HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarian support for unions
Summary: Different standings
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:30:21 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1993Jan27.113110.6846@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)             writes...
>In article <1993Jan27.021512.6030@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
>>... 
>> While I admire the sentiments, this is a very innocent statement.
>> If you work for a non-union company, call up a union to send someone down
>> and hand out cards. Then see how long you keep your job. You'll have your
>> eyes opened very quickly.
> 
>	When I worked for Federated Dept. Stores (the old, pre-Campeau one),
>the managers called everyone in for a meeting.
>	They said that we'd be getting a visit from a union organizer and
>wanted to present their side.  Which they did very effectively.  It never even
>came to a vote :).
>	But no one was fired....
> 
I'm glad for you. It's too bad that your example is the exception rather
than the rule. I'd be glad to give examples if someone requests them.

>	The tendency seems to be the more educated the profession, the less
>likely there is to be a need for unions.  I'm certainly not going to give up my
>right to negotiate with the company because someone promises to look out for my
>interestes. 
>	I can do that just fine, and I don't have to pay anyone for the
>"privilige".

This is an old debating point. It's goes back to the AFL vs. CIO conflict.
The AFL was a strictly trade union organization, while the CIO was a radical
organization that included the low-skilled workers. Strikes that the CIO were
sometimes busted because the AFL decided that they didn't need to honor the
picket lines.
 When the robber barons
cracked down on the unions and threatened to wipe them out is when the AFL
realized that they needed to work WITH the lower skilled workers because 
"we are all in the same boat". I guess some people just want to feel that they
don't need to work WITH their fellow man.
> 
>Brett
>	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
>intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

I read this book and I can't see how it has any relevance to anything that
we might discuss in this group.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69375 ca.politics:10641
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: safe sex question
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:14:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

More caring, loving, long-term relationships in the gay community, from
soc.motss:

In article <TIM.93Jan18130558@ear-ache.mit.edu>, tim@ear-ache.mit.edu (Tim Wilson) writes:
> In article <1jegfnINNl37@meaddata.meaddata.com> ptb@meaddata.com
> (Patrick Bell) writes: 
#    To tie in another thread, this is why public sex (tearooms) is dangerous
#    for all, since oral sex seems to be most common form of sex practiced
#    in such situation.  As long as this goes on, we don't need to complain
#    about the gay bashers, we're killing ourselves instead.  We are our
#    *enemies'* allies this way.
# 
# To my knowledge, the most common form of sex practiced in tearooms is
# masturbation.  Sometimes two guys stand at the urinal and just jack
# themselves off without any physical contact.  Other times they beat
# each other off.  There is also oral sex.  To my knowledge, the oral
# sex is often unprotected.  It might also be specious to believe that
# people are having a greater relative frequency of unprotected oral sex
# in public places than they are when they get back home and into bed.  
# 
# There are ways to play that incur so little risk of fluid exchange
# that they're effectively safe.  In addition to solo and mutual
# masturbation, they include ball play (even, ohmigod, oral ball play),
# nipple work, and a good smack on the butt with the palm of one's hand.
# The entire repertoire of "safe" practices is even larger, of course;
# the above might be appropriate in a tearoom.
# 
#    The relative risk of oral sex is unimportant.  It is not risk free.
#    Period. Whether insertive or receptive, whether cum or pre-cum is
#    exchanged or not.  It's not risk-free.
# 
# Neither is fucking with a rubber.  Nothing is risk free.  Relative
# risks do matter, unless you're a perfectly ascetic being.  If behavior
# modification has to be absolute to be successful, then we've lost the
# game before we start.   
# 
# Tim Wilson

Yup, you've lost.  And so will the rest of us, who have to pay the
bills for the inability of gay men to limit themselves to a small
number of sexual partners (say, less than a 100) and use condoms
when they engage in random sex with strangers.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Subject: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Originator: era@teal.csn.org
Keywords: Extremists, Christian Right, Amendment 2
Reply-To: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Citizens Project; Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:47:57 GMT

We of the Citizens Project (Colorado Springs, CO) are looking for people
who could assist us in re-distributing the Citizens Project Newsletter
to non-Internet computer services.  If you have an account on any such
services (CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, Prodigy, America Online, and others)
and are willing to help us, please let us know via return email to
era@ncar.ucar.edu.

The Citizens Project is a Colorado Springs, CO - based group of volunteers
who seek to prevent extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms,
in the face of growing political and religious intolerance in Colorado.
--
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
-- 
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:00:53 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>
>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying 
>>penicillin, despite having worked since age 13.
>
>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.

I hope that the Americans look hard at the German model which differs
from Canada and France in one aspect and that is the German system is
"voluntary" ...  in theory.  Nobody in private insurance will provide
equivalent comprehensive coverage like the public plan* and the first
question they ask is if you have basic public coverage --- if you say
"Nien", they show you the door.

Let's say that after a year of following this topic (with years in 
the real world, being the token Canadian in my department), I like the
idea of the German system ... as long as good Repo Men are around to
deal with uninsured libertarians who'd otherwise ring up a big tab on
my nickel -- let's hear it for private transactions! (-;

gld

(* like in Canada; after all, our doctors can "opt out" and need not
participate in taking public insurance, but rather bill directly and
the patient getting reimbursed.  And, private insurance is not illegal
... but since private insurance helped to design the present system
and its divisions, well ... no market.)  
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:35:30 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <C15pAD.AHF@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
>> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> 

>True - but if the Fed had stayed out of it - we'd still have it.
>Slavery was not forced on the states by the fed.  it originated
>in the states and was accepted by the fed as a compromise.

Do the words "Fugitive Slave Act" mean anything to you?

>You are looking at history 180 degrees around.  The states are more
>likely - since they have a proven track record of discrimnation,
>segregation, lynchings, religious discrimination.  Why would it
>suddenly change around so the states were all good and the fed all
>bad?

Because in our history, it wasn't until somewhat recently that the Fed
acquired all the power it now enjoys and can abuse.

>What is so self-limiting about majority rule?  What if they do not
>choose to limit themselves?  Does the minority have NO rights at
>all, no one to protect them?

You keep talking about THE majority and THE minority like they are
monoliths.  Asking individuals to support minority rights becasue
at some point they might be in a minority is really all we have to
limit government.  Without concent of real live human beings, legal
restrictions are just paper.

>> So the states can ignore any law they dislike?  GREAT, I WIN!!!!
>> Are you really suggesting the states-rights doctrine of nullification?

>What exactly have you won?  I would like to see states ignore laws that
>hurt their citizens.  But you have not shown me any that they have

And it is their decision what laws to ignore.  What if they decided
to ignore the Voting Rights Act or some other law you like?


>If the federal law is discriminatory and sets out to hurt a state citizen
>I would like to see the state stand up and oppose it.  They do not have
>the power to instantly nullify federal law, but they could try.  I would

So your 'balance' between the Fed and the states is that the states can
try to do something you admit they are powerless to do.

>In this, rare, case the federal government violated someones rights,
>but it grew out of the supremacy of the states.  To their view,

So even when the Fed did something wrong, it is evidence that it should be
given more power and the states less.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: libercommunism the new quick fix
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:39:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.200502.15892@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
> In article <C1Brw4.8Mr@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
> }In article <1993Jan21.191543.28998@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
> }rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
> }
> }|>}I have several internal documents from the Monday Club including a list of
> }|>}candidates for election, this list contains several members who are members
> }|>of
> }|>}the Libertarian faction.
> }|>}
> }|>
> }|>Perhaps I'm misreading you, Phill, but based on the above you seem to be
> }|>equating Libertarians with Conservatives and racists, yet in another post,
> }|>to which I just replied, you correctly define a Libertarian as one who is
> }|>active in the defense of liberty.  Which is it?  If you assert the former,
> }|>we disagree.  If you assert the latter, we are in agreement.
> }
> }I am asserting that many of those representing themselves as Libertarians are
> }humbugs and frauds.
> }
> }This is especialy true of the British Tory party, an organisation that could
> }supply a large confectioners with a millenial supply of humbugs.
> }
> 
> This is an interesting response but it doesn't answer my question.  Are
> Libertarians racist Conservatives or are they active in the defense of
> liberty?  To allege hypocrisy by "many of those representing themselves as
> Libertarians", then cite your opinion of the British Tory party as an
> example is obfuscation and an attempt at guilt by innuendo. 
> 
> Without knowing any of the principles or policies of either the Monday Club
> or the British Tory party, I cannot address your charges against them.
> However, If you wish to charge the Libertarian Party of the United States,
> or any of its members, with being hypocritical and racist as opposed to being
> defenders of liberty, make the charge and prove it.  Don't offer vagueries,
> innuendo, or strawmen.
>  
> Again, are Libertarians conservative racists or are they defenders of
> liberty?  You have characterized us both ways.

Like Patriotism the term is rendered almost worthless by those that chose to
use it to cover all manner of abuses. Who was it said that more crimes are
committed in the name of Liberty than of any other cause?

The Libertarian wing of the Tory party is merely an extreeme example. 


Dr. Phillip M. Hallam-Baker


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70345 misc.legal:23475 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1578
From: dev@barley.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:04:54 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) once wrote: 
> A quibble: Madison made it quite clear what Madison wanted people
> to believe that section of the Constitution meant. [ ... ]
>
> The Federalist Papers, especially the installments written by
> Madison, are fascinating and often brilliant essays upon the field
> of political science, and they almost certainly reflect the beliefs
> and preferred Constitutional interpretations of a faction of the
> people who framed the document. But they aren't gospel, they
> weren't voted upon by anyone, and they aren't part of United States
> law.

I believe that you and I are opposites on this topic. I do not agree
with Holmes. Documents mean what they meant when they were written.
They mean what the author meant them to mean. They are an
encapsulation of an author's intent. Either that, or documents have
no real meaning whatsoever. Documents do not mean what the reader
wants them to mean. Legal "experts" would do well to take note of the
concept of "presentism."

The U.S. Constitution means what the words say. Nothing more, nothing
less. As principal author of the document, I consider Madison a very
reputable authority on that meaning. I do not consider subsequent
"interpretations" which go against Madison's explanations to be
valid. I know you disagree with me, and in fact, most modern legal
"experts" do as well. So be it.

The clause in question, the so-called "general welfare" clause, does
not confer any power to the federal government to spend money how it
wants to. A rational examination of the phrase, the context, and the
explanations by its authors make this rather clear. The current
interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is no more reasonable
than the current interpretation of the "interstate commerce" clause,
used to validate "stream of commerce," used to validate Federal
intervention on all economic levels. The interpretations are simply
an effort to legitimize what the government wants to do. These
vacuous readings have served to make the U.S. Constitution a
virtually meaningless document, useful only for determining how long
a Senator can serve, what age the President should be, etc. This is a
shame. The Constitution is an interesting historical document, but has
little real meaning today.

We disagree with each other, and always shall, so we shouldn't waste
time and effort trying to convince the other that he is wrong. But you
are. :-)

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a
 child." -- M. Tullius Cicero
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70014 ca.politics:10701 ba.politics:8353 alt.sex:43293
From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:37:35 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:

> In article <14066@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >
> >But an 8 year old is.  Mr. Brack and the rest of NAMBLA want it to
> >be legal for an adult to sodomize an eight year old.  And apparently,
> >so does Mr. Nieporent.
> >
> 
> Can you produce the evidence that Mr.'s Brack and Nieporent and NAMBLA
> want to sodomize 8 year old childern?

You miss a key point: he does not state that they WANT to, but that they 
want to make it legal.  There's a difference between making it legal for
people to drink alcoholic beverages, and wanting to imbibe yourself.
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Children's Rights
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:23:02 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <PA142548.867.727974356@utkvm1.utk.edu>,
PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>>This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
>>from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
>>to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
>>to be preyed upon. I suppose that you also favour the removal
>>of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
>>of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
>>level of pay?
>>
>>One of the roles of the government is to protect the helpless.
>>and few would argue that children are not in this group.
>
>This is precisely the problem I have with this particular plank in the
>Libertarian Party Platform.
>
>I am willing to support the principle that the calendar age of an individual
>is an arbitrary way to determine their majority.  I will further support an
>effort to discourage further laws based on age.  I will even support an
>effort to review all age based statutes and repeal those that are
>ineffective or unnecessary.  But until a clear, objective, and reasonably
>easy to apply gague of maturity can be developed, I cannot see supporting
>the abolition of all laws based on age.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
>bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I have always advocated that if a child of any age wishes to be able
to do something that it is perfectly legal for any one who is "of
age" to do, that he or she should be able to do so if he or she can
convince a judge (or better yet a three member panel of arbitrators
where the child picks one, the people opposiong the child's action
choose another and those two together choose the third) that that
child understands the consequences of the action they wish to take
and is willing and able to bear full responsiubility for any
possible ensuing consequences.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:55:29 GMT

In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
>causing so much trouble over this issue?

More than slightly.  It especially pisses me off when I imagine how
many opinions might swing around if military leaders were to argue
vehemently why there's no reason to prohibit gays.  When you enter the
military, you have to give up a lot of comforts and conveniences that
you're used to.  The ability to pick and choose who you bunk down with
is one of those.

Furthermore, if we're to assume that military leaders are doing a good
job, then soldiers are more likely to trust them if told something
often and hard enough.  If they were lectured to a great enough extent
about how there's nothing to fear from or be anxious about
homosexuality or homosexuals -- for the good of unit cohesion --
chances are few of them would kick up a fuss.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70460 misc.legal:23508
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:27:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan26.055342.11733@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes ...
# #My point is that liberals believe in mandating morals for some
# #causes, and then get all self-righteous and angry when conservatives
# #attempt to do the same thing.  I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy.
# 
# And I'm tired of conservative bigotry.  Those who think that only
# liberals commit evils, only liberals commit hypocrisies.  I haven't
# seen many virtuous conservatives; the morals and taxes and crimes 
# are different, but not better.
# 
# Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth

I don't think I've ever claimed that conservatives are virtuous.
But then again, they seldom claim a high moral ground like liberals
do.  (There aren't many conservatives left anyway.  I know a couple
who may be the last conservatives left in California.)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:51:11 GMT


I wonder if she made a deposit in the private school she and her husband
checked out last week, and if so if it is refundable...

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69331 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13549