HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:13:36 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Original Intent

Here is the promised postponed discussion.

Andy:
>>>And, who decides whether or not said legislators bothered to
>>>gather said evidence and make such a determination?

Jamie:
>>(I assume the implied answer is supposed to be, "The Supreme
>>Court.")
>>The Court does not have the task of deciding which of the
>>various state laws passed were poorly thought out, or badly
>>implemented. It has the task of protecting constitutional
>>rights.

Andy:
>Jamie is taking an "originalist" position here.  The court moved
>beyond that limited role a while ago.  I think that move was a
>mistake, but I'm not all that sympathetic when it bites people who
>like to see the genie get out of that bottle when it suits their
>purposes.

This is simply an error. (It also includes a not-so-subtle
ad hominem which I will ignore except for this parenthetical
reminder. Andy actually set me up for a special kind of
ad hominem reply, the "tu quoque" reply, but I shall
resist the temptation.)

All legal theorists, at least all the ones I know about, believe
that the task of the Supreme Court is to protect constitutional
rights. (Actually, that's obviously too narrow: there are other
constitutional issues than rights. Nonetheless, my main point
is almost universally accepted in legal circles; viz., that
the Court does not have the authority to strike down any
legislation it finds bad or poorly implemented.)

What is distinctive about Originalism is the way it suggests
we (or the Justices) should interpret the Constitution.
Originalists think that the Constitution should be interpreted
according to its Original Intent. (But that's a kind of wild
card, because various self-styled Originalists mean very
different things by "original intent.)

I have not in any way endorsed Original Intent as a unique
strategy for interpreting the Constitution. I think sometimes
we do, clearly, have to do some historical investigation to find
out what certain words meant around 1800, or whenever. But
I don't think that's even the main strategy that should be
used.

About "cruel and unusual," I think, there is an especially
severe confusion about what its authors had in mind. I would
have to check this to be sure, but I think that historians
really don't have much of a clue about what the framers
(or ratifiers, or general public) believed it to mean.
If the issue is supposed to be whether the framers intended
the Court to review laws for general badness or for specific
kinds of encroachments, that's a different story. It is
very clear that they intended the latter. But the fact that
Originalists agree with a certain conclusion obviously
does not show that an Originalist theory is an implication
of that conclusion. As I said, pretty much everyone thinks
that the Court's job is to check legislation for its
consitutionality, not for general goodness and badness.
If you want to know why *I* personally agree with this
conception of the role of the Court, I will explain why.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:52:31 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Val:
>It is interesting that Caius considers titanium as a new standard for "solid
>currency," I myself once offered the idea that the "new economy" of the future
>might be an energy-based economy. "Ergs (= "A centimeter-gram-second" unit of
>energy ...") or calories might be the new standard, or maybe even
> "foot-pounds."Again, we, as a total species planet-wide, have to agree on such
> a standard -
[rest of messages deleted]
Why not base the currency on the whole productive base of a country -
one could then pass tokens which represent some proportion of that
productive base. Of course, keeping the supply of tokens in line with
the productive base might be quite difficult - if too many tokens were
supplied their value relative to goods and services might fall ... oh
hang on, that's what we do now isn't it.

Dunstan.

BTW, if I was to take up the Bank of England on their statement "I
promise to pay Bearer on demand the sum of five pounds", what would
they give me ?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 10:50:17 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: nambla
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan,
if the word "loving" means only sex to you, than you surely misunderstood
what I meant. I thought these two words exist to describe two different
things. I think it's just a matter of semantics. I believe that it's OK to
be sexually attracted to minors as long as the feeling doesn't lead to
a crime of rape.
Sam.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:16:15 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212211347.AA12404@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
>>> I beg your pardon!  Tell me truly that European Jews in the WWII period were
>>> uniformly rich or that the rich were uniformly Jewish.
> 
> The wealth was the main cause of discrimination, all the "racial"
> announcements just propaganda.

That fails to explain all the poor Jews who went to the death camps, and all
the rich Germans who did not.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:11:27 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re:re: freedom of speech

This is getting nauseating. (Not singling you out, fred.)

Let's have a contest.

Who can be MORE in favor of freedom of speech for those with whom
you disagree?

I'll go first. (oops, too late for that.)

I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.

Wow. Controversial, huh?

Jamie

>If one group has freedom of expression, all groups do. If it is denied
>one group, others must follow suit. Something to think about next time
>you say someone doesn't have the "right" to express their opinion.

WHO said someone doesn't have the "right" to express their opinion?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:55:32 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Catching up on "old mail," I believe that blacks constitute roughly 20%
of the population, and Hispanics between 12-15% of the population, both
might be larger groups than the estimated 10% gay population. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:05:17 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: The best present I've received ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> since 1988 is my continued life since being diagnosed with lung disease. VMS
>
congratulations!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:02:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      my definition...my definition is this...my definition...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Brett':
>>libertarian: One who wishes to maximize individual freedom, even at the cost
>>             of some other social goals.
>        I'd remove the "even at the cost..." since it's a) not true and b)
>implies some evil side effects.

The definition list, as written by John Kelsey (a libertarian himself, and
a suppy-sider, I think, not to mention a good debater), came at a time when
we were arguing on a grand scale, about whether libertarian capitalism
would work, what it's goals were, what the effects of socialism would be,
which was better, and so on.  A lot of the debate centered around what these
philosophy's actually centered around, so John came up with these definitions,
writing by intention from a neutral standpoint.  Since 'at the cost of some
other social goals' was a prominent criticism of libertarianism at the time,
he included it.

I'd keep the clause, but change 'even' to 'possibly', myself...

>        Stimulus of _supply producing_ economic factors and sectors to make the
>produciton of goods (supply) easier.  As opposed to demand side, which moves to
>stimulate consumption (demand).

Sounds good.  I'll work this in on the next update (round mid-january).

>Brett'

Kerry, your job name is noted.  I knew it was something with a lot of
syllables, but couldn't remember what it was. :)

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:08:53 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      caius-wing
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Valentine writes:
> Actually, (and this will probably stun both of you) I agree
> whole-heartedly with this philosophy - but where you WON'T agree is
> that I believe that needs application across the board - about sexual
> preference, drug use, gambling, abortion, prostitution, pornography
> purchase and/or use, religious practices (like snake handling or
> peyote ingestion) and so on. I do not believe government has any
> right to govern ANY of these behaviors. I DO believe government has
> the right to enact minimum standards of behavior for society as a
> whole - thou shalt not murder, rob, discriminate, attack, arsonize,
> run stop lights, drive recklessly or any other activity that
> endangers or degrades one group for the benefit of one or more other
> groups. VMS

You are getting Caius-wing, aren't you?

"Discriminate" is a powerfull word, so powerfull that it is getting useless.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:07:10 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: virtual white house holiday menu
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Gary:
>linda:
>>the official xmas holiday menu is as follows:
>
>[truly sumptuous food items deleted]
>
>Ok, that's the food.  Now let's see the wine list! :)

A 1987 Lussac St Emilion, and a 1989 Piesporter.

>
>>here's hoping everyone's holiday is happy, prosperous, and above all,
>>*filling*.
>
>Same from me, y'all.  Have a happy.

Yeah, hope you all have a happy Christmas. Mine will certainly be
merry. We don't start back 'til 4th January so I'll see you (virually)
then.

>
>>-linda
>
>Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
>SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
>SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'

Going off for our Office piss up at about noon today. One hour band
counting ...

Dunstan.

And for our fellow Europeans ... God rest ye Jerry mental men.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:02:42 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: logical error
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

China runs a market economy?????  I am afraid it is simply not true.
Yes, China allowed private property on a limited scale, but most means
of production are still under state control. You might say: China was
able to feed its I bln people within a couple of years, this can not
be achieved without a wide-scale privatisation.  My response to this
would be: Even a limited privatisation can drastically raise the
living standards. For example, in Kadar's Hungary only 2 percent of
farms were in private ownership, but these 2 percent produced between
2O and 4O percent of all the agricultural produce. The same happenes
in China now. A limited number of private farms feed millions of
people. Still, most of industry and most of the land is the property
of the state.

As to nazis, they are not against free market. True, in Nazi Germany
the state and industry were closely intertwined, but the state didn't
control the whole economy.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:33:31 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens controversy yet again

>>Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't
>>advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
>>please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
>>them.  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
>>"restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
>>the price I can afford?)
>
>I can't resist...

O'Andy should have.

>Just to add some fuel to the fire, an attracive person comes into the
>dealership and the dealer, on the spot offers them a price reduction;
>should the dealer be able to deny you the right to purchase a
>Ferrari at the customary price? Should someone who sells/rents
>housing be allowed to deny you the right/charge you a significantly
>higher price based upon your appearance?

Sure.  After all, I'm using similar criteria when deciding to buy that
Ferrari.  I'm using similar criteria when I'm deciding what housing to
buy/rent.  So does EVERYONE.  It isn't a problem, yet it has exactly
the same effects as the "evil" discrimination that offends O'Andy.
Sauce for the goose....

Lots of buyers will pay more when the seller is attractive.  Does
O'Andy really think that that's significantly worse than similar
discrimination by sellers?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:08:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bobbie Riconosciuto speaks o

>Hi, umm...

>This is very interesting, but I am not sure what it is actually ABOUT.
>I recognize the Spiro case but I'm having trouble following what the
>conversation is about.

yeah, me too.....i don't even know what the spiro case is about.

-linda
From: BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: nambla
Date: 30 Dec 92 12:16:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan:

>Please explain to me how one could have sex with children but
>not be molesting them.

I never said anything about having sex with children. I said
'loving them', meaning being attracted to them.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: ERICCA
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:10:25 -0500
From:         "ERICCA@rcnvms.rcn.mass.edu" <ERICCA@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: politics%ucf1vm.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

In a previous article, BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG wrote:
>Message sent: 23 Dec 1992 15:40:50 +0100.
>
>I think it's unfair to mention NAMBLA in a company of unsavory groups.
>I believe that there is nothing wrong about loving children (that's
>all NAMBLA is about). It is wrong to molest children, but not to love
>them, even sexually. NAMBLA is created as a support group for people
>who are attracted to children. It is not a cabal of child molesters.
[some stuff deleted]

        Correct me if I'm wrong, (you seem to have more
        information on this group than some others) but
        isn't NAMBLA's philosophy that they are for
        *consensual* sex with young males of *any* age
        but are against "child rape" because rape lacks
        consent?

                Just wondering....
                -other ellen

>
>Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:34:37 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      left-right
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jamie:

>Why is Nazism associated with the Right?
>
>I agree that it is because of its nationalism. The nationalistic
>appeal was the antithesis of rationalism in politics. But partly
>too, I think, because it was so anti-individualistic, in a way
>that even Marxism wasn't.
>
>So that's by way of explanation for Caius, I guess.

My look at these matters has always been:

---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
      Leftism                    |          Rightism
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
 anti-individualistic            |     pro-individualistic
                                 |
 "All individual resources       |    "the state wealthy by the the
 should be allocated to the      |     wealth of its citizens"
 prosperity of the state"        |
                                 |
 "welfare" state                 |    "no free lunch"
                                 |
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Thats why I put all flavours of socialism (Marxism, Nazism, Soviet Communism)
on the left.

And Conservatism, Classical (Manchester) Liberalism, Laisse-faire on the right.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:01:40 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: <None>

>> Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't
>
>the person you are replying to probably is talking about another
>person who posted on the subject, and did offer personal distaste

However, he also suggested that that was the only "legit" reason and
that none other had been offered.

>> advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
>> please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
>> them.
>
>this is a form of restricting, is it not?

No, it isn't.  Restrictions come from third parties.  Choices by
participants are different.  For example, restrictions require
enforcement while choices don't.

>apparently not getting a job because of sexual orientation or race is
>equal to not getting a car because you don't have enough money.  The
>former case is _not_ discrimination in the legal sense or the sense we
>as a nation are trying to avoid.

Actually, we are trying to avoid "he can't afford that"
"discrimination", which is why I used that example.  Why is "doesn't
have enough money" acceptable when "wrong orientation/color" isn't?
Why is "wrong orientation/color" acceptable from employees/customers,
but not employers/sellers?

>> Does Peter really believe that only "good" interests will be
>> protected?
>
>apparently.  He's not alone in his apparent naiviete since many people
>support the Civil Rights Act that prevents private discrimination
>based on race, creed, national origin, and sex.  They don't seem to
>think that such laws will require them to give away cars to people who
>can't afford them.

Are we using "popularity" to measure "right" again?

We're going to have to require synagogues to hire Nazis and AAs to
patronize Nazis, abandon this whole misguided endeavor, or prove that
we're discriminating against "bad" politics.  Pick one.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:54:29 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: abortion
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >I hardly think turning off a radio is analogous to "going home."  Even if
> >it were, you need to check a few facts.  In "most places", there is *no*
> >place for a woman to receive an abortion -- at last count, 83% of U.S.
> >counties have no such clinics.
>
> The statistic doesn't support the conclusion.
>
> One can go to another county to have an abortion (or heart surgery for
> that matter).
>
> Most days, I travel through at least two counties.  From the roof of
> my apartment building, I can see four counties and on some days, I
> travel through more without going a significant distance.
>
> Don't bogus pro-choice arguments bother other pro-choice people?
>
> -andy
> --
>
andy,

You happen to live in a highly populated area.  Believe it or not,
there are parts of the country which are more rural and you can't "see
four counties".  There are many parts of the country, where there is
only 1 clinic in an entire state.  That statistic mentioned above was
identified in a recent TIME magazine article.  This article talked at
length about how fewer and fewer doctors are performing abortions and
how it is becoming increasingly difficult for someone to obtain one.
Yes, in the Bay Area in California no woman should have a problem
obtaining an abortion.  But that is not the case in the majority of
the country.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU