preferential policies in general.

>This book was 
>copyrighted in 1987

Actually, I believe it was 1990 or '91.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused!

DISCLAIMER:  THIS IS MY VIEW, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:11:55 GMT

In article <scottj-230792150731@iamac-1.georgetown.edu> scottj@gumedlib.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:

>> So it is the governments responsibility to prevent a golf club from 
letting>> me invite to lunch whomever I want to freely associate with?  I 
assume>> you don't believe that (please correct me if I'm wrong).  So the 
questions>> boil down to who decides what the rules are when two peoples 
rights come>> into conflict.  Libertarians?

>Actually, T. Archer got it wrong.  The insurance carrier is not infringing
>anybody's rights because there is no threat of force.  You are free not to
>sign the contract.  In practice, the insurance company would be insane to
>place such an inappropriate and useless clause in the contract.  And if
>they
>did, another insurance company would be insane not to take advantage of the
>situation and offer you (and *millions* like you) a contract with no such
>clause.  This goes double in a libertarian society with no government
>mandated insurance where insurance companies would be forced by the market
>to provide maximal services for minimal fees.  An insurance company in such
>a marketplace would be committing suicide if even a small percentage of
>their
>potential customers refused to sign their bizarre contract.

>-John L. Scott

Sorry.  I am not comfortable debating the hairline points of what seems to 
me to be intuitively obvious.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13453 alt.conspiracy:9378 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2660
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:30:26 GMT


In article <1992Jul21.194625.18019@tss.com> burke@tss.com
(Jim Burke) writes:

I agreed with your remarks, quite.  But ...

>I don't want to go back to living in a society where people
>can be denied a life.

...  unfortunately, you are living in such a society right
now.  It happens all the time.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:13:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.002340.6564@NOC.Vitalink.COM> rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>> (Frank:)I have argued that the same work done by different people should be paid 
>> the same.
>
>Yes, and you've done so poorly.   About five of us have blasted you to
>pieces on this.  Does your news server only work in the outgoing direction?
>

I'm afraid the blasting has had little effect. Adam Smith also operated
on the principle that free markets  generally resulted in the paying
of equal work equally.

>
>This is not just every-day, run-of-the-mill economic illiteracy.  This is
>monumental, flying-flaming, WORLD-CLASS utter stupidity!   I'm boggled
>that _anyone_ could be so ASTOUNDINGLY wrong about something so simple.
                                


My goodness, but those capitalizations and underlines and explanation marks
are effective in convincing me of your position.


>> If you can't define equal work, or its worth, then why do you claim
>> that a corporate hack has the "right" to disproportionate wages 
>
>Nobody said anybody has a "right" to any particular wage (at least nobody
>with any credibility has said so;  only _you_ have.)


That of course is why "right" was in quotation marks. It referred to the claim
by most of the libertarian elements here that capitalists somehow worked
harder than workers, thus justifying their incredibley well-earned salaries.
If you don't think this has been said, I suggest you skim backwards a few
miles of postings.



>A corporate hack has the same right as anyone else -- to work for any wage
>mutually agreeable to both the employee and the employer.
>
>BTW, define "disproportionate wages".


 It is a relative term. But let me give an example: A Mexican labourer
works 8-12 hours a day/50c an hour  and lives in a slum. His corporate overlord
may earn millions a year in an air-conditioned office and never touch
the production process in his entire lifetime.
Most people think that reflects disproportionate wages (not on this
newsgroup perhaps, but most people in the real world.)
       


>> Cost of living is the result of wages, not the cause of them.
>
>Not as stunningly ignorant as the one above, but still pretty impressive
>in its wrongness.
>
>Care to explain it?   (This should be good for some giggles...) 



Are you saying you don't understand it and that therefore it needs explaining
or that because you don't understand it, it is defined as unexplainable ?
"Stunningly" ignorant? Fascinating...

Frank.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13715 talk.politics.misc:36549 alt.individualism:4731
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:40:10 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>jb> Jim Burke
>>jb> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>>jb> a life.
>
>>  Then work against socialism and become a libertarian. It's up to *you* to
>>  decide whether or not you're going to deny someone a life, but it's *not*
>>  for you to decide for others. As long as enough people like you and me ex-
>>  ist to assure that anyone who wants to live a decent life can do so, there
>
>I don't think they will exist. Not after enough time, not in every
>community. Just look around. there will be a lot of places where people
>can and will be denied an existance.
>
>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People arent rational!

Uh huh.  There are certainly flaws in the human character.
So does this argue in favor of a one centralized monolithic authority
run by possibly flawed humans, or in favor of many
decentralized units of authority run by possibly flawed humans?

You have to choose between the possibility of local pockets of
irrational subculture, or, on the other hand,
the possibility of an entire nation running amuck,
led by an irrational cult.  

Limited govt and individual liberty may have flaws, but these flaws 
are not even in the same dimension as Stalinist and Hitlerite oppression.

Do I overstate my case?  Perhaps a little.  Perhaps not at all,
considering some of the recent actions of the US govt in the war against
some drugs (now including RU-486).


--Al Date
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13794 talk.politics.misc:36757 alt.individualism:4787
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:03:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) once wrote: 
> Do I overstate my case?  Perhaps a little.  Perhaps not at all,
> considering some of the recent actions of the US govt in the war
> against some drugs (now including RU-486).

Hi,

While I think the "war on drugs" has done much injustice, from illegal
takings to violations of trial rights, the federal government is
perfectly entitled to regulate commerce into the nation and between
the states. Personally, I don't agree with banning drugs, since it
will just continue the current mess like in the age of Prohibition.
But the power is valid, and should be valid. How it is used is just a
matter of policy.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "That government is best which governs least."
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |   -- Thomas Jefferson
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"Politics - Formed from the Latin 'poly', meaning many, and 'tic',
 meaning little bloodsucking insects."
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:07:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.155813.18678@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.135426.29953@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> >>A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
> >>that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
> >>of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  
> 
> Not by my code of conduct.  That is, I'd disapprove.  On the other hand,
> I'm not King, either.

  Steve, this is silly. Can you honestly say that spdcc will not refuse
work from anybody, for any reason? I just cannot believe it. Would you
actually take a contract from Jesse Helms to create faggot database 
with names numbers of Known Homosexuals? I refuse work all of the time
when it does not meet the goals of the company. Where is this bright
line which segregates the permissible and impermissible? Who decides?

> >I would agree, but liberals would argue that the government has the
> >right to force your friends to sell their package to anyone the
> >government believes should have it.
> 
> I'd end the sentence after "to anyone".

  Who else but the goverment is allowed to do the "forcing". They
make the rules, albeit at the majorities supposed behest. Majoritism
is hardly an optimal state as I'm sure you can realize. 

[deletions about Executive Software] 

> This action got a fair number of column inches in the computer trade press,
> and even the most liberal might agree that this bad publicity was more than
> adequate punishment for their "crime".

  As it should be.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:38:47 GMT

In article <K!W-!6=@engin.umich.edu> ault@engin.umich.edu (Matthew Ault) writes:

>I'll probably regret getting into this, but...

>In article <1992Jul30.154135.14340@wts.com> jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer) writes:

>>Under libertarianism there will almost certainly evolve communities in which
>>certain groups (majority as well as minority) are not welcome.  There will
>>also evolve more liberal communities in which nearly everyone is welcome.

>Doesn't sound like a world I'd like to live in, where communities have signs
>like "Niggers, fags and dykes keep out!" at the city limits.

Me neither.  But why would a person of color, homosexual male, or lesbian 
want to live in/visit such a place?

>>The greater success of the more rational communities will make them more
>>attractive, even to many of the children of the more prejudiced communities.
>>If you don't believe that, you are suggesting that
>>      THE PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT
>>
>>I dont believe that.  Do you?
>>
>>Jens

>You are assuming:  a) that the "rational" communities will automatically be
>more successful, 

Of course they will:  the rational communities will cater to both the 
mainstream community, AND the alternative community, leading to a larger 
base of wealth and cultural diversity.

b) that success of that kind is akin to moral "correctness".
>What I envision under that kind of system are communites where "the right
>kind of people" will be able to find shelter from those they consider to
>be "the wrong kind of people" and will do their best to keep them out.  

What is wrong with this?  These narrow people do not want to associate with 
the broader spectrum of human experience.  Who are you to force it on them?

>Such
>a community would probably be pretty tightly knit, leading to a good deal
>of economic success.  As an aside, I recall that the slave trade was pretty
>successful.  Did that success make such practices correct?  It would by your
>standards, at least from what I see here.

Of course not.  But the slave trade also violated individual rights in a 
wholesale manner, contrary to libertarian priciples, and is irrelivant as a 
counter-example.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13246 misc.headlines:4947 alt.politics.elections:8803 talk.politics.misc:35147
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush's next Tricks of Trade ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:10:12 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

...From PeaceNet's trade.news via misc.activism.progressive...



    "The Administration hopes that in addition to good publicity the
    EEP expenditures [entire $1 billion allocated for the next fiscal
    year to be spent all during October] will "empty the bins" enough
    to create temporary shortages which will drive up cash farm prices
    during the fall harvest, immediately before the election."



TRADE NEWS BULLETIN  (trade.news) 
Tuesday, July 21, 1992 
_________________________________________________________ 
GATT News Summary 
_________________________________________________________ 
RUMORS IN DC ABOUT BUSH ELECTION TRADE STRATEGY 

Now that Ross Perot has dropped out of the U.S. presidential  
race, sources say President George Bush will embark on a series  
of political moves on international trade. 

Rumored actions include: 

1.  Plans to to retaliate against the EC over disagreements  
surrounding U.S. corn gluten feed shipments to Europe. 

2.  Plans by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to spend the $1  
billion of Export Enhancement Program (EEP) funds in October,  
one month before the elections.  The funds were authorized in  
the Budget Act, and had been set to cover the entire fiscal year  
beginning in October of this year. 

3.  The Administration hopes that in addition to good publicity  
the EEP expenditures will "empty the bins" enough to create  
temporary shortages which will drive up cash farm prices  
during the fall harvest, immediately before the election. 

4.  Sources close to the Administration claim the GATT talks will  
be put off until next year, and that they will propose a two year  
extension of the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA).  The extension  
of MFA goes well beyond the expiration of the fast-track  
authority, which expires in June 1993. 
_________________________________________________________  
Produced by: 
Kai Mander     
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 
1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #303 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA 

Telephone:(612)379-5980 Fax:(612)379-5982  
E-Mail:kmander@igc.org 
_________________________________________________________
From: nexus@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: QUACK ALERT(?): AIDS "Cure"
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:12:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:9207270329.AA07262@poly.math.cor:1132992017:peg:224400105:000:975
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!nexus    Jul 30 21:12:00 1992


Unbelievable - someone comes up with a genuine AIDS cure, and all
this guy is looking for is something to "debunk" it with.  Why
doesnt this dipstick of a human look to see if it is accurate.  As
the magazine publisher who posted this material - I can vouch for
its authentiicity - I point out that Ed McCabe has doen over 700
media appearances and still people like you have not heard of it.
Does this necessarily mean that it has to be 'quackery'?  Your
attitude is contemptuous.  For more information on this, why not
contact the researcher concerned?  His name is Ed McCabe, Energy
Publications, R.D. 1, Morrisville, NY 13408.  He is genuine, and
not makeing much money from trying to alert the medical and media
community about this.  He has recently testified before a Senate
Committiee hearing on "unconventional therapies" and I hope you
will be hearing a lot more aoubt about this .  I personally know
people ho had HIV+ after taking oxygne therapies, are now
HIV-.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13713 misc.headlines:5025 talk.politics.misc:36545
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: SOMALIA ALERT
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:48:06 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

[..from PeaceNet's pn.alerts via misc.activism.progressive...] 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 51         More On The Worst Human Tragedy 1 response 
peacenet@igc.org pn.alerts        7:25 pm  Jul 25, 1992 
Subject: More On The Worst Human Tragedy 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From dmorse Fri Jul 24 20:35:47 1992 
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.org>
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

July 24 update. 

Sen. Nancy Kassebaum appeared on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour July 22. She has 
just returned from Somalia 

She said: 
1. The situation is desperate beyond anything we can imagine. Children are 
dying in silence, too weak to cry. 

2. She thinks a UN peacekeeping force should be sent so that at least there 
is enough stability to get food to the starving. 

MacN/L showed video of skeletal children in refugee camps, in som cases with 
their mothers fallen dead in front of them. Heartbreaking scenes. 

Estimates are that 5000 people are dying each day. 

I called Kassebaum's office; her aide for Africa advised me to call the State 
Department to emphasize support for a UN peacekeeping force and continued 
humanitarian aide.  The number to call is 1-202-647-4000. 

Donations may be sent to Doctors Without Borders, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 
Suite 5425, NY,NY 10112 or the American Red Cross, P.O. Box 37243, 
Wash. D.C., 20013.  Note on check "Somali relief." 

Any comments and ideas would be welcome. 

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism