HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: (new) US Space Program
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:32:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.172143.13881@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>	Mark, please read the above about that so-called "dream
>	that captured the entire nation."  Don't get me wrong,
>	dreams are nice, but is it MORAL for the US taxman to
> 	hold the population at gunpoint to pay for it!
>

Once you have subscribed to the theory that 'taxation == theft',
as you apparently have, as as many anarcholibertarians do, then there
are no MORAL government programs, since taxation for ANY purpose
is immoral. So you core argument really isn't about the space
program, it's the old argument about whether government has any
right to exist, or to levy taxes.

If one accepts that idea that government and taxation aren't
inherently illegitimate, then it becomes inappropriate to use
words such as 'moral' to discuss the space program. The validity
of the program is certainly open to question, as is every other
government activity, but it's 'morality' is a non-factor. That
question was already resolved when the legitimacy of the government
was accepted.

>	Jim Shierreffs, what is wrong with exploring space?
>	I agree with you -- nothing.  So it costs a few bucks,
>	big deal -- YES BIG DEAL.  What am I getting for my
>	money?  I don't know, but I like to know what I spend
>	my money on.
>

Well, there are a lot of things that 'your' tax money is spent
on that doesn't provide *you* with any immediate return. For
example, some of 'your' tax money is now being spent to help
feed starving Somalians. Is it MORAL to take your tax money and
spend it for this purpose without your prior approval? What't in
it for you anyway?

I am not arguing for or against the Somalia operation. All I
am saying is that taxes are: 1) not 'your' money anymore, once
they've been collected; and 2) not necessarily to be spent on
ventures that will bring an obvious direct benefit to the taxpayers.

Things that DO bring obvious direct benefits are usually done
by the private sector. This leaves the question: 'Are there things
that are worth doing, and that will cost money, that will nevertheless
NOT bring any immediate return (or possibly ANY return)?'.

>
>	My problem with the present space program is that there 
>	does not seem to be any goal or direction so why are we
>	being held at gunpoint to pay for NASA to keep doing
>	more and more of the same old things?  
>

The present space program is indeed open to criticism as to the
appropriateness of its programs and objectives. This is not the
same as a 'moral' criticism which questions whether or not a
legitimate space program is possible at all.


>	Judy.
>

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:41:53 GMT

All this talk of Libertarians, Socialists, etc. strikes me as just
a waste of time. To paraphrase Ortega y Gasset, the problem is not
to be Libertarian or Socialist, but to put those outdated dillemas
out of mind and get on with the setting our house in order.

Everyone in t.p.m blasts government as rude and inefficient, yet in
my nearly 10 years here, first as visa holder, next as green card
holder, and now as citizen, every interaction with government
agencies has been satisfactory and all but one person unfailingly
polite. Things were done when promised and I have no complaints.
I only wish I could say the same about my interactions with private
companies, but that would be a lie.

By now it should be reasonably obvious that by-the-book socialism
does not work. However, any reasonable consideration of the tenets
of Libertarianism would show that it too will fall flat on its
collective, or individualist, ass.

Both are based on a popular fallacy, that is that people are, when
left to their own devices, intrinsicly honest and fair. Would that
it were so. Socialism failed because they did not realize that you
cannot pass laws that will make everyone love each other. Libertarians
appear to think (from what I've read here) that you don't need to
pass laws that prevent everyone from screwing each other. Maybe the
truth lies somewhere in between?

I have nothing against profit, in fact I have never done anything
from which I did not profit. The question is how you measure your
profit. Utopia has been tried several times in several places, but
none of the experiments lasted very long. Recognize that anywhere,
under any regime, some people will conspire to steal from other
people by whatever means seems most practical to them. Government
and regulations, etc. are simply a means of preventing or punishing
such behavior.

Was it Shelly who said "Trailing clouds of glory do we come from
God, who is our home."? Yeah, well they must have rubbed off on
the way down.

Send money instead of flames - it keeps my heat-pump running :-)

REB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67204 alt.activism:20397
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Mining Community
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:16:00 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <robc.16.0@wicat>, robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)                                    writes...
>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>The crux of the matter is "freely contract". If there is only one employer in an
>>area and the only alternative to taking employment from them is to starve then
>>does that consititute a contract "freely entered into". 
> 
>	If this situation was plausible, I might agree with you. But it 
>is impossible in all but one circumstance.
>	How could there be only one employer in the area? Every person in 
>the area is potentially an employer. They all need certain services and will 
>hire others to do them. Companies don't grow on trees, they are created when 
>a person is willing to pay another person for some good or service. You are 
>always free to start your own company.

Mr. Carlson, have you ever been in a REALLY small town? I grew up in a town
where the only industries in 100 miles were a oar mine, and one lumber mill
(the lumber mill has since closed). This was only 8 years ago that I lived 
there.
	Can you imagine how it was in the Appalachians during the late
1800's? Why do you think the miner's unions are some of the strongest and
most militant in the country?
	As for starting your own company, that requires capital. In the 
town I lived in, you were comsidered rich if you didn't have a tab at one
of the two local bars (that may be funny, but it's true).
> 
>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.

Ever heard of company script? Under the Libertarian ideal, this could be
legal. Ain't life a bitch.
> 
>Rob Carlson
> 
>>
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
>	
-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67432 alt.sex:41892 alt.activism:20515
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Back at you!
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:21:02 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1993Jan13.030320.29356@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)                          writes...
>In article <C0psJL.But@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|> The monopoly problem is not a contrived notion but a practical difficulty of the
>|> free market. Standard Oil almost achieved a total monopoly of the supply of oil
>|> and gas.
> 
>An example of "he who controls the present controls the past" at its very worst.
> 
>Standard Oil NEVER achived "almost achived a total monopoly of the supply of oil."
>When it was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Antitrust act, it only had
>66% of the market and had been losing market share for 20 years.

Either you have done little research, or you are blowing smoke.
Standard Oil at one time in the late 1800's had over 90% control over 
America's oil supply. That was a fact then, and it's a fact now.
	As for losing market share, that's true. The question is why.
Capitalists will say it's because of better competition coming up. I will
point out that at least half a dozen states (Texas, Ohio, ect.), as well
as several individuals, had successfully sued Standard Oil under 
antitrust laws before the 1911 law broke up Standard Oil.
> 
-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:47:18 GMT

In article <C0JJ7r.6BL@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.030946.7892@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	For the humor impaired, see alt.tasteless.
>
>Like he said.  What could possibly be the point in arguing with such a
>person?


	Or you, Tim.  It never ceases to amaze me how often you come up
	with non-arguments.  



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed (The true reason)
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:57:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1993Jan2.012646.5581@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
Moore, who is always good for a laugh these days) wrote:

> Consider the followings:
>   Is a North African Arab an "African American?"

No, he's a North African Arab, not an American at all.

>   Is Nelson Mandela an "African American?"

No, again, he's South African, not American at all.  Am I missing
something?

>   How can someone whose ancestors have lived here for hundreds of years
>     be any form of hyphenated American?

Well, a lot of people whose ancestors have been here for over a hundred
years are running around calling themselves Irish-Americans and
German-Americans.  Are you going to get hysterical about them, too, or is
this only a problem with what used to be called "niggers" before the
Deconstructionist/Socialist Conspiracy took over (see below)?

> I claim that the term was invented by the politically correct 
> (deconstructionist) crowd in order to refer to destroy the term "American" and 
> as part of a campaign to get all of us to think of ourselves by our racial or 
> ethnic or sexual preference groupings. This serves to deligitimatize the concept
> of a melting pot; to better the environment for socialist thinking by
> encouraging people to think in terms of group membership (African-American,
> Rich, Christian, Homeless, etc) as opposed to in terms of individual rights; to 
> emphasize the "oppression" of black people; and, to increase stress in 
> American society, so as to lead to an eventual restructuring of it in a 
> "politically correct" way. THIS is where the terminology change comes from.

And of course, the very same argument applies to the conspiracy to suppress
the word "nigger" and substitute "colored," which came around the time of
Marx and Engels; and it also applies to the suppression of "colored" in
favor of "Negro," around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the
suppression of "Negro" in favor of "black" during... uh... um... the Nixon
Administration, yeah, that's what it was.

> Oh, another purpose for terminology change is so one can determine where in 
> the radical hierarchy one is.... the sooner one starts using the new term, the 
> closer to the font of knowlege one must be. This is important to those who
> are into radical chic.  The ultimate in radical chic is to be one who
> originates a terminology change (usually one must be a University
> professor to achieve this pinnacle of intellectual achievement).

This is all a cruel forgery by crazed ex-members of the Symbionese
Liberation Army, intended to make poor John Moore look like a raving
fruit-loop with counter-rotating eyeballs, right?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: And justice for all?
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:12:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

Wyche Fowler, the recently defeated senator from Georgia, was just appointed
as the senate's representative to the Federal Elections Commission.
The person who preceeded Fowler was removed and then rehired in a newly
created position at the same salary.

As if this weren't enough to demonstrate how Congress takes care of its
own.  Fowler has lodged a complaint against Coverdall, the man who defeated
him.  This charge is scheduled to be heard soon by the FEC.  The body that
Fowler now sits on.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:58:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...

: While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
: contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
: from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
: counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.

	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for
the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?

	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".

... It is pointless
: to use "what if that's my _only_ choice" as an argument because it
: presumes two things: first, that such a situation could actually
: exist, and second, that a non-libertarian world would somehow make
: the situation more tolerable than a Libertarian one would.

>You seem to have forgotten the whole reason and cicumstances for the
>labor movement during the Industrial Revolution (when America was more
>Libertarian than at any other time).

	Many of the "robber baron" capitalists of that era deplored
competition, which is something that Libertarians always seem to
expect to exist under capitalism. I'm not objecting to genuine and
fair competition when it happens, but when it doesn't happen, then
what?

	Although there are certainly some things that capitalism is
very good for, there are other things that it is not. I think it
important to get the best of the public- and private-sector worlds,
and not the worst :-)


-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:59:13 GMT

In article <C0oFp2.J6G@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan11.043353.25398@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu
|>(Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|>>In article <visser.726710302@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance
|>Visser) writes:
|>>
|>>|> 	The way giant debts such as ours are typically forgiven is via 
|>>|> inflation and/or devaluation of the currency.  This method is preferable
|>>|> in that it works as an invisible side-effect, rather than an explicit 
|>>|> action like forgiveness of the debt. 
|>
|>Bear in mind that both inflation and devaluation of the currency
|>affect dollar- based arrangements, in general, and not just the debt
|>of the federal government. A far more focused means of eliminating the debt,
|>and one that would be far more politically palletable, would be to simply
|>default on it.

And I thought that Ipser had respect for other peoples property. Instead he
advises theft.

|>Precisely. Anyone who actually expects this to happen should
|>IMMEDIATELY run out and borrow huge sums of cash. These debts could
|>then be repaid in worthless, inflated, dollars. Conversely, only a fool
|>would save during an inflationary period. Take your paycheck and buy, buy,
|>buy (DMs, Yen, real estate, gold, or whatever the government can't inflate).

Yep. I going into real estate.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov> <ATAYLOR.93Jan11141604@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan12.020844.10428@s1.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:43:35 GMT

<In article <1993Jan12.020844.10428@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan11141604@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   : In article <1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I.
<   >Petrich) writes:
<: 	   And let's go even further.<
<>
<: 	   Let's abolish the Federal Government, and break the United
<:    States up into 50 separate nations (more than 50 if one counts
<:    territories like Puerto Rico).
<>
<>	Petrich thus displays the ignorance of the Constitution
<>	which is a hallmark of "masterblaster" postings.


<	   I guess I should have stated that it was just satire. 

	There's no pleasing some people. Taking Petrich seriously
	gets one chastised; regarding Petrich as a poor imitation
	of Drieux would probably result in complaints as well.

	What's the matter, Petrich, don't you *want* people to
	"take you seriously"?


<If the
<Federal Government is the cause of essentially all the trouble in our
<nation, as a lot of government-bashing rhetoric would seem to suggest,
<then the ultimate solution is just to get rid of it.

	And if the Federal Government is the fount of all things
	good and true, as Petrich usually implies, then we should
	just do away with those pesky elections and such, since
	they *do* so interfere with the operation of government.
	Just allow the self-appointed aristocracy to become 
	the permanent government, for example.

<But if there are things that government is to do, then
<_specify_ them, rather than to indulge in mindless government-bashing.

	1. Defend the Republic against outside attacks.
	2. Enforce interstate contracts.
	
	Anyone care to add to this list? It fairly well sums
	up 90% of the duties of the government for the first
	50 or so years of this nation.

	Note that "wipe every running nose in the nation" is missing
	from this list; Petrich will no doubt have a hissy fit,
	because one of Bill Clinton's campaign promises was left off.

	At this point, one could ask Petrich what things government
	should *not* be doing....probably a very short list, limited
	to "interfere with the fun of Loren Petrich".

	However, Petrich probably won't respond to such a question.


<That is because unqualified government-bashing sounds like
<"I'd like to get rid of government once and for all".

	Petrich's unqualified government worship sounds much like
	"I want Big Mother to take care of me for ever and ever".
	I repeat: is there *any* aspect of life which Petrich
	doesn't want Big Mother to take care of? 

	
<>	One suspects that "Blaster" does the writing rather
<>	than "Master"....

<Nosy, this is the first time I've seen you display a sense of
<humor. Maybe there's hope for you yet :-)

	Sorry, Petrich, I wasn't joking.
From: simon@saguenay.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:05:08 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal, Canada

In article <1993Jan1.015349.24950@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>>>Q: What is the difference between Nazi actions toward Jews in WWII and
>>>   Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the present day?
>>>A: U.S. backing. (Alternate answer: Volume.).
>
>>No ovens, no mass slaughters.
>
>Not yet. Give them time--they're a younger nation. It took the Germans
>several tries before they really mastered genocide; I'm sure they started
>with simpler stuff similar to what the Israelis have been doing. 

Actually, they began by promulgating the absurd charge that the Jews were 
bent on perpetrating massive, unspeakable evils, and that while they were 
not yet powerful enough to destroy an entire nation, they were bound to
succeed in the long run.  The natural conclusion--that they must be 
destroyed first--followed in due course.

>One must
>learn to walk before one can run...but one CAN learn to run provided the
>initial desire to do so exists. Certainly the desire to kill Palestinians
>exists among the Israelis.

Perhaps Mr. Hedd would care to enlighten us as to how this murderous 
desire, which he sees so firmly rooted in the hearts of such a callous, 
brutal people, is to be snuffed out, eradicated, utterly exterminated 
without a trace, that the world may be defended from its effects?

>It is blinkered idealism at its most naive to believe that, simply because
>a people was once put upon, it cannot then turn around and become a bully
>itself. This is patent bullsh*t--a first cousin to the "noble savage"
>argument. I'm sure to a gutshot Palestinian teenager, the fine distinction
>between being killed by a Nazi and killed by a Jew is lost.

And to a reader of this newsgroup, the fine distinction between Mr. 
Hedd's repulsive slanders and the worst of Nazi propaganda is likely 
to be lost.  Nevertheless, I, for one, will do my utmost not to lose 
sight of this distinction; I can only hope that my wilful preservation 
of a rational sense of perspective serves as an inspirational model for 
Mr. Hedd.


"Que dites vous?  C'est inutile?  Je le sais!		Daniel R. Simon
 Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!"	simon@iro.umontreal.ca
					-Rostand
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66667 alt.current-events.somalia:791 alt.politics.bush:15690 alt.president.clinton:1407