HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cline@cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline)
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
Keywords: Carto
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:06:57 GMT

kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>In article <8087.20354@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com writes:

>>Actually I do believe that a *convicted criminal* cannot run
>>for president.  But now there's the rub, LaRouche was
>>railroaded into a prison, by the federales, on what I have 
>>heard to be trumped up charges of tax evasion; with a sentence 
>>*just long enough* to keep him there after the King George recoronation.

>Surely there are Yankee netters out there who can address this question. It
>was always my belief that felons lost their civil rights, including the
>right to run for presidential office, but others say no....

Being a former felon does bar one from being elected President, but it may
bar a person from being an Elector since their requirement is the same as the
most numerous branch of the state legislature in which they are elected.
The state may choose the method of election of the Electors in such
manner as they choose, though all do so by popular vote today

Ernest Cline	cline@cs.scarolina.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Followup-To: alt.fan.gooley
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.081747.4718@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.072220.21631@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>}In article <1992Jul24.053416.535@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
>}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr), whose mind seems to have been
>}lost somewhere in the Renaissance, writes:
>
>The Renaissance?  How do you get that?  Voltaire is from the Enlightenment,
>and St. Augustine is from the beginning of the Middle Ages.

Then you're a weird one to be trumpeting the Renaissance in your
signature.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: scottj@gumedlib.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Followup-To: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:21:39 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.georgetown.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul23.231316.7739@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com
(Kathy Beatty) wrote:
> 
> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> : In article <1992Jul22.223110.27143@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
> I *DON'T* trust the government. I trust it more than I trust the masses,
> however.  If government were totally eliminated, you would not get
> enlightened individuals looking kindly upon one another, you would get
> rule by the mob (and I don't mean organized crime). You are dreaming if
> you believe otherwise.
> 
[...]
> I don't favor empowering the government over individuals. I do favor the 
> government protecting individuals (like me) from other "enlightened" 
> individuals and groups thereof - like the KKK, the LAPD, Aryan Nation,
> Coloradans for Family Values, Oregon Citizens Alliance, on and on
> ad nauseum. You are dreaming if you think those people will act the
> way you *BELIEVE* we all should.
> 
[...]
> 
> Big government is a problem, that's true. No government would be a
> disaster.
> 
> 
> Kathy

You have just succinctly summed up the position of most libertarians.  To
be sure, there are some libertarians who are anarchists, who want there
to be no government.  You are right: those people are dreaming if they
think that would work.  Most libertarians, on the other hand, are
"minarchists", that is, they are believers in minimal government.

Now, from what you wrote above I would almost say that you are
a libertarian.  The only thing left that might distinguish you from
the libertarians is what you would consider to be the minimum functions
of government.  A libertarian believes that the government should
protect its citizens from the initiation of force against them and
from fraud (which they consider to be a form of force).  So to a
libertarian, the KKK and other such disgusting groups of people can
*say* anything they want, but if they commit violence, the individuals
responsible should be arrested, tried, and punished BY THE GOVERNMENT.

It is a shame that libertarianism is identified with anarchism.  When
arguing with libertarians, most people automatically assume they are
arguing against anarchists.

--John Scott
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,misc.activism.progressive
From: dknren01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:59:01 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <l6trvfINNqgp@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
writes:
> What does this have to do with Ron's original premise that the trickier
> and nastier people will gravitate to the government, and that the idea
> of Libertarianism is to limit the damage these people can do?
> 
> Even if all that is true, if you limit the damage government can do, these
> tricier and nastier people will move elsewhere (private sector, TV evangelists,
> Libertarian Party officers, etc) and do their damage there.  Now how do
> you limit the damage they can do.  All Ron's proposal does is cause them
> to use a different "best tool."

Spot on! The nastier and trickier (actually just more unscrupulous and
resourceful) people among us will always find a place from which to do their
damage. More to the point, there will always be enough apathetic and sheep-like
people in the electorate/population to allow them to do it unhindered. Though I
don't claim to know everything about Libertarian policy, being from another
country, it is clear from all the stuff in this thread that it makes the
assumption that people will act in a rational and "enlightened" manner, and
this is simply not true. One of the .sig files in this group (I forget whose)
goes : "Vote Dempublical - it's easier than thinking". This is presumably a
joke, but the problem is that the MAJORITY of people worldwide AND IN THE U.S.
think like this. And as long as that is the case, there is no way to avoid the
"trickier & nastier" people among us from rising into positions of power and
making life unpleasant for everyone else.
Tell me if you think I'm being needlessly pessimistic - I think it's just
realism.

-Francis Bryan
c/o dknren01@uctvax.uct.ac.za

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.154133.15894@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin  
Collins) writes:

> So now the Mexican government is socialistic too. What next? 
> (No, I was referring to the American corporate stooge that
> invested his money in Mexico. But you seem to assume that anyone connected
> to government is a socialist. So please explain your claim that those people
> who run businesses are not somehow capitalists. Officially those who
> own/invest capital, not those who "run" businesses, are the capitalists.)


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...  Ever here of Pemex? Excuse me,  
but when the government owns and runs major businesses I find it hard to call  
it anything else but socialist. You've got a different definition? You state a  
definition of capitalist but the underlying intent of your discourse is to use  
the term capitalist as a slur. The Nazi's were socialists therefore all  
socialists are Nazi's? You seem to be using the same argument for capitalists  
and businessmen.  If the government is corrupt (do you deny that Mexico has a  
corrupt government?) it will attract and allow corruption in the market place  
not because of the "corporate stooges".   

--Barry Wise
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

In article <l6rl5nINN87v@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> What?  Libertarianism is the belief that while there are people who
>|> are good, there are also people who are bad, and they are going to do
>|> bad things.  And the trickier and nastier they are, the more likely
>|> they're going to gravitate to the government as a source of power.
>|> And even the only slightly bad people are still going to do bad
>|> things.  Non-rational things.   The whole idea is to limit the damage
>|> these people can do, when their best tool is the government.
>|> 
>So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?
>Who defines crime?  Who defines government? Who defines acceptable?

     No, any "crime" is "Acceptable" so long as it does not interfere with 
others rights.
 
     Libertarians go on and on about the government not supposed to have any 
power, which is not exactly what most of them believe.  In actuality, they 
don't want the government to have any power *beyond* protecting citizens 
rights.  Thus, the government may exercise its power to have laws against 
murder, theft, rape, etc., but not, say, laws against homosexuality or 
other "victimless crimes."
 
     But there are other rights, such as free speech, which the government 
may not infringe on, but that others may.  For instance, you have freedom of 
speech, and the government may not stop you from using.  That doesn't mean, 
though, that the government or anybody else has to buy you a printing press.
 
     The government may not discriminatem because the government does not 
have the right to associate with whomever it chooses.  *Individuals* may 
discriminate, though it is wrong for them to do so in most cases, becuase 
they *do* have the right to associate with whomever they choose.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13420 soc.motss:32414 talk.politics.misc:35759 alt.individualism:4537
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:18:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.223110.27143@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:

>When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider 
>voting libertarian. You are an unenlightened idiot if you think that makes 
>me anti-liberty. 

I don't understand why you are willing to trust the government, which is 
made up of individuals, to do what you do not trust individuals to do.

And anyone who favors empowering the government over individuals IS anti-
liberty.  Rubber-stamp me as an unenlightened idiot please.  Stereotype away.

>By the way, how's Dr. Pangloss?

Rational, but biased toward big government.  He just seems to realize that 
we can't afford the utopia he would like the govt. to provide.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13262 talk.environment:2893 ca.environment:741
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:35:51 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Ron Dippold) writes:
|> What?  Libertarianism is the belief that while there are people who
|> are good, there are also people who are bad, and they are going to do
|> bad things.  And the trickier and nastier they are, the more likely
|> they're going to gravitate to the government as a source of power.
|> And even the only slightly bad people are still going to do bad
|> things.  Non-rational things.   The whole idea is to limit the damage
|> these people can do, when their best tool is the government.
|> 
So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?
Who defines crime?  Who defines government? Who defines acceptable?
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13426 talk.politics.misc:35780 soc.culture.latin-america:2712
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:34:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: genie.1992Jul24.053416.535
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
}I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
}belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
}happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
}in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
}mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

Yes, St. Augustine.  In case anyone doesn't know, this position in the
philosophy man is essentially St. Augustine's.  More recently, Libertarian
activist David Bergland called it the PANG premise, an acronym for People
Are No Good.

This is the standard view of man shared by socialists and fascists today.
The only difference in their belief in this version of original sin is that
the socialists think that man can be redeemed by force and fraud, and fascists
have no hope of redeeming man short of the attainment of Heaven in the after-
life.

Besides which, the statement "people aren't rational" is strictly contradictory.
The person making this assertion must be rational for it to be taken as any-
thing more than incoherent, and others must be rational to debate it.  This
is the sort of conclusion reached by observing some irrational men, then
generalizing this.

That people are rational is axiomatic; in order to attempt to deny this
assertion, human rationality is required.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13547 talk.politics.misc:36094
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: `The Abolition of Work' by Bob Black (3 parts) posted to alt.activism
Followup-To: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,alt.individualism,alt.slack
Keywords: work,play,slavery,wage-slavery,get-a-life,productivity,production,
	treadmill,grindstone
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:02:05 GMT

Followers of the
	"Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)"
thread in the pnw.general newsgroup, as well as readers of the other
newsgroups this post is cross-posted to will be interested in Bob Black's
essay, "The Abolition of Work" which I have posted in 3 parts to the
Usenet newsgroups

	alt.activism
	misc.activism.progressive
	text-files (local to eskimo)

You may also get a copy by e-mailing me.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Preferred Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:46:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.135416.13329@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:


>In article <archer.193@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul27.142313.14038@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|> >In article <veal.122@utkvm1.utk.edu>, veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>|> >|> In article <1992Jul23.123832.18186@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> >In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>|> >|> >>And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
>|> >|> >>public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
>|> >|> >>ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> >Yes, I agree, that's far more tragic than being denied housing,
>|> >|> >employment, or the right to walk down the street in peace.  Enough of
>|> >|> >this whining about racism, sexism, heteroexism... the real enemy is
>|> >|> >sports fandom...  Yeesh.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|>      This, I like.  "My form of discrimination is worse than your form of 
>|> >|> discrimination!" 
>|> 
>|> >You don't mean you actually think that being annoyed because
>|> >you're an intellectual and everyone else in your school is 
>|> >a jock is equivalent to being denied the ability to support
>|> >yourself because of the gender of the person you fall in love with?
>|> 
>|> You cannot know how others have suffered, or why, because you have not been 
>|> them.  Do not belittle the suffering of others.  
>|> 
>|> I was not annoyed, I was beaten senseless on a fairly consistent basis.

>And does this threat of beating continue to this day?  Or did it
>end when you left public school?  Do you continue to be discriminated
>against in housing or in employment?

That is irrelivant.  Do not belittle the suffereing of others.  Nor compare 
it to your own.  And do not claim that others cannot understand what it is 
like to enounter bias.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: RU486 Bill
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:57:44 GMT

I am under the impression that Pat Shroeder is introducing a Bill to 
legalize RU486 this week.  Does anyone have the details on this?

-Thomas

Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.news-media,alt.censorship
From: terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Under-reported Stories of '91 released by Project Censored
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: terwill@arecibo.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:36:00 GMT

In article <MATT.92Jul23101419@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>In article <9207230101.AA04031@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
>> 	10.     THE BUSH FAMILY'S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.  In recent history, 
>> no president has had the blatant but unexplored familial conflicts of 
>> interest comparable to that of George Bush.  These include his brother, 
>> Prescott, a financial consultant with influential contacts in Japan, South 
>> Korea, and the Philippines

AND AUSTERN PONTIFICATES........
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>And China---a major omission from this list.  Bush's brother has
>invested a great deal of money in a hotel (for foreigners, of course)
>in Beijing.  In other words: the Bush family has, for several years,
>had a major financial stake in China having good relations with the
>United States and Europe.
> 
>Think about that fact the next time you wonder why Bush was so eager
>to cozy up to the Chinese leaders even after Tiananman Square.

..as someone who will really enjoy voting against Bush and his running mate
(although the alternate is poor on an equal basis but for different units of
measurement) I still feel your logic here is quite flawed and not rationally
thought out, although I suspect this is far from the first time this is true. I
believe Bush, rare that it may be, is choosing the lesser of two evils on
China. The "easy" decision is to cut off all relations, send China back to
being an isolated nation with a very bright population and an irrational fear
of all outsiders and creating a sleeping dragon to deal with later. Bush, for
whatever reason, even the one you and your supermarket tabloid mind have
expressed, has taken the heated path on this one and kept some light shinning
through a bamboo curtain. It is similar to a social worker or parole officer
intervening with a cop for the good of the individuals family. 

Bush is bad for the country but he has balls to take this position and he is
not the root of all evil. Sorry, but half-truths like yours just draw
attention away from the valid issues people should consider.

Bill


Xref: sparky alt.activism:13438 sci.environment:9945 talk.politics.misc:35812 alt.activism.d:2483 talk.environment:2952
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:32:25 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.205623.23453@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>  For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is 
>>not a slave pen

>I love these comfortable well-off white guys' ideas of what a
>"slave pen" is.  Looks pretty cushy to me from up here...

Right, all white guys are well off and cushy.  I don't buy the liberal
insignificance of the individual and the primacy of the group.  You're
doing just what someone does who "notes" that all blacks are lazy.


>>we must work off of the assumption that man
>>has the potential of being rational. Putting self interest 
>>as the incentive is of primary concern since a person will
>>not objectify that which is not perceived as good for him/her.

>Repeat after me: "The Market is good, the Market will solve
>Everything, the Market is good..."

Repeat after me: "The Market isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight
better than the alternatives."

-- 
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,talk.environment