HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Community based economy?
Date: 2 Jan 93 13:40:00 GMT
Organization: Florida International University, Miami


I can sit in my home and buy and sell stocks on overseas markets.  I can run
a mail order business, converse with people half way around the world, form 
alliances with people I've never met in person, get in my car and drive an
hour to meet people that I know better than anyone in a five mile radius of my
home.
 
What then, would be a community-based economy in the modern world?  I can 
dream up romanticised visions of Quakers fashioning wagon wheels in the 
community barn, and agrarians gathering around the community well before
the planting season, and I suspect that such visions dance through the heads 
of communitarians, but I can not see how anyone would expect modern people
to give up communication and transportation in order to severely curtail
their choices to a particular geographical area.

In the United States, the idea of geographic community has become increasingly
antiquated.  As an example, consider the application of "community standards"
for obscene material.  Whose standards should apply?  The country of origin
of a satellite feed?  The state in which a publisher resides?  The county
of origin of a 976 number?  People no longer associate within their geographic community much because they have other options.  We are seeing a trend towards the development of housing associations in large metropolitan areas, not to 
develop community but rather as a protective measure.  They tend to supply the protective services that large city governments can not provide to all.  In 
fact, I believe that they function as small towns themselves.  I leave the 
problem of social justice in an area of real-estate based associations to the
reader.  This is not purely a problem with "modern greedy people."  Minorities
never fared well in small local municipalities before the advent of the car 
and telephone.

Perhaps the environmental argument could be made that people should not have 
cars.  That would force a degree of community.  But on the day that some form
of environmentally neutral, individual, quick, long distance 
transportation becomes available, the idyllic community is in jeopardy again
for very practical reasons.  This isn't to say that it isn't possible to keep
people from moving around when they want to.  In fact, Cuba has been able to
protect the environment from cars and instill a degree of community by halting
progress forceably.  That tactic seems to be the only one that can protect
a Luddite vision from people's free will.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Driving your car (was Greens vs. Property Rights)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1htnhtINNit@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Dec31.155423.21680@vexcel.com>
	<JMC.92Dec31103613@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1hvpr8INN6rr@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:05:42

I have a problem with "true cost pricing".  In principle, I'm for it,
but it is not obvious what costs are to be allocated to what.
Illustrations have been given in previous posts of costs that are
proposed to be allocated to automobiles.  What share of road costs
should be allocated to police and fire services which also protect
the homes of bicycle riders?  Cost allocation is bound to be determined
substantially by political processes.

Imagine that the shoe was on the other foot with regard to public
sentiment.  Can we allocate to the cost of a park the delays
imposed on drivers who can't travel on the road that would have
been built had the park not been established?  No-one has dared
even propose such an outrageous thing, but if we want to consider
"true costs", that is part of the cost of the park.

Also consider

     We think that product liability should be considered a cost
     of production.

This principle has driven Cessna, the world's largest producer,
out of the business of making small airplanes.  The recent expanded
concepts of liability have made it impossible for them to get
liability insurance.  Moreover, there is no way someone who wants
to buy an airplane can take the liability on himself.  The insurance
companies charge on the basis that lawyers will succeed in convincing
juries that the manufacturer of the airplane was somehow at fault,
since that's who has the deep pockets.

Now if I could only only sue the National Association of Trial Lawyers
for the increased risk I face, because I can only rent 20 year old
Cessnas.  That is part of the "true costs" of the trial lawyers'
income.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:33:56 GMT

In article <1678600002@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>Robert McGrath,
>We have attempted to institutionalize this dedication to accountability
>by mandating or instructing representatives on how to vote, and by
>reserving the right to recall representatives should they not vote
>as instructed.

How would you go about recalling a member of congress or a president
-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:08:31 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec31103613@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dean Alaska ends up with:
>
>     The point is that ownership of land is not a free ticket to
>     do things that harm people or the environment.
>
>I'm not a private property absolutist and go along with the Stanford
>rule that prevents me from raising hogs on my house lot.  I am
>relieved to discover that the Green program in itself is no more
>restrictive than this.
>
>Surely, there must be more to it - like not letting me drive my
>car to San Francisco.  Fess up.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

	John, you and I have been enjoying what I would consider to
be a very reasonable discussion about population control and resource
consumption over in sci.environment.  As a representative of the 
Green Party of California, I would hope that our conversation would
have helped to convince you that the Greens can be reasonable people.

	There is no statement in the platform of the Green Party of
California that calls for the banning of automobile use.  There are 
statements in support of funding a mass-transit infrastructure, and
statements in favor of a petroleum tax, but there is nothing that would
prevent you from driving your car to San Francisco.  (Why you would
want to, though, is beyond me - I spend an average of thirty minutes
finding street parking in residential areas, and typically pay $10.00
for a space in a downtown parking garage - so I drive to the Fremont
BART station and park there)

	There must be something more to John McCarthy.  Like maybe
he's witch-hunting for Greens.  Fess up.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:09:26 GMT


Greetings, fellow Greens and interested non-Greens!

	And a special thanks to Jym Dyer and anyone else who has helped
to create this useful newsgroup.  I am one of the few email-equipped 
members of the Green Party of California whose contact point is on Usenet,
rather than EcoNet.  I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to 
share information with newcomers in this forum.

In article <Jym.29Dec1992.1331@naughty-peahen>,
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= This is an embryonic FAQ for the new alt.politics.greens
>newsgroup.  It'll serve as a welcome to the newsgroup, and

>will be reposted soon after the beginning of the next month,
>then as a monthly FAQ thereafter.  It provides answers to a few
>questions that I've seen asked here and there.  I expect the
>FAQ to change a lot as this newsgroup develops.

[much useful introductory info deleted]

>* 7. Where can I read about the Greens?
>
>**  Periodicals
>[I would love to know about any more publications.]

	The Green Party of California has several local newsletters, as
well as a monthly newspaper/magazine.  The newspaper is called the Green
Consensus.  The publication is primarily distributed within the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area, but many of the articles are relevant to the entire state.
Subscriptions are (the last time I checked) $35.00 for one year.  If you
are interested in the Consensus, you can contact the Bay Area Regional 
Office of the Green Party of California at the following address:

	P.O. Box 20999
	Oakland, Ca. 94620
	(510) 649-9773


-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 3 Jan 1993 13:22:42 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-
 <1992Dec30.111558.3705@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

>From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
>Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-

>Yup.  Here in the USA, "the greens" is something you put vinegar on and
>sort of stir around on your plate until you have a chance to feed them to
>the dog or hide under the bones from your pork chops.

   And out here on the trap 'n skeet ranges, the 'greens' is made by
   Remington, the 'blues' is made by Federal, and the `reds' is made
   by Winchester.  Except for .410 Federals, which is 'greens' also.

   Redirect follow-ups to 'rec.guns' please.  Thank you.

   Joel Furr:  Your associates don't seem to like 'greens'.  Hidin' 'em
               and givin' 'em away.  We was jus` like that as kids.
               As you get older you'll take an interest in other things
               and might learn that some of those things you thought
               wasn't so good can be very good for you...like marks-
               manship, firearm safety, etc.                   8^)
From: dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:12:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600004:000:187
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  1 16:12:00 1993


I am starting a new topic on Greens and Candidate Accountability.
This topic was beggining to get some attention on the topic about
property rights, but it is really its own topic.

Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 02 Jan 93 14:43 PST
Subject: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600010:000:899
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  2 14:43:00 1993


Hi everybody!
 
This being a new discussion group, it's kinda nice to get to know
everybody a little more.  Please let us know who you are by posting
a reponse to this topic.  It would be interesting to know where
you are from, your job, interests and that other general personal
stuff.  Since this is a discussion about the Green Party, it would
also be interesting to know if you are an active member, have had
contacts with or opinions about the Green Party.
 
I'll start first.  My name is Dale McMillen and I hook into this
list via econet.  I am a computer programmer by trade, but my main
activity is helping organize the Greens in Northern Virginia.  I have
been an active member for about 3 years, and am currently a Green
Council Rep from the Mid-Atlantic Region.  I have a degree in music
and nearly a masters in Divinity, Business Administration and 
Information Systems.
 
Next?
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:54:23 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1htnhtINNit@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.224714.29832@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>|> In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
>|> >
>|> >	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
>|> >(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
>|> >anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
>|> >rights?  Is it in the party line?
>|> >
>|> >Mike Arras
>|> >arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
>|> 
>|> "Against" and "for" are simplified positions.  The position of the USA
>|> Greens (from their program) is that private property should carry the
>|> responsibility that it not be used in a way that is harmful to other
>|> people or the environment.
>
>What is the *least* harmful thing I would be prevented from doing
>with my own property?
>
>jon.

As a response to this and to John McCarthy's response I would say that
neither I nor any other individual can determine exactly where
the boundary between permitted and not permitted is.  John McCarthy
says human rights include property rights and I agree.  Human rights
also include the right to prevent being harmed by others.  The exact
boundary will be determined by law with input from science and ethics.
As scientific knowledge advances and ethics evolve, the limits will
evolve.  Such laws are never adsolutly stricly defined.  Thats one
reason why we have judges and juries.  The point is that ownership
of land is not a free ticket to do things that harm people or the
environment.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:49:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.greens

As quoted from <1992Dec30.111558.3705@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> by jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr):

> In article <Jym.29Dec1992.1331@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
> >Green movements originated in Germany, where they were known
> >as die Gruenen (literally, "the greens").  The name was chosen
> >to reflect ecological concerns, but I don't believe this usage
> >in analagous with the recent use of "green" in English.
> 
> Yup.  Here in the USA, "the greens" is something you put vinegar on and
> sort of stir around on your plate until you have a chance to feed them to
> the dog or hide under the bones from your pork chops.
> 
Now I see the confusion.  The secret my boy is Tobasco sauce.  Mixing ham in
(or bacon) with the greens doesn't hurt either....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.163305.4934@urbana.mcd.mot.com> pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Philip Brewer) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>wood-burning stoves right before the rules requiring catalytic
>converters went into effect.  They, no doubt, felt quite unfairly
>treated.


How can I find out more about catalytic converters for wood buring stoves? 
My parents live in seattle, and there is a problem there with wood-burning
stove smog on certain days.



thanks



-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:46:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec31.210831.29876@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>
> 	There is no statement in the platform of the Green Party of
> California that calls for the banning of automobile use.  There are 
> statements in support of funding a mass-transit infrastructure, and
> statements in favor of a petroleum tax, but there is nothing that would
> prevent you from driving your car to San Francisco.  (Why you would
> want to, though, is beyond me - I spend an average of thirty minutes
> finding street parking in residential areas, and typically pay $10.00
> for a space in a downtown parking garage - so I drive to the Fremont
> BART station and park there)
>
>	There must be something more to John McCarthy.  Like maybe
> he's witch-hunting for Greens.  Fess up.

I can't speak for John McCarthy, but maybe he's struck by the same
thing I am, which is that the Greens here state general principles
like:

	"... not be used in a way that is harmful to other people or 
	the environment."

But when we ask specific questions to clarify exactly what is meant
here, "what harm", "what kind of harm", "how much harm", and so on
then the responses quickly switch back to restatements of the general 
principle.

	"The point is that ownership of land is not a free ticket to
	do things that harm people or the environment."

But we *already* live in a society in which citizens are restricted 
in the harm they can do to one another or to the environment.   If 
the Greens have anything to contribute, it must have something to do 
with modifying those restrictions, or introducing new ones.

So when we ask, will they answer?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1htnhtINNit@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Dec31.155423.21680@vexcel.com>
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:36:13

Dean Alaska ends up with:

     The point is that ownership of land is not a free ticket to
     do things that harm people or the environment.

I'm not a private property absolutist and go along with the Stanford
rule that prevents me from raising hogs on my house lot.  I am
relieved to discover that the Green program in itself is no more
restrictive than this.

Surely, there must be more to it - like not letting me drive my
car to San Francisco.  Fess up.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:34 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600003:000:576
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Dec 31 07:34:00 1992


John McCarthy,

Your comments in response #6 bring us much closer to understanding the real
problem of property rights. (Two people buy adjacent lots. One builds now.
Other wants to build in 10 years.  The first complains that it will destroy
the view, displace gophers, take away playground, etc.)

It seems to me that both purchasers of these lots were victims of a system
that allowed the original subdivider to reap windfall profits at the expense
of the the land, its future inhabitants, and probably the taxpayer if there
were S&L complicity in the original deal.

Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:34 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600002:000:974
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Dec 31 07:34:00 1992


Robert McGrath,

Thanks for your comments in response 3.  As an active Green Party member,
I would say that your views are shared by many Greens.

Regarding your comment that "party lines mean precious little", The Green
Party has historically tried to overcome this failure.  We place a lot
of importance on Green elected officials (and internal party officials)
being accountable to the Green Party platform and their constiguency.
We have attempted to institutionalize this dedication to accountability
by mandating or instructing representatives on how to vote, and by
reserving the right to recall representatives should they not vote
as instructed.

This emphasis on accountability flows from our commitment to
Grassroots Democracy, which is one of "Four Pillars" of the
international Green Movement.  The other "Pillars" are Social
Justice, Non-violence, and Ecological Wisdom.

Dale McMillen
Green Council Representative from Region 11
The Greens/Green Party U.S.A.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: moderation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:09:42

I have been impressed with the moderation of the spokesmen for the
California Greens.  I will be much more impressed if this moderation
can survive in a political environment that rewards fanaticism
in minor parties.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,talk.bizarre
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 11:15:58 GMT

In article <Jym.29Dec1992.1331@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>Green movements originated in Germany, where they were known
>as die Gruenen (literally, "the greens").  The name was chosen
>to reflect ecological concerns, but I don't believe this usage
>in analagous with the recent use of "green" in English.

Yup.  Here in the USA, "the greens" is something you put vinegar on and
sort of stir around on your plate until you have a chance to feed them to
the dog or hide under the bones from your pork chops.