HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: G.A.T.T. FACTS (2)
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:42:59 GMT


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Excerpted from
[The following article was taken from the _Covert Action_ Spring 1992
article by Terry Allen entitled "In GATT They Trust"(p.60-65)]
which we hope to obtain permission to post in full soon]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Second, it preempts even federal laws in many of these same areas by
requiring that a wide rande of environmental and consumer protection
regulations be subject to challenge within GATT.  If U.S.  regulations
were more strict than the relatively weak global standards set by
obscure and often corporate-dominated international agencies, these
more lax standards would prevail.  For example, GATT proposes that
Codex Alimentarius, an obscure U.N.  agency based in Rome, be the
standard-setting agency for food safety.  Years of infiltration by the
chemical companies and food manufacturers have rendered Codex
standards weak at best and meaningless at worst.  For DDT, for
example, Codex permits residues on imported foods up to 50 times
greater than those allowed under U.S.  law.


Xref: sparky alt.activism:13439 talk.politics.misc:35814 soc.culture.latin-america:2715
From: ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:41:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Just a comment on Chomsky on Cuba.  While I agree with most of Chomsky's 
assesment on  the real reasons behing U.S. policy towards Cuba, I  believe 
Chomsky omits the cynical role played by the Cuban government itself in its 
plight for "independence" (note no mention on Cuba's DEPENDENCE to the 
Soviets).  Chomsky has gone on  record denouncing govermenta that proclaim to 
have created "real socialism" or paradise on earth, for which he has been 
heavily lambasted from the "left".  Hence, while the thrust of his attack in 
these articles is against the hyppocrisy of U.S. policy, I doubt he agrees at 
all with Mr. Castro's  dictatorsip.  If by any reasons  anybody finds a 
Chomsky quote endorsing the Havanna regime, please remit a copy.

Edelmiro
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13796 soc.motss:33327 talk.politics.misc:36767 alt.individualism:4792
From: chas@netcom.com (Chuck Fisher)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:56:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <nlknne0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>I was talking with someone re:libertarianism yesterday.  He gave me some
>fresh thoughts on the topic.  He feels that libertarianism works fine
>in a fronteir type setting, where everyone has an essential service/function
>within society.  Therefore, you cannot avoid doing business with someone,
>despite personal feelings.  This is certainly true, and in this setting,
>I could see libertarianism working.  However, once society reaches the size
>that we have, individuals are no longer significant.  One person's patronage
>does not significantly effect even the smallest business.  Therefore, they
>can be biased without significantly hurting their business.

I have long felt that libertarianism makes sense in frontier
environment, unfortunately that era has past.  California's history
is rife with classic examples of exploitation from the hiring of
"coolies" for buiding the trans-continental railroad, to submission of
the native population by "missionaries", to hydraulic mining
devastating the lowlands.  The greed that generated these excesses are
still with us, I'm afraid.  And libertarianism seems to give it a
stamp of approval.

Chuck
-- 
Chuck Fisher                                  Work: (800) 359-7997 
chas@netcom.com  IP address: 192.100.81.100   Home: (415) 964-2819
{apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas 
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Masturbation to Ayn Rand
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:11:11 GMT

In article <JYM.92Jul28185230@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
>Subject: Re: Masturbation to Ayn Rand
>Date: 28 Jul 92 18:52:30

>> Sometimes I feel that alt.activism should be renamed
>> alt.support.libertarians.guilt . . .

>=o= Now you've done it.  There's going to be an avalanche of
>messages telling you the differences between libertarianism
>and Randroidism.  Hey folks, can you take it to talk.politics.
>theory or somesuch?

>=o= Perhaps there should be a {L|l}ibertarian newsgroup (aside
>from alt.politics.marrou, that is).  I'd support anything that
>would help cut down on the incessant unending non-activist
>discussions being posted to this newsgroup.
>    <_Jym_>
Point taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:41:14 GMT

> 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.

Gee, I infer from that that you believe people can't be trusted determine there  
own fate so maybe we should abolish the whole concept of democracy.  Who do you  
nominate for dictator? Whoops, I forgot people can't be trusted to be rational  
so they can't pick the dictator either.  Maybe we can find a sword in a stone  
somewhere.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:15:57 GMT

In article <l6rmgcINNor2@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>|fj> with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
>|fj> like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.
>|
>| I disagree strongly. Are you rational? Note that I *didn't* ask if you were
>| "perfectly" rational. Are you rational enough to avoid sticking a lit match
>| into your eye? Are you rational enough to avoid running onto a freeway? Are
>| you rational enough to avoid eating rotten meat? Add in a few more ques-
>| tions, and yes, you are a sufficiently rational person. Now, why do you be-
>| lieve so few others are?

>Let me see if I'm reading you right.  A libertarian society is
>possible because (most?) people are rational enough not to
>stick lit matches in their eyes, or run onto freeways, or eat
>rotten meat.  And, because (most?) people share these assuredly
>advanced characteristics, I needn't worry about what my neighbors
>might do were big bad government to disapear?

     With a more (total Libertarianism is never going to happen) Libertarian 
goverment, striking lit matches in your eyes is your own business.  Running 
onto a freeway isn't because you have just endangered others.  As for rotten 
meat, if you knew about it fine.  If not, then the company is liable, just 
like now.  (And if you think the FDA doesn't let a lot of rotten meat 
past...)
     But the Libertarians are not advocating a "take your chances" world.  
We have groups such as consumer reports.  Why couldn't there be a private 
company which inspects meat and puts its seal on the meat?  If a company 
becomes respected enough, most people are going to buy meat with its seal of 
approval.  
     How much recourse do you have with the FDA?  Just try suing the 
federal government one of these days.

>Somehow the idea of big government asserting its power over
>me doesn't sound so bad after all.

>Arne

===========================================================================
|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:13264 sci.environment:9766 talk.politics.misc:35265 alt.activism.d:2428 talk.environment:2895
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Rio and streetkids
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:35:56 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 <1992Jul22.033926.27141@cco.caltech.edu> rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II) writes:

>>>Automobile companies know that some people die every year in their cars.
>>>Yet they continue to make cars.  Does that mean that their profits are
>>>important enough that they don't care?

>>Nope.  The benefits are important enough that none of us care.

> Perhaps, or maybe we have been so dehumanized that we really don't care,
>regardless of any perceived benefits.  Let me pose it to you this way: if
>I told you that specific members of your family are going to die in 
>automobile accidents (or by secondary pollution effects), and
>furthermore gave you the power to effect the future only by halting automobile
>production, what would you do?

I wouldn't believe you.  If I did then I would halt it.

On the other hand, if you told me the truth - that I and virtually
everyone else I know has approximately a 1/1000 chance (50,000
autodeaths a year out of 250,000,000) of being killed by a car every
year and I have the power to effect the future only by halting auto
production I'd shrug and say "I accept the risk.  Virtually every
other American does. (How many people do you know who don't get in cars
becasue of safety concerns?)  Why should I interfere?"

> Ridiculous, I know, but I think it's illustrative, in this manner.  The
>numbers we see on TV (200 die in plane crash; 100,000 die annually from
>lung cancer, etc) are just that: numbers.  We must always keep in mind that
>these are people, important in their own right, with family and friends.

Sure.  And how many million die every year just from being born?
Until we find the secret if immortality we can't live forever.

> How do you weigh them against the benefits of technology?
> Why do you have to weigh them in this manner? 

Because without technology even more would die.  Or rather they
wouldn't even be born.  How long do you think it would take before we
were reduced to cannibalism if electricity stopped working tomorrow?

> In short, I reject MY inclusion in the "us" pronoun used above.

So then why the heck are you using a computer?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13649 soc.motss:32809 talk.politics.misc:36322 alt.individualism:4689
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:54:36 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

John L. Scott) writes:
|> Kathy Beatty) wrote:
|> > 
|> T. Archer) writes:
|> > : 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.
|> > 
|> 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.

Wrong.  **OUR** big government is a serious problem.  Government in itself is
not inherently bad. Even John says that most libertarians are
minarchists, so even they recognize this.  BIG government, in itself,
is also not inherently bad.

I agree with the libertarians that the bigger government is, the more
opportunity there is for graft, waste, violation of individual rights,
etc.  But this is also true of religions, social clubs, and even a
large and successful Libertarian party.

We need to fix the way our government operates, which means fixing the
way our representatives are selected and the way our government
employees are selected and managed.  US Government, both elected and
civil service is out of hand.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13348 talk.politics.misc:35576 alt.individualism:4487
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 23 Jul 1992 18:12:58 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <archer.156@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|> >For example, libertarians would allow my
|> >insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
|> >forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
|> >with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
|> >me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
|> >think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
|> >are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.
|> 
|> Un uh.  At that point, your insurance carrier is infringing on YOUR right to 
|> free association, at the Libertarian POV is that the government IS 
|> responsible for preventing individuals from infringing on each other's 
|> rights.
|> 
So it is the governments responsibility to prevent a golf club from letting
me invite to lunch whomever I want to freely associate with?  I assume
you don't believe that (please correct me if I'm wrong).  So the questions
boil down to who decides what the rules are when two peoples rights come
into conflict.  Libertarians?
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob 
Strom) writes:

> I thought libertarians gave companies the right to do something
> that they would consider illegal if it were done by the
> government.  
> 
> For example, libertarians would allow my
> insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
> forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
> with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
> me to restrict my freedom of association. 

Only if you posit an environment with one and only one insurance
company.  In a competitive market, a company would have to be run
by brain-dead managers to require such a clause.  If some ins. co.
did, that would be an instant profit opportunity for the guy down
the road to glom onto customers dissatisfied with the services
offered by the bigot's company.  It's called competition.

But if the government decided to take over and run all insurance
business in the country (sorta like the way they do with first
class mail), who do you go to when they present you with a clause
you don't like?

Can you _really_ not see the distinction?  You can't "coerce" someone
by offering him something he doesn't want, and you can't "coerce" 
someone by refusing to offer him something he _does_ want -- UNLESS
you are using force to prevent him from going elsewhere to get it.
Only the State does that. 

I'll grant you that in our current environment, insurance companies
are so embedded in a web of government regulation and control that
we no longer have anything resembling competion or a free market in 
insurance, but you can hardly blame that on libertarians.

> But libertarians
> think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
> are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.

Not illegal.  Immoral.  The government defines illegal, your conscience
defines immoral.

And besides immoral, counterproductive.   Did you ever see a 5-yr-old 
child say "Mommie!  Billy won't let me play with him.  Make him let me!"
Do you think the little brother is going to be well treated when his
sibling is coerced into the association?  Do you really think this
benefits him in the long run?

(And don't blame me for the childish example.  As far as I'm concerned
the people around here bleating for Mommy-State to force Billy's Diner
to serve them (against Billy's wishes) are no better than the 5-yr-old
mentioned above.)

   ---   Rick

    *** I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ***
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13684 alt.activism.d:2542
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: FMLN guerrillas = freedom fighters
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:40:03 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 <1992Jul27.045255.11659@uvm.edu> coan@griffin (Brian M Coan) writes:
>Well, just so you right-wing freaks know this, the FMLN
>guerrillas who executed the American helicopter pilot
>and the other serviceman were tried and found guilty by
>an FMLN tribunal because an important part of FMLN
>strategy was adherence to international law.

So what happened to them?  The US has executed people for such crimes.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: War on Drugs was Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:38:09 PDT

In article <55659@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, on 31 Jul 92 14:03:41 GMT,
dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>
>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) once wrote:
>> Do I overstate my case?  Perhaps a little.  Perhaps not at all,
>> considering some of the recent actions of the US govt in the war
>> against some drugs (now including RU-486).
>
>While I think the "war on drugs" has done much injustice, from illegal
>takings to violations of trial rights, the federal government is
>perfectly entitled to regulate commerce into the nation and between
>the states. Personally, I don't agree with banning drugs, since it
>will just continue the current mess like in the age of Prohibition.
>But the power is valid, and should be valid. How it is used is just a
>matter of policy.
>
How does manufacturing drugs for personal consumption in one's
own home fall within the scope of regulation of commerce?

Or, for that matter, how would the sale of drugs within one's
community or one's state enable the federal government to regulate
based on the interstate commerce clause.

In fact, what the government does is to define and maintain a list
of controlled substances which they prohibit individuals from
possessing and using. Seems like an unconstitutional power grab to me.

>Larry
>--
>Larry Weeks        | "That government is best which governs least."
>dev@ecn.purdue.edu |   -- Thomas Jefferson
>-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>"Politics - Formed from the Latin 'poly', meaning many, and 'tic',
> meaning little bloodsucking insects."
>
    ====Jack====
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:59:53 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tsongas Economic Plan
	<1992Jul27.183228.11793@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 27-Jul-92 Re: Tsongas
Economic Plan Don M. Gibson@oakhill.sp (665)

> >I think its valid to suggest that labor, not capital, is the true source
> >of wealth.  Capital is sort of like a labor savings account - you put a
> >bunch of labor into making something, and it becomes "capital" which you

> i prefer to think of labor as a type of capital.  you have machines, money,
> physical labor, educational training (intellectual capital),....  
> different balances of capital are needed for different types of business.
> farming uses lots of natural resources and labor.  electronics takes lots
> of machines and intellectuals.  Money could be considered just a
> representation of capital that is convenient for exchange purposes.

> my $0.02, worth.

Or you could think of money as a convenient representation of labor.  If
you do this for me, I'll give you a dollar.  The dollar is really an
credit I received for doing some work for someone else.  Etc.  The worth
of a physical item is just the sum of all the labor that went into
building it.

In other words, I think labor and capital are interchangeable measures. 
The "capital" measure makes seems more natural when most of your
products are goods. The "labor" measure seems more sensible when most of
your products are services.  Neither measure really fits perfectly.  I
mean, are employees really just "capital" with some associated
"maintenance" cost?  Is the value of a piece of gold really just the sum
of the "labor" to dig it out of the ground and the "labor" of the
speculator who bought low and sold high?  If the same speculator bought
high and had to sell low, did he contribute "negative labor"?

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:26:40 GMT

kb> Kathy Beatty

kb> When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider
kb> voting libertarian.

  I didn't realize people got "enlightened" with a kick to the head.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism