HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:51:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.055527.21997@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sals@llewella.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

|>> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> 
|>rself and maybe a family if you have one." If the free market
|>> > 
|>> > The Utilitarianism that underlies the Libertarian point of view argues  
|>for th
|>> > greatest good of the greatest number. Yet based upon this criteria the  
|>ultra
|>> > free marketeers are unable to get past the greatest good of those that  
|>have
|>> > power.
|>>
|>Not all libertarians are utiliarianism. Of the libertarians I know I think  
|>maybe 2 are utiliarians.

Correction not all people who call themselves Libertarian are Utilitarians.



|>> > The free trade arguments of the New Right are entirely different from  
|>those o
|>> > the Nineteenth century liberals many of them like to see themselves  
|>as. I am
|>> > Phill Hallam-Baker
|>What do you mean by the New Right and how are the free trade arguments of  
|>the New Right entirely different from the nineeth century liberals. I've  
|>read many nineeth century liberals and I find  many of them to be  very  
|>libertarian especially on free trade.

Well thats just dandy of you. Yep most of them were Libertarian, they set out
the whole system. They were in favour of free trade and civil liberties and of
social reform. The three points of Gladstones political agenda were inseperable
and indivisible. All were intended with the same aim, to drag society kicking
and screaming from the middle ages into the modern age.

If you examine your history you will find that it was the Tory, reationary,
protectionist cause that opposed the involvement of the government in social
affairs, the Liberal position was very different.

For all its bombast the "Libertarian" party is essentialy based on a fraud, the
theft of the name of a completely different pol;itical tradition with very
different aims.

--
Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69786 alt.activism:21351
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:14:32 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:


>I'd say 50 State legislatures.  You could wind up with 15 states that allow
>slavery, 18 that ban Judaism, 25 that don't allow women to vote.  Making
>the state supreme with no controls almost insures that kind of variance.

State power is limited by the same mechanisms as the Feds.  If those
mechanisms aren't good enough for the states, then they aren't good
enough for Washington. 

>Perhaps not.  But we've heard a lot about "putting God back in schools"
>from the Religious Right.  As you saying that they would simply sit
>back and shrug off the introduction of Islam, or Buddism, or Judaism,
>or Santeria into a public school simply because it was in another state?

Actually, I want vouchers and parental choice (push that decision even
below the State level).  If Muslim parents want to send their children
to Islamic schools and thus are involved enough in their kids lives to care,
I want them to be able to spend MY education tax $$ that way.

>Someone has got to define whether your rights are being violated.
>If the state has taken away your rights (whether or not Jefferson
>thought about that right in 1789) I think the Fed has got to look
>into it.  The world has changed and some things will not be found
>in a 200 year old document.

Then they will be found by whoever has the power to enforce their
"findings".  Ain't democracy grand?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Hillary in Charge of Task Force
Keywords: Health Care, Hillary Clinton
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:56:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.170322.16369@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
}In article <C1IKK1.A1n@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
}>I read in the newspaper the other day, that President Bill is putting his
}>spouse in charge of a task force to come up with ideas for reforming
}>health care and health insuranse in the U.S..  
}>
}>Question: Is Hillary qualified. Does anyone out there know if she has a
}>clue to the issues of broad based health care and insurance. Is there
}>anything in her past career that remotely qualifies her for the task. Or
}>is this another symbolic gesture on the part of Fuhrer Willy to impress
}>the politically correct folks and the radFems?
}>
}>If anyone has any ideas about this, please share them.
}
}Well, look at it this way...if the Clinton's don't solve the health
}care problem, people will know exactly who to blame...they have taken
}responsibility for the problem, and will not be able to escape that
}responsibility easily now.

Oh rah.  It will make so many people feel better to know exactly who to blame.
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:37:38 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu>,
ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
>
>There aren't any laws that _force_ people to join labor unions,
>however, unions often _negotiate_ contracts with employers that
>require employees to join a union.  Judging from the replies to this
>question, it seems like the libertarians out there are suggesting
>that unions and companies shouldn't be allowed to negotiate such
>contracts.  Having the government ban certain types of contracts
>seems like a clear violation of libertarian tenets to me.

On the contrary, we explicitly support the right of a company and a
union to negotiate such a contract if they find it to their mutual
advantage.  There are laws on the books, however, which compel
employers to negotiate with a union when it may not want to.  We
also oppose those laws.

>Note that if an employee is unhappy about being required to join a
>union, she doesn't have to work there--in the same way that she can
>quit if she doesn like, say, the benefits package the company offers.

And if an employee doesn't like the fact that the employer will not
allow her to represent her in contract negotiations she is also free
towithhold her services from that employer.  The government should
not be able to compel or forbid such negotiations.

>Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are
>so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
>attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?

Libertarians in general oppose right to work laws although some
think they are justified as long as other laws still exist which
compel an employer to recognize a union against their will.

>- Scott Susin

/June
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Summary: state vs. fed
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:46:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T




You wrote:

>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>>It comes to the same thing. The state forces minority children out
>>of the public schools - not the fed business.  The Jewish children
>>find themselves sitting through Christian benedictions and it's
>>not the feds business.
>
>Yes or no, do you want a global govt, to let the British and Mexicans and
>whoever else cares step in if Washington does something they dislike.  If
>appeal to a higher authority is good, should we have a higher authority than
>Washington.
>

Global government - no.  But think about how that kind of thinking
- human rights transcending borders - might have saved millions
of Germans Jews, gays, and everyone else.  Might have been nice
if they hadn't just considered genocide someone else's problem.

>>Not at all. The states had slavery before the Constitution. THe
>>const did not really address slavery except for how to count them
>>for representation in Congress.  The same question has not been
>
>I believe there was something about not being able to restrict imports
>up to some date.
>

Yeah, supposed to end imports after 1808.  Big deal - they owned
the ones who were here and kept all children as new slaves.

>>answered:  Why are you more concerned with the rights of slave
>>owners then slaves?
>
>That's bullshit and you know it.  What I said is that Washington played
>an ACTIVE part in slavery, not a passive one like you claimed.  You are
>just making accusations to create a distraction from the obvious.
>

It may be bullshit, but I wouldn't say it if I thought it was.  You
defend the rights of people to own slaves since it is up to their
state to decide if it was legal or not.  As for Washington's active
role - it was not active at all.  They accepted it IN THE STATES
THAT HAD IT. They did not mandate it and they did not force anyone
to have it.


marc colten
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70121 alt.peeves:19662 talk.politics.medicine:725 soc.culture.usa:10190 soc.culture.african.american:14406 sci.med:24513
From: pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Makala P Mweene)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:23:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>>have it and give it to those who don't...
>

Is it not the case that the rich got so by taking money from those who 
are now poor and giving it to themseleves...


makala
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:20:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <TOM.93Jan22080858@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

+>   * Zoe Baird has knowingly violated immigration as well as federal and
+>     state tax laws. Her excuse basically boils down to the fact that it
+>     would have been personally inconvenient for her to obey the law, and
+>     besides, all the other yuppies do it too.  (One wonders what other
+>     "inconveniences" she might encounter as attorney general...).

	Give them more credit!  They tried to float the idea that she 
was "thinking like a mother" when she did it or that it was her husband's
fault.



+>Is there anything wrong with this analysis? Can anyone explain why the
+>members of the Judiciary Committee were having trouble making such a "tough"
+>decision in light of the facts?

	The Judiciary Committee contains some of the worst people the 
senate has to offer.   Joe Biden's running the committee is a big 
part of the problem.
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: " The Rhodes Warrior " starring Lloyd Bensen
Date: 24 Jan 1993 19:35:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


         Prologue -  In the near future, an ecopolypse has battered
                     the American people into poverty.  Their one hope,
                     the ONLY hope...

       The Rhodes Warrior ( and his side-kick Bensen Burner )!
       __________________

    Feel the public enraged
       It's just the fear
          Of learning the truth

    You know it's still the same
       And it's way too late
   
     And they'll put putting out

          The 
          
              Deficit

     With  GASOOOLLLLLLLIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNEEEEE!!!!!!


     See their eyes so red
          Red with deficits, burning bright
     Full of lies, too late 
          To change our minds

     Just be distilled like me
        You wouldn't believe
            That they'd screw YOU

     And they'll be putting out 

         The 
                Deficit


     With GASOLINE!


     {bump} {du de dum dum dum}
     {bump} {du de dum dum dum}

     Putting out the Deficit

            With gasoline.

    
   <whistle>  <whistle>

     Bensen announced we need a consumption tax to balance the Deficit.
     But hey, wasn't my version a lot more amusing than CNN?     

     
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69506 alt.activism:21266 alt.conspiracy:14549 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13676
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:57:42 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Efficiency of Medicare
 <93025.201523DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <16B6114B30.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>

In article <16B6114B30.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David
Veal) says:
>
>       What I guess I was asking and failed to explain it very well
>(and if this article goes into it I'll take a look at it) but basically
>when it was said that 95% of medicare taxes went to recipients, I
>wondered A) does Medicare draw it's operating fund from medicare taxes
>(as a private charity would draw its operating funds from money collected)
>or from another Federal government money pool, and B) if so, what is
>the ratio between those costs and that 95% which apparently reaches
>who it is supposed to.

Let me try again.  There are really two "parts" of the Medicare
program.  The Health Care Financing Administration(HCFA) is the
federal agency in charge of Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other
health programs within DHHS.  The funding for HCFA, about 250
million attributable to the Medicare program if I'm reading
Mr. Thorpe correctly, comes from general tax revenues.  HCFA
sets regulations, runs demonstration projects (for instance they
are trying to get more elderly persons in HMOs), funds research, etc.
with these funds.

The other part of Medicare is the insurance program.  Funds for this come
from 4 main sources, payroll taxes (about 55%), general revenues (25%),
premiums paid by the elderly (about 12%) and interest from the Medicare
trust fund (about 8%).  Payments out of this fund go to three places:
(1) benefits payable to beneficiaries, (2) administrative costs of the
private companies that handle claims administration in each state, and
(3) payments back into the trust fund.  The benefits are about 95% of the
total funds collected (not including Thorpe's number on HCFA costs) from
all 4 sources.

Is that clearer?

These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin)
Subject: Origin of Ban on Gays in Military
Organization: Houston UNIX Users Group (HOUNIX), Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:01:23 GMT

With regard to Clinton's promise to rescind the military
regulations barring gays and lesbians from armed service,
there has been talk as to whether the President has the
authority to rescind the ban via executive order, or if
it is necessary for Congress to pass a law rescinds the
ban.

I'm curious to know how the ban was originally implemented.
Was it implemented via executive order?  Was it implemented
via a law passed in Congress?  Was it implemented via an
executive order of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  Was it  
implemented via order of the then Secretary of War ( It's
now Secretary of Defense ).

If you know please email me.  I'll post a summary.

-- Ward Larkin
   wlarkin@hounix.org


-- 
-- Ward Larkin
   wlarkin@hounix.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Subject: Re: What Did Karl Marx Propose? (was Re: Libertarianism...)
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:13:39 GMT

>>>>> In article <yiaNXB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, kafka@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Charles Stevens) writes:

CS> I agree that property ownership confers power ....

CS> The question is how to determine which sort of exercises of 
CS> power are legitimate, and which are not.  Libertarians hold that
CS> only the use of force and fraud are improper, while the use of
CS> persuasion, attractiveness, and intelligence are not.  

CS> Where do *YOU* draw the line, and why?

Well, the first lines that come to mind might be something like
coercion or domination, but coercion and domination, even with
physical violence or fraud, happen all
the time on a small scale (family relations, for example) or on
an occasional basis, and will probably always be with us.

But in a market society dominated by large accumulations of capital,
we find domineering institutions wherever we turn.  And they are
driven by market mechanisms to enter into relations with us
that maximize the advantage to them, and so reduce the advantage
to a minimum limited only by the level of depravation that would
prevent us from being of use to them (physical imparement for physical
workers, intellectual deadening for intellectual workers).  That we
do not in all cases sink to such levels is largely the result of
legislations, trade unionism (supported by legislation) and what's
left of humanitarian social norms.

So how about drawing the line at institutionalized coercion or domination?
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:12:03 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <20JAN199313533938@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

[about the ban on gays in the military]

>Didn't he promise to end it immediately?  Didn't he know there was opposition
>to it then?

No, he did NOT promise to end the band immediately.  During the campaign,
he said that he opposed the ban.  He still does, and as an earlier poster
said, the ban will probably be removed within the next few years.

What happened was this:  Immediately after the election, there was a lot
of speculation by the media about things he could do as soon as he became
president.  IMHO, this was because there was no REAL news to report.
So many pundits were saying, "He could end the ban on gays in the
military the day he takes office!" that people started to think that
this statement came from Clinton himself.  It did not.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70472 sci.med:24620
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:04:05 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>>
>>Good plumbing.  Toilets outside of the US just suck.
>
>      Exactly the attitude that will kill the U.S.
>
>     Uruguay has a climate that would probably be conducive to solar.

A cautionary note about Uruguay ... a friend here at Columbia (not Liz
(-;) is from Uruguay and her EC/Italian passport just came through
(via the legacy route, as it was her grandfather who emigrated from
Milan) ... there are five guys who are bidding to marry her so that
she can get them out and over to Europe ...  all five come from some
of the top elite families without legacy connections to Europe ...
Lucia even likes a couple of them, too ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69990 misc.legal:23382
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:12:26 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan26.185358.29599@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1k3jqeINNnn3@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >The Constitution grants the government the right the regulate
|> >interstate commerce.  I don't see how that translates into giving
|> >the government the right to force interstate commerce to exist.
|> >So what if a thousand farmers did the same thing as Filburn?  
|> >Certainly there would be less wheat involved in interstate
|> >commerce.  
|> 
|> More wheat.  Which was precisely why the government was upset
|> at Filburn.  
|> 

If a person is growing wheat for *his own consumption*, and thousands
more do the same, the effect would be *less* wheat involved in interstate
commerce, not more.  If, and when, the wheat is involved in interstate
commerce, then and only then, does Congress have the right to regulate
that activity.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69910 ca.politics:10671 ba.politics:8316 alt.sex:43233
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:55:40 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <14066@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>But an 8 year old is.  Mr. Brack and the rest of NAMBLA want it to
>be legal for an adult to sodomize an eight year old.  And apparently,
>so does Mr. Nieporent.
>

Can you produce the evidence that Mr.'s Brack and Nieporent and NAMBLA
want to sodomize 8 year old childern?

I would be careful about how you state something.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics