HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Call for REVOLUTION.
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:28:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.020345.12914@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>>Are you a collectivist or an anarchist?  You must choose, because you
>>>can't be both.  You can't say you want freedom and then put conditions
>>>on it.  Freedom means that everyone minds their own business.

Some anarchists are collectivists, some are communists some believe in a mixture
of the two. The capitalist anarchists I guess would should find some backing
in Stirner and what was called the Egoist school of anarchism. Minding your
own business may not increase your freedom. For instance ask those who tried
to wait out the Nazis whether that was a good strategy. Ask Kitty Genovese's
neighbors whether they are more free now than before she was murdered. Try
using common sense rather than blind idealism. Certainly there are a lot of
unrealist leftists, but they will have as little impact and influence as
Propertarian idealists until they align themselves with the real world.

>>I would like everyone to know that there is a perfectly legitimate
>>strand of political thought and tradition associated with the term
>>libertarian socialist.  These people believe that freedom is, among
>>other things, more than just minding your own business.  For one thing,
>>it would involve the recognition that the social division of labor in
>>an advanced state of technological and industrial development combine
>>to make us all dependent on each other for our existence.  

An example of materialist analysis that has a better chance of being listened
too than those of a moralist strip, either left or right.

>you will find that the fastest growing branch of the anarchist meme
>complex is the anarchocapitalist, or voluntarist, or whatever you

>yours now. Just as we lost "liberal" to the fabian socialists early in
>the century, you have lost "libertarian" to us, and I suggest you stop
>using it, as given current usage, "libertarian socialist" is an
>oxymoron. Continuing to use it only confuses your audiance.

I think that in the long run the Libertarian Capitalists have a good chance
of disolving altogether leaving our original franchise on the name unchallenged.
We were there first and we're not going away! Some will be discourages as the
general idea of trickle-down economics fades in popularity. Some will become
succesful in business and realize that the state is the most efficient means
of protecting their privledge. Some will quit when Murray dies and stops
funding the whole thing.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Date: 15 Oct 1992 13:21:25 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: blammo.css.itd.umich.edu

In article <iwsNsB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>I'm sure some
>intellectuals revelled in their misery (I somehow can't picture Marx
>at an Octoberfest), and maybe that sometimes is necessary for some
>types of genius..

Maybe not at an Oktoberfest, but Marx had a definite gift for sarcastic
wit, which he applied liberally to bourgeois academics (especially utopian
anarchists).

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |             New submissions welcome 

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:03:28 GMT
	<1992Oct5.090707.29572@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Oct6.161329.22038@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct7.020417.3097@lclark.edu>
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct7.020417.3097@lclark.edu> matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) writes:
   Yeah, but the question is did he do anything of value?

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'value'.  But I can point out one
thing that he *did* do that nobody did before: realize that
microcomputer software was a commodity market.  Not a commodity in
that the products of all suppliers were equivalent, but in that the
sale price was so low that the sales and distribution costs had to be
minimized.  (The ultimate example being giving one copy to IBM to copy
onto a zillion PCs.)  Before Microsoft, software was sold as an
"expensive" item, and you could get a salesman to come to you to
convince you to buy it.  The *first* piece of PC software was "Altair
Basic", a Basic interpreter for the Altair 8800.  It was priced at
$1000 per copy, which was relatively cheap for Basic interpreters in
its day.  *Big mistake*.  It was pirated so much that the writers
never recovered their costs.

Dale
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:33:56 GMT

Finally some good questions.

In article <1992Oct2.165122.5108@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>Why do you oppose the state?

It is the organized expression of the non-productive capitalist class that
is stymieing humankinds progression to a society of maximum potentail and
creativity for all.

>Why don't you support the capitalist class and its system of domination?

It isn't as good as we can do. To paraphrase Orwell, 'Imagine a boot kicking
you in the face, forever.' That is capitalism.

>Why do you think that a stateless society is preferable?

Yes. It's the only change we have.

>Do you see anything wrong with the logic of having a society based on
>the wages system, commodity production for profit, and capital, which
>is also stateless?

We would quickly degenerate into a state, even if property was initially
distributed equally.

>Can you envision a society of diverse classes without a state?

No we would have a classless society. 'Those those who would not work, starve.'
That would leave only working people and no classes to speak off. Note:
even the handicaped and mentally challenged can produce to the best of their
ability, obviously there are the few in iron lungs and with terminal illness
that cann't produce at all and that isn't what is meant by the dictum.

>Can you envision a society where what used to be known as capital is 
>owned a shared cooperatively by the people as a whole?

Yes, but it wouldn't be considered capital.

>Why do you insist on siding with the oppressed against their oppressors?

We are only strong as our weakest link.

>Why can't you accept injustice?

If it can happen to you it can happen to me. I can put myself in your place.

>What is wrong with the concept that my freedom is based on your unfreedom;
>my wealth is based on your exploitation; my power is based on your oppression?

I can have more freedom, wealth and power by cooperating with my fellow human
than by exploiting them. I have a long term view that emphasises this view
rather than get rich quick schemes.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.145010.12024@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>In article <qe8ro8c@zola.esd.sgi.com>, thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <1a7s7qINNsic@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>|> What gives you the right to decide who gets *your* posessions?
>|> Remember: property is theft.

>	"Taxes are theft'" is a more appropriate phrase for an anarchist.  

Try the full quote.
"Property is freedom.
Property is theft.
Property is impossible." -- Proudhon

Meaning.
Property is freedom. (I want my grandfathers watch. I want my bed to still be
there when I come home. I built a bird house in my shop and why did the
neighborhood kids vandalize it. -- The common sense working class attitude
toward property.)

Property is theft. (Someone who hasn't ever even seen the factory that I work
in has shut it down and dynamited it so it can never be used again. The
landlord that has never worked a day in his life is raising the rent now that
I've improved the apartment. -- The working class attitude that leads to saying,
"it's not stealing when you take from the bosses.)

Property is impossible. (The bourgeois conception of property that equates the
first and second meaning of property is nothing more ideological warfare,
meant to confuse and disorient the working class enemy. If property is an
important concept you will develop as many words for property as the Inuit
have for snow, and we may have different attitudes towards each of those forms
of property.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.co-ops,aus.general
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: qu: infomation on L.E.T.S.  ?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:11:45 GMT

What is the advantage of LETS points over just using the local
currency?  If little currency is coming into the community, the "wage
rates" will be extremely low, but that's what you'd expect anyway.
Perhaps LETS is a way of disguising that wages are very low?

(There was a "barter exchange" movement in the US for a while, but it
was mostly a tax dodge, rather than an improved way of doing
business.)

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Another Anarchy Paradox?
From: haney@husc8.harvard.edu (James Haney)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:50
Distribution: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA



     Recently, I posted a followup about how the laissez-faire policies of 
the 19th century actually expanded the power of government.  Upon further
reflection, I have made a realization that the same sort of "unintended"
consequences might occur if we work toward a further reduction of the role
of government in society.

     First, any individual society in the world that attempts anarchy will 
have to be very wary of invasion by statist societies (which, of course, 
subsidize military expenditures.)  Thus, we have the paradox of anarchy 
requiring (or at least benefitting the creation of) world government.  That
could prove to be a very dangerous threat to the very goal of anarchy.

     Second, if U.S. anarchists tried to reduce the scope of government, they
would be forced to reckon with the notion of federalism.  Most likely, the
easiest and most effective way to eliminate government is at the federal
level (e.g., outlawing local zoning laws, local monopolies in "public
services", etc.).  That would bring the paradoxical result of increasing the
power of the central government in the name of anarchy.  The inter-governmental
competition that currently restrains government somewhat would be removed,
thus unconstraining the central government.

     What's a well-meaning anarchist to do?

James
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Monopolies
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 13:43:30 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >>
> >>Nevertheless, a big difference between private companies and the
> >>government is that you can't switch governments without changing your
> >>residence.
> >
> >And with multi-national monopolies, you can't switch at all.  
> 
> Name a single multinational monopoly. One.
> 
> Indeed, I bet you can't name a single true monopoly or cartel in
> history. (I can name one or two that might barely qualify, but I doubt
> you will come up with them.) By a true monopoly or cartel, I mean an

I have to say, why does special government sanction not make something
a monopoly?  How about United Fruit?

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Summary: Do you know anarchists have no sense of humor?
	No, but hum a few bars and I'll fake it
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:22:32 GMT

In article <anderson.16.718754412@gab.unt.edu> anderson@gab.unt.edu (RICHARD ANDERSON) writes:
[...]
>>>One would think that an anarchist picnic would not have a schedule.
[...]
>>Are you trying to be funny or what?? "One would think..."  Well, why
>>don't you?
[...]
>This is why an anarchy will never succeed: ANARCHISTS HAVE NO SENSE OF 
>HUMOR.........

Well, it gets a little hard to tell just when something is intended as humor
instead of the usual turdlets of congealed ignorance clueless non-@'s on the
net extrude, especially when they've never read any of the newbie-intro stuff
in news.answers or news.announce.newusers :( .  For one thing, quoting the
whole damned article and then appending your own one-liner is a dumb thing
to do.  When the one-liner, doubtless typed with the best of intentions (in
the humor department, anyway) , consists of one of the more boring and
unexciting stereotypes about @'s floating around (and not all that funny
after having seen it for the forty-thousandth-time), one is tempted to
enlighten the offending autonome with a verbal beer-bottle, and I succumbed.
Ahh well, the spirit is weak but the flesh is willing :) .

Besides, authoritarians and sky-goddists HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR either, but
this hasn't exactly impeded the spread of their pernicious idea/memes, or
kept them from "succeeding".  If anything, the exact opposite.

Does anybody know of any major historical thinker who had a sense of humor?
As far as I know, they all seem to be intensely goal-oriented sourballs.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Cartels
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:14:10 GMT

Mark Twain describes the history of the Mississippi steamboat pilot's
cartel in some detail in Chapter 15 of "Life on the Mississippi".  The
cartel eventually fell because of the growth of the railroads, which
was more a technological change than an economic response to the
cartel.  (The cartel profited well, but it didn't affect freight rates
too much.)  It did not appear that government rules were a significant
factor in the establishment or stability of the cartel, although if
one wanted to do a Chomsky on it, I'm sure one could.

Anyone interested in the stability of cartels under "natural
conditions" might want to look into how they pulled it off.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Add
Date: 11 Oct 92 04:58:00 EST


 * SLMR 2.1 * 
 * Origin: U_REVOLT: <<<<<<<<<< RE-ELECT NOBODY! >>>>>>>>>> (1:112/29)

Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution,alt.activism
From: batboy@carson.u.washington.edu (Thomas Radke)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:13:20 GMT

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
...
>New approaches, based on new premises, are needed.


>FOUR -- A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ALL WORKING PEOPLE

...
>workplace rights. The Bill of Rights does not apply to privately-owned
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>businesses, and our courts have been unwilling to offer legal
^^^^^^^^^^^
>protection to private sector employees. While federal and state
...
>American works need their own Bill of Rights that provides for freedom
>of speech, the right to organize, the right to privacy, fair and equal
>treatment and legal protection.

Below, you say we must follow the great document, The Bill of Rights.
Now, you say it doesn't go far enough.

The BoR was written that way for a reason.  No one should be kept from
doing whatever they want, as long as they don't do it to others.  Ie drugs.
It also means, you can't force a private citizen to hire anyone they do
not wish to hire.  If i had more time I'd go off.  But I don't.


>                              * *

>If we do not confront the social disintegration that
>has been worsened during the past decade, we are looking at a future
>of violence and repression that will ensnare all of us in its web. If

Sounds like PDFA, to me.
Your just choosing your tyranny.
...
>Let us look for guidance to the original principles upon which this
>nation was founded: the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
>[...]
>-- 
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Think.

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6254 talk.politics.drugs:6758
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:18:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <61111@mimsy.umd.edu>, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
> dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
>>
>>Now that you have my answer, I would like honest, rational answers from you to
>>three questions:
>>	Do you think this employer would be successful in hiring talented,
>>	productive individuals in sufficient quantity to remain competitive?
> 
>      Depends on how many employers decide they'd like to make the same
> requirement. Look at what happened when a lot of companies started
> drug testing; it's very difficult to get a job (in some fields) these
> days without pissing in a bottle. (Of course, these days, it's hard to
> get a job.)

	Quite a bit of the reason for such practices are various 
government requirements. Indeed, the companies sometimes go farther than 
the government actually requires according to the letter of the law; 
they're afraid of running into a drug-phobic judge if they act otherwise, 
and of the bad publicity such an event (suit under the law) would cause.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.120643.4325@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>I don't see how that would follow.  How about having each individual
>>in the executive and legislative branches interpret the Constitution as
>>they are required to take an oath to uphold it anyway?

>Nice idea. Add it to the language of the Constitution and we'll have
>something to talk about.

Article VI,  section 2:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned [e.g. of the United
States] and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judical Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

All of the mentioned persons mush interpert the Constitution, in order
to be sure their actions are in support of it (e.g. not unconstitutional.)

>In the meantime, the Constitution grants
>jurisdiction for cases "arising under" the Constitution only to the
>judicial branch--it does not grant this jurisdiction to the executive or
>legislative branches.

Constitutional interpertation is not limited solely to the judgement of
legal cases. There is no doubt that the Court may interpert the 
Constitution, as it applies to the specific cases that come before it.
The question is how the other branches of government behave _outside_
of court cases: Can the President follow his own interpertation, and
refuse to enforce court orders, for example?

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.100901.23394@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>You mean like taking a course in constitutional law and reading, say,
>>Marbury v. Madison, Gibbson's dissent in Eakin v. Raub, Martin v.
>>Hunter's Lessee and Ex Parte McCardle?

>No, I mean doing a lot more than that. Try reading some treatises that
>deal with the subject, such as Nowak and Rotunda's or Tribe's
>constitutional-law treatises, or Wright's hornbook on federal courts, or
>any number of law-review articles that analyze the arguments for and
>against judicial review.

>Reading cases is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>understanding the rationale for judicial review.

I'm sorry, but I'm a great believer in primary sources: They are, really,
the only relevant facts in the debate. How "experts" have interperted
these facts is, to me, far less important than the facts themselves.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6252 alt.politics.usa.constitution:657