HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gladiator was Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:26:34 GMT

In article <1899skINNcih@news.aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>
>The discussion on dueling was informative. It made me wonder a bit
>more about libertarians and violence. I do believe the motto is no
>first use of force.

>
>Would libertarians allow gladiator contests as in ancient Rome except
>that they would not be involuntary they would be by contract.
>
     If all parties agreed I don't imagine libertarians would have
a lot of problems.  As before when I answered about dueling, I don't
think it would be unreasonable for the police to expect at least
a *courtesy* of being informed, so they don't waste their time and
money dealing with idiots when there are real crimes to deal with.

>For example:
>
>An enterprising individual wants to put on a gladiator contest. His
>plan is to rent the Los Angeles Colesium and televise the contest
>similiar to the Super Bowl or a Championship prize fight. He
>establishes voluntary contracts with a number of individuals. The
>contract calls for a contest with lethel weapons between some number
>of the individuals. The contest is to be continued until at least one
>individual is killed. The survivors are rewarded by some pre agreed to
>formula based on their performance, of viciousness etc.
>
>The weapons are such that there is no risk to the non-performers.
>Althernatively they could be weapons that pose some risk to the
>voluntary attendees at the event, but none to the general public.
>
     I don't imagine any *political* objections, per se, although I don't
think I'd lend my money to that sort of enterprise.  A great many other
people would, I think, feel the same.  Considering how we do generally
like to think of ourselves as civilized, I don't know how well it would
go off.  You never know, though.  People go to football games...

>Would libertarians allow this type of contract to be implemented?
>If not why not?

     "Allow" is not really the correct idea.  Since all the involved
parties are, in theory, voluntary, then none of their rights has been
violated.  (Making the assumption the you can voluntarily waive your rights.
Some people don't believe you can.)  In that case, then the government has
no authority to interfere.  The government would "allow" it to continue in
the same way you would "allow" your neighbor to eat a hamburger.  You simply
are not allowed input into the decision under most circumstances.

>Richard Foy
>Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
>
========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13003 talk.politics.misc:45178 ca.politics:7728 alt.politics.correct:5310
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:06:55 GMT
	<18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org>
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
   In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
   >rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
   >: In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
   >:    To take the case one step futher.
   >: 
   >:    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
   >:    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
   >:    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
   >:    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
   >: 
   >:    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
   >: 
   >: I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
   >: contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
   >: woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
   >: 
   >Hi Ronald,
   >
   >   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
   >Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
   >get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
   >fantasy utopia.
   >
   >
   >Kathy

   I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
   respond to this post.

For those who care to make the distinction, I am a minarchist.  If
indeed Kathy is sincere and truthful and didn't get into her
predicament through her own irresponsibility, I will give what I can
to help her out.  If Kathy is insincere and deceitful then she has
committed an act of fraud.  I can't for the life of me see what
fascinates you about "common sense" and "charity".

More to the real question... while I would tolerate the woman's right
to contract her death, I don't personally advocate or condone the
offer of the rich "someone" and in turn offer my own money to at least
give the woman a choice.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:20:14 GMT

In article <1610@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>I was just watching PBS last night and the anchorpundit (or whatever)
>>>said she had been tipped that Perot was calling a news conference
>>>Friday and will probably re-enter the Presidential race.
>>>
>>>  I'm not sure how much (if any) difference it will make, but I thought
>>>people might like to know.
>>
>>How about: Clinton wins Texas (+32 votes), still wins in California, and
>>doesn't lose enough other states to offset the 32-vote gain.
>
>I take it, though, that this is still raw rumor.  One possible hint
>will be where he ends up calling the press conference, if he does.
>If it's in Little Rock, I think we can safely rule out another run. :-)

 :-)

  Well, it is still a raw rumor, but I'm beginning to hear it
fairly regularly (from PBS, NPR, and a Perot volunteer here in 
Illinois).  Actually, I heard it first from the Perot volunteer.

  My best guess is that Perot is trying to get some feel for how
well it would go by "leaking" the story to the press and play
it from there.  This is, of course, just my guess, but it is an
oft used tactic.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12906 talk.politics.misc:44986 ca.politics:7674 alt.politics.correct:5276
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 12 Sep 1992 03:47:07 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

The posts regarding the libertarian attitude toward Dueling and Gladiator
contests was very interesting. My assessment is that libertarians seem
not to find anyting in the tenants of libertarianism that would make
such events illegal. However, it seems that many of them seem a bit 
uncompfortable with the thought of them being legal. 

To take the case one step futher.

Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.

Would this be legal in a libertarian world.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Pat Robinson's Christian Coalition ?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:48:59 GMT

Does anyone have information about the Rev. Pat Robinson's Christian
Coalition? (history, status, goals, etc)

- Carl



--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12873 alt.flame:12744
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:35:43 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Sep15.164235.17688@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
 
>After reading the "Blame the Democrats" thread and seeing the debate over
>term limitations come up, I must ask a question.  Why do some favor it?  It
>seems to me that if a Senator/Representative is not doing a good job, the
>people could just vote him/her out.  And if said politician is doing a good
>job, then term limitations would eliminate a good leader.  Term limitations
>seems like a bad idea but I would like to hear arguements in favor of it.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis
 
There are other arguments against term limits, too.  Members of the
Congress (especially new ones) rely heavily on lobbiests, committee
staffs and executive branch bureaucrats for information on legislation.
After they have been in office for several years, they have a chance to
gain expertise in one or more areas.
 
Passing a law requiring that all members be inexperienced would give
even more power to the unelected sources of information.  If a member
of Congress is bad, his constituents can vote him/her out.  They cannot
vote out lobbiests, committee staffs and bureaucrats.
 
People argue "if term limits are good for the President, they are good
for Congress".  I agree with that statement, but in the negative.
There are no good reasons for limiting a President to two terms.  I
speak as a Democrat who despises Reagan and was glad to see him out,
but if he had been elected to a third term, so be it.
 
I am too young to remember, but it is my impression that Presidential
term limits were pushed by Republicans during the 1950s to ensure there
was never another FDR.  Now, they moan that they were unfairly denied a
third chance to elect Reagan.
 
The current push for Congressional term limits is coming from
Republicans who can see no other way to wrest control of the Congress
from Democrats.  They may very well succeed, then complain in the
future when a Republican majority is overturned by the same amendment.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
 
If the current election system is unfairly weighted toward incumbents
(and I agree that it is), then let's try to figure out a way to level
the playing field.  The best way would be real contribution and
spending limits, with shorter campaigns and government financing of
campaigns.
 
Some have argued that such measures would make it harder to defeat
incumbents, because a challenger has to spend more.  This is
demonstrably false.  If it were true, you could be sure incumbents
would have passed such laws long ago.
 
Term limits are a nice, catchy solution to a problem.  Like most such
solutions, they are wrong.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:39:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.003215.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>Again, the LP's math doesn't work out.  A precedent was established in the
>1980s with the S&L scandal.  S&Ls were deregulated in the hopes that more
>money and fewer restrictions would increase the amount of wealth in the
>country for more people--exactly the scenario envisioned by the LP.  Instead,
>the S&Ls bought stock in overpriced real-estate and burned most of their
>capital in frauds and risky investments, and all that wealth was pissed away.
>I don't want to risk that happening in general with Libertarian governments.

Oh, geez, not again!

Look, they "deregulated" the industry, but left the federal insurance in place.
To this day, RISK is not considered in setting the insurance rates  for 
individual banks. 

Isolating people totally and completely from the consequences of their behavior
is NOT what the LP is about!

Your government financed that fiasco.  This is EXACTLY what the LP is against.

If the private, for-profit insurance companies were doing the insuring, can
you imagine this happening?  I think not.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13060 alt.politics.bush:5029 alt.politics.clinton:5303
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: New poll results
Keywords: very clue-LESS
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:20:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City



In article <1992Sep14.023634.837@news2.cis.umn.edu> stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
>confusing indeed.  I still can't get over
>the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
>in public.  According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
>Is this true? 

This is pure b.s. and if you beleive this person you get what you deserve.

>It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
>of the vote with such a wacky belief.

Where do you get these numbers? Last election the Rep. won by a whooping
4%. Not to mention the Dems. have been in control of the Congress for most
of the last couple of decades. Sounds to me like they've been getting the
majority of the votes for a long time.

>If it's not true, then I wonder
>if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.

Trust me, this person is not!

>If so, I shudder.  If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
>No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
>contact.

Now let me ask you: Are the Religious Right fanatics representative of the Rep.
party as a whole? I don't understand how anyone could judge a huge group of
people from just one example.
>
>Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
>anywhere near the Presidency.

I got some good news and some bad news for you. The good news is that you'll
be dead on Nov. 3. The bad news is that somebody should have told you months
ago.;-)
>
>Jack Stecher
>stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Stan Knight
|"If I were human I beleive my responce would be, 'Go to hell'"|
|                       ---Spock---(S.T. 6)                    |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:35:19 GMT
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>(So far, the NYT is painting a much darker picture for George Bush then I
>did, because we now have the toss-up states, deleted thanks to rn, but:

>Yow.  If NC, NJ, DE, and KY are considered toss-ups, then this would
>change my view of things somewhat.  (But I was out of the loop--nobody
>is giving me any polling data...)

Yeah, after looking at it more closely, I see it is an extremely rosy
scenario for Clinton. They have Clinton's base at 233, and Bush's at 175.

Looking at the toss-up states, then, it seems Clinton only has to win up to
Colorado in the list to reach 271. I.e., he wouldn't have to win in either
MI or OH.

 NYT toss-up states:

        Dukakis
          1988    electoral    cum.
 st    plurality    votes      votes
 ==    =========  =========    =====
 VT       -3.6          3          3
 MO       -4.0         11         14
 NM       -5.0          5         19
 CT       -5.2          8         27
 MT       -6.0          3         30
 CO       -7.9          8         38
 MI       -8.0         18         56
 LA      -10.4          9         65
 OH      -10.9         21         86
 ME      -11.5          4         90
 KY      -11.7          8         98
 DE      -12.5          3        101
 NJ      -13.8         15        116
 NC      -16.3         14        130

Starting from the bottom of the list, Bush would have to win NC, NJ, DE,
KY, ME, OH, LA, MI, and CO to reach 175+100 or 275. Clinton has a lot
more margin for error, since he stands a good chance to win in MI (and
even OH), thereby allowing him to lose a few in the VT, MO, NM, CT, MT,
and CO sequence.

>Looks pretty good to me, except for MT.  When was the last time the
>Republicans lost MT for Pete's sake?

They went for LBJ, I think. But that election was atypical perhaps.
(Goldwater's weakness coupled with a JFK sympathy vote).

By the way, does anyone know why Iowa is voting Democratic these days?
Dukakis took the state pretty handily, but before that they were pretty
consistently Republican. What happened there? They just don't like Bush
for some reason?

>And we all know that ME goes, so goes the nation.

Not. :-)

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Live Online Conference re: US Elections
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:45:47 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

I'm posting this message for the Conference Hosts;

The IDS World Network will be holding a "live", CB-Simulator chat conference
on the 1992 election and the candidates.  Topics currently being considered
include The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Family Values, Abortion, and
"World Leadership Role".

The first discussion will take place on September 4th from 7PM EST until
9:30PM EST.

We invite everyone to participate.  CB Chat discussions on the IDS World
Network are completely free.

To reach the IDS World Network, TELNET to ids.net [155.212.1.2].  If you have
an account already, you're all set, although you can apply for one by signing
on with GUEST as a username.

That's September 4th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:25:40 GMT

>In article <18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>   >Hi Ronald,
>   >
>   >   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
>   >Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
>   >get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
>   >fantasy utopia.


Hi Kathy,
	I have an uncle, by the name of Sam, who can help you and your kids
out. He is willing to house and clothe you, no problem, and protect you
(maybe) from any ne'erdowell characters lurking about. All he asks
is all of your time from January to the end of May, where he'll find stuff
for you to do, menial labor, you know. 12 hour days, 6 day weeks.
Just think, though, the rest of you time is free to do as you please!
	If you will happily sign up for this utopia, you can be
rest assured that your children will grow up in a healthy environment,
free from dangerous ideas like libertarianism.  They too will be happy
in their work. :-)

>   I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
>   respond to this post.

I 'ain't no libertarian, man.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Get ready ('cause here I come)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:40:05 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben Hanson) writes:
:Several hundred demonstrators for freedom in Tiannenmen Square
:murdered are not sufficient grounds to risk straining ties with
:China. No it's got to be something really important, like Bush's
:re-election chances.

Well, what do you suggest? A boycott? How long of a boycott do you think
would work before the octagenarian Chinese Politburo say, "Oh, we made a
mistake! We're sorry! We won't do that again! Here are some democratic
reforms for you!" What about the 1B people in China? A boycott/embargo
didn't work for a tiny country like Iraq, what makes you think eliminating
trade to the most populous country in the world would be any more effective?

I'm still waiting for suggestions from Democrats out there.

>Bill Clinton is not the perfect candidate but George Bush is a 
>proven failure.  Bill Clinton will probaably not do anything 
>effective about the deficit, but George Bush will definitely not.

Probably? PROBABLY? How in the world do you even have a hope that Clinton
will balance the budget, tax the rich, cut defense, boost existing
entitlement programs, create a new health care program, increase funding
for AIDS research, and pour money into the Washington bureaucracy
simaltaneously? P.J. O'Rourke was right: Santa Claus is a Democrat!

>Vote Bush/Quayle in 92. Together maybe we can bring this great
>country down.

And together we can raise it up.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:35:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Bu07px.BMA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Jewell) wrote:

> >He waited for the Governor.  Blame HIM.
> 
>  Care to explain why he waited?  Why things weren't ready to go?  Why he
> was out campaigning while hell-on-wheels was heading for Florida?

From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):

"During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)

The Governor didn't have a clue what was going on.  
 
As to why the president was campainging...are you high?  Should he just be
sitting in his office twiddling his thumbs?  The pentagon *was* ready with
supplies.  The state officials were just slow to respond (and to be fair,
so was FEMA).

Read Newsweek.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!