HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 29 Aug 92 07:40:13 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Aug26.151809.22913@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

[...]
>
>"liberals" whine about red-baiting, but engage in Nazi-baiting.  They
>whine about using govt to force culture, but not when their culture is
>involved.  We see this sort of thing all the time; I'm just pointing
>out an example.
>

differences: the 'reds' were a political myth.  nazis were not.
red-baiting is a tactic used to create fear from rhetoric.  pat buchanan
is scary.  even if one accepts that multiculturalists want to 'force'
culture, it remains that they want to force _open_ a cultural milieu
that remains constricted on the authority of a dominant minority, while
buchanan and his ilk seek to constrain cultural activity by the judgement
of that minority.

dave
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (was: Re: THE NEW BULLY OF THE BALKANS [ Part 4 from 4 ])
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:58:40 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <BtzDus.J2L@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos
Tamamidis ) writes:
>mirsip@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Ivan Popstefanija) writes:
>
>>  A state with garanteed individual rights  and  NOT garanteed rights
>>for nations is, IMO, solution for multi ethnic society, but that is not
>>the way the Serbs, Croats or Slovenians see it. What can one do?  
>
> Leave them alone.  They were living without such problems in the past.
> 
what 'such problems' didn't they have?  problems of individual rights?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:28:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug28.235654.16119@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>
>>Consider that in most of those TV ads, the lawyer usually goes on to
>>say something like "You may have rights which you're not aware of,
>>rights which you may lose if you don't take certain actions in time."
>>Is it a bad thing that people are being informed of this fact, and
>>that if they do go to a lawyer they learn exactly what these rights
>>are and what they have to do to enforce them?  (And please note that
>>this is a separate question entirely from "Should anyone get rich from
>>informing people of their rights and helping to enforce them?")
>
>You are confusing legal and moral rights here.

   In a postmodern society it's unclear that "moral rights" exist.  
   One of the features of such societies is that institutions and rules
   are largely explicit and formal.  "Moral" values are the internalized
   concepts of "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" that largely
   reflect the individual's own cultural upbringing.  But a major feature
   of today's world is that it consists of many different cultures 
   which perforce must live and interact together.   So while it is 
   usually clear what one's legal rights are, it is usually a 
   subjective and cultural matter of what morals rights are.
                           

---peter
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:28:48 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Aug28.192944.4834@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.144823.13623@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
write
>s:
>>According to gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
>>| >You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one dollar.
>>
>>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>| Care to verify this assertion with the IRS?  I doubt they'll agree.
>>
>>I find it fascinating that the libertarian mob here will
>>strain at the NEA and swallow Buchanan.
>
>Not being a libertarian, I'm not going to comment on what they're
>saying.
>
>I do find it interesting that Fitch thinks that pointing out that his
>real disagreement with Buchanan is over WHICH culture govt should push
>is equivalent to accepting Buchanan.

the quality of discussion here might improve if we begin to attempt some
small amount of coherence in our postings.

it might also be useful if we did not churn out endless iterations of
our arguments.

well, anyway:  the word 'push' is too vague.  as i said (oops) in another
post this evening, cultural conservatives seek to constrain the field of
culture.  multiculturalists seek precisely the opposite.  already there are
differences.

attempting to fill our libraries with the works of white-het-male authors, and
attempting to fill them with a variety of works that represent the existences
and inclinations of the variety of people that inhabit this state, are clearly
not equivalent.

buchanan has called for his kind to 'take back our culture'.  but his culture
has never been removed from him.  he is not concerned about _his_ ability
to experience the culture he prefers -- _that_ has never been threatened --
he is concerned about _our_ ability to do so.

so am i.

>-andy

dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3932 misc.legal:16672
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 06:38:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug28.223152.13355@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.195808.6686@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>Ted Frank writes:
>>>In the case of contingent fees, it's not clear that the case would
>>>even go to trial -- the lawyer would see a 30% chance of a $33,333
>>>fee, and figure an expected loss of $15,000.  A contingent-fee lawyer
>>>wouldn't take this case.
>>
>>Where does the $15,000 come from?  All the lawyer has to lose is his time,
>
>And the additional wages of her paralegals, her secretaries, the opportunity
>cost of not taking a better case or searching for a better case, 
>the time spent on the expensive legal databases, and so on.  

Essentially, it's just "lost opportunity", which is what I meant by "lost
time" anyway.

As I said, the less business the lawyer has, the less it costs him to
invest into a case by bringing suit.  Thus the system strives toward an
"equilibrium" level of litigation.  I am also afraid that this litigation
level is rising all the time since we have more and more law graduates
per year going into practice.

You have, essentially, a system that wants
more litigation than is called for simply because lawyers want them to
fatten their pockets!
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Kulturkampf
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:54:36 GMT
Organization: private

In article <1992Aug20.203305.26207@morrow.stanford.edu>
silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU sounds an alarm:

>                  .....does commonly cloak this partisanism or bias with
> a false display of even-handedness in language. His posts, actually, are
> commonly even-handed....

Thanks for warning us, Holly.  If there's anything we don't need, it's
false displays of evenhandedness :-(
--
dale@dale.cam.org           M O N T R E A L           Te souviens-tu?
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:35:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.042626.18211@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.120216.9806@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>>One of the problems in our society (which Britain does not have) is that
>>litigation can be taken on with little cost to the person starting the
>>action.  If you slip and fall in a major store--you can get a lawyer to
>>file suit on your behalf with the promise of being paid by the corporation
>>when they settle.  If they know they'll at least get paid for their time,
>>they have little to lose.

>This is not the way it works.  Contingent fee lawyers ONLY get paid if
>they win.  Thus, they have an incentive to screen out those cases
>which are losers, even if the potential clients don't.

That's not necessarily true.  Once they file suit (which they won't do if
they think it's hopeless), the company being sued may settle before trial 
rather than face legal costs.  The settlement will undoubtedly include enough
to cover the lawyer's fees.  Many cases never go to trial, but the attorneys
still get paid.

Charlie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:18:28 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt) writes:
: : : 
: : : Kathy
: : Kathy, I agree with you 100% but what can be done to change this
: : terrible trend? The Democrats may not take away our rights but they
: : surely will steel our money!
: 
: I don't agree with this. The Republicans, IMO, steal our money because they
: do nothing to provide government services, which is what our taxes really
: should fund. Furthermore, it is a lie that the Republicans have significantly
: lowered taxes - mine haven't been lowered, they've gone up over the last 12
: years. The Republicans talk a good line as far as taxes, but they don't 
: deliver. 
: 
: I personally look at taxes as the price I pay for good government. The
: Republicans take my money and my rights away, but they don't deliver the
: services the country needs - that's why the inner cities are such a mess.
: The Democrats may also take my money, but they have a record of both 
: protecting my rights and in delivering the services this country need to
: function well - and that means the whole country, not just big business.
: 
: Yes, this is a simplistic analysis, I know that all Democrats are not good,
: just as all Republicans are not evil, but it is why I will never vote 
: Republican.
: 
: 
: Kathy
The Democrates if elected, will surely steel more money than the
Republicans. My first choice in political parties is Libratarian,
followed by Ross Perot, Republicans and dead last is Democrates. 
Democrate is just another name for communist or socialist.

In my view there are only three proper roles for government.

1) The police to protect our individual rights from being violated.

2) The armed services to protect us from foriegn invaders.

3) The civil and criminal court system to resolve contract disputs
   and handle criminal cases.

A move to a system such as this would have to procede slowly in order
to advoid riots in the slums.

Man has the right to his own life and therfore property produced by
himself.

Democrates show very little regard to this right.

John
-- 

------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in U.S.
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:56:23 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
: : 
: : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
: : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
: : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
: : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
: : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
: : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
: : theory today, though).
: : 
: Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
: you with a crime! Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
: upheld this. Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
: believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. There are also sobriety
: checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
: without probable cause. In short, while most people in this country have
: been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
: of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.
: 
: 
: 
: Kathy
Kathy, I agree with you 100% but what can be done to change this
terrible trend? The Democrats may not take away our rights but they
surely will steel our money!


-- 
------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
(303) 252-2885       12500 North Washington Street, Denver, CO 80241-2404
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:17:00 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile


gf:
| >What I'm really getting at is that the "nation", as a
| >concept, is evidently worthless at protecting people's
| >rights and safety. 

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
| stick. We can't really know what the coercion levels would be in a 
| hypothetical world without nation states. My intuition is the opposite of yours. 
| On the whole we are generally safe and our rights are generally protected. There are
| exceptions but they are exceptions and of limmited duration. My guess
| is if nations did not exist warlords  would immediately pop up to take their
| place, as they have always done in the past, grossly violating our rights
| and freedoms.

You seem to be arguing state versus anarchy.  I'm not discussing
that here; what I'm criticizing is the notion of "nation" as a
useful political entity.  At the end of World War I, there was
a great deal of talk, and some action, around the idea of 
"national self-determination".  Taking themselves as a model,
the states of Western Europe and North America decided -- 
as far as I know without much discussion -- that similar 
nation-states could be created on the ruins of the defeated
empires.  Of course, they tried not to apply this idea to 
their own empires, but in the end it was exported all over 
the world.

What they forgot was that the cultural and linguistic
unity of England, France, and the United States were brought
about violence and persecution.  These events, however, had
happened a long time ago in Europe, and everyone had a very
short memory about North America.  In order to bring about
nation-states in the ethnically complex regions of the
Balkans, the Levant, much of Africa, and so on, it's 
going to be necessary to kill a lot of people -- or to
abandon the idea of the nation-state and attempt to set
up political systems on truly liberal principles, where
ethnicity applies to persons by their consent and the
state is indifferent to it.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:07:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug28.232543.14862@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>Sorry, reposting.  Last attempt used messed up file.
>
>The real problems is that OUR RULES OF BEHAVIOR ARE TOO COMPLEX AND ARBITRARY.
>That's why people don't even know what their rights are, and why there
>exists a fundamental contradiction of our system that assumes people
>know the exact rules when they make decisions but which makes this
>knowledge impossible in many situations.
>
>The whole idea of legal "rights" is too often an
>arbitrary set of rules about what responsibility belongs to whom under this and
>that circumstance.  They are arbitrary in the sense that if we massively
>simplify or change them AND everybody understands and behaves according to
>the new rules, no one will be better or worse off.
>
>We must simplify these rules to reduce the overhead of working through this
>mass of information.  We used to be able to afford this overhead but it has
>grown to a point that threatens our future economic growth.

      I don't know . . .  history and cultural anthropology are sort
      of hobbies of mine.   One of the things you notice about many
      tribal and traditional societies, and even many preindustrial 
      western societies, is the very complex set of obligation inter-
      relationships which exist in such communities.  Just trying to
      follow such things, especially in some tribal contexts, can
      really make your head spin.   Human beings are surprisingly
      adept at internalizing these rules, especially if they are part
      of an internalized cultural framework.    So it may be that the
      problem with law is not its complexity per se, but rather that
      it is arbitrary, relative to what (very) few cultural rules
      westerners manage to internalize.

      Also, legal complexity to a very real extent reflects the actual
      complexity of the real world.  Even as it is, judges and juries
      constatnty faced with having to decide how a particular laws maps
      to some real world problem, a situation which would suggest the
      need for more and more detailed laws, not fewer.   But we are modern,
      or post-modern, people.  Rather that trying to simplify, (no doubt
      "oversimplify") these things, we should embrace the very complexity
      and uncertainty of all this, and find ways to deal with it.  The way
      the technology is going I don't imagine it will be too long, a few
      decades or so, before we can have our own personal electronic
      legal advisors which we can carry around in our shirt-pockets.


---peter
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: big government conservatives
									
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:04:59 GMT

Liberals generally favor big government in economics. They believe that
government should promote economic equality and justice. Conservatives do not.
They subscribe to the "Survival of the fittest" theory. This is what
conservatives base their "big govt" attacks on.

In reality, conservatives also promote big government but in a much more 
offensive way. Conservatives believe in telling grown adults what
is right and wrong. Censorship is a prime example. They are telling me what
I, an adult, can or cannot buy. They don't know me or my values (actually,
if I don't have the same values as them, they think I don't have any at all).
Their distaste for homosexuality is another example. As long as two people have
sex in the privacy of their own homes (or wherever), it's none of anybody's
damn business whether it was two men, two women or one of each. Their action
is not affecting the rights of anybody else. Conservatives try to legislate 
their personal moral code. Not liking homosexuality is one thing but when you
try to have it or things pertaining to it banned, you're crossing the line
by infringing on privacy rights. Privacy rights are unlimited, IMO, until they
start infringing on someone else's; only then is there (should there be)
controversy. Homosexual acts done in the privacy of one's own home is not
affecting anyone. Heterosexual acts, which could result in pregnancy, actually
could have a much bigger affect on others because if a pregnancy occurs, it is
possible that social services money might be eaten up as a result (which is not
to say that only the poor have pregnancies); you don't here calls for a ban
on heterosexual acts. (sorry for the sidetrack)

The conservatives believe in less govt in economics but more govt in personal
decisions. So the next time you here a conservative rambling on about the big		
government policies of the liberals, just remember that a) it's the pot
calling the kettle black and b) at least liberals trust the individual adult
to make his or her own decision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
CLARKSON '95	     
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
send flames to the above address)	

 						

		

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 07:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.063804.5225@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>As I said, the less business the lawyer has, the less it costs him to
>invest into a case by bringing suit.  Thus the system strives toward an
>"equilibrium" level of litigation.  I am also afraid that this litigation
>level is rising all the time since we have more and more law graduates
>per year going into practice.

And about as many leaving practice.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (
Date: 3 Sep 1992 15:44:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>What I'm really getting at is that the "nation", as a
>concept, is evidently worthless at protecting people's
>rights and safety. 

Allthough I'm with you in spirit I don't think you can make this claim
stick. We can't really know what the coercion levels would be in a 
hypothetical world without nation states. My intuition is the opposite of yours. 
On the whole we are generally safe and our rights are generally protected. There are
exceptions but they are exceptions and of limmited duration. My guess
is if nations did not exist warlords  would immediately pop up to take their
place, as they have always done in the past, grossly violating our rights
and freedoms.

>We should be trying to find alternatives to it.

I think the world system is evolving in the direction you are proposing.
Information flows are effectively global, businness is global, travel
is global and readily available, trade is in general free, coercion levels
are generally low, in short there's very little that actually ties
you to one area. 

Complex systems never enter a stable state so there
will always be many trends and counter trends in the world. Problems with
GATT and economic imperialism may make trade less global. But nothing
will stem the tide of the universality of information and culture. In the
future the I can easily see strong counter trends towards a more violent
world. And who will protect you in that world? Would you trust the UN when
the UN is at bottom a political body? I wouldn't. So I predict the
concept of nation will survive, more as a safety blanket than anything else, but 
the nature of what a nation is will evolve significantly.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3941 sci.econ:7251