HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: slavery is not dead yet
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:06:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.714107162.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

I agree with most of what Walter Bright says, but he is wrong in saying that
slavery is dead.  If anything, a greater number of people today are slaves
than at any other time in human history.  I am using the narrowest possible
definition of `slavery' -- I am specifically *not* including as slaves people
who are unlucky enough to live in a totalitarian dictatorship (even though
those of us on the Right refer to such as `slavery').  I am referring to
strictly the ownership of human beings by others.

The East African slave markets were around for centuries before Europeans (and
Americans) shopped there, and they continue to exist a century after Europeans
and Americans abandoned them.  What we First World types think of as the `end
of slavery' is really the development of our society to the point that we
found it morally unacceptable.

This is not the case in the remnants of the Communist world or in the Third
World.  Red China openly admits to practicing slavery under the guise of
`reforming criminals through labor.'  What Red China does not talk about is
the regular export of young Chinese girls to the brothels of Southeast Asia.
Slavery is practiced throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Slavery can not function if the masters are in constant fear of slave
rebellions or being knifed in the back; that is fundamentally unstable.
Stable slave societies come into being when both the slaves and their masters
see a benefit in the relationship and interoperate within well-understood
rules.  Although there are well-documented horrors of American slavery, what
is not well-understood is that such things were perceived with equal revulsion
by southern slave-owners; you couldn't possibly get decent productivity out of
your slaves if you mistreated them.  Slavery collapsed in the US not because
of rebellion by the slaves (in fact, most slaves who did bear arms and fight
during the Civil War fought on the side of the Confederacy!) but as part of a
growing belief that slavery was fundamentally incompatible with a civilized
society.
From: uncle@milton.milton.u.washington.edu (Milton Friedmen)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Dualistic vs Wholistic...
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:44:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.UNCLE.92Aug18174418
	<1992Aug12.210537.14350@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<UNCLE.92Aug13120042@milton.milton.u.washington.edu>
	<1992Aug17.162439.27632@eskimo.celestial.com>
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Sublime Thoughts and Actions Corp.

>>>THIS IS REALLY EXASPERATING!!  Will somebody please explain about
>>>symbols, referents, map-vs-territory and other concepts?  My fingers are
>>>getting tired.
>>
>>Please be more patient.  I think I have a vague idea of what you are talking
>>about but your reference to a symbolic/real dichotomy is somewhat ambiguous
>>and/or cryptic.
>
>This is the sort of stuff that ought to be part of the background
>knowledge of anybody who claims to be educated, i. e., if you have
>a baccalaureate degree and you don't know this, you got gypped and
>ought to sue your alma mater for educational damages.

I never claimed I was educated :-)  But seriously, there's lots of different
terminology out there and not a lot of standardization.  I might be completely
familiar with the concepts you are trying to communicate but unable to
understand the words you use.  For example:

>I'm trying to say that a dualistic world-view gives an overly simplified,
>highly distorted picture of reality.  The view that there are only 2 sexes,
>for example, gives rise to highly stereotyped sex roles that people are
>expected to conform to, ignoring the fact that sex and sexuality are *not*
>2-valued, male-vs-female things but really infinite-valued.  The problem
>with dualities is that they ignore all the stuff inbetween, or shoehorn
>the stuff into one or the other pigeonhole, no matter how absurd or painful
>the fit.

This is a description of a phenomenon which (I assume) is obvious to any
thinking person who has meaningful philosophical discussions (as opposed to
people who argue semantics or just yell at each other).  It isn't just about
sex and sexual stereotypes and it's not*fuzzy* at all.  It's only becomes
fuzzy when you hide it behind words no one knows.  It should be stated boldly.
There are no absolutes!  There is no point!

For reference I should say that I do have two BS degrees (or is that "2
degrees of BS?")  In fact I remember taking a philosophy class in which we
discussed "dualism".  But this dualism was set against materialism,
phenomenolism and other isms.  It referred to a belief that there are two
realms: the physical and the metaphysical.  This seems only dimly related to
your use of the word.  For example, it said nothing about sexual sterotypes.
Perhaps your word "dualism" comes from political science or psychology?  Do
tell.


--
PARDON me, am I speaking ENGLISH?
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:40:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug18.214051.18646
Organization: University of Washington


I hate to suddenly cop out of an ongoing discussion, but I'm going
to be out of town for about a week so I guess I have to.

Bye.

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Employment contracts
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:35:44 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Aug18.193040.10993@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
/Walter, I have objected to such "agreements" that are really just
/choices made among a finite set, where the set gets defined by
/the corporation, or entity with the greater raw power, and I haven't
/seen you or anybody else address this in a satisfactory manner.
/Now the kind of agreements made between free entities I have in mind
/is an agreement synthesized by inputs from all the parties concerned.
/This process is essentially negotiation, and is totally absent in the
/"free choices" you claim that employees make, when they deal with
/corporations.  Instead what the employee (or prospective emp.) gets is
/the "standard default agreement", defined by the corporation (actually by
/self-serving "current personnel practice"), and told, take it or leave it.
/That's a *parody* of free choice and really, ought not to be worthy of
/comment.

I have had these "standard default agreements" shoved in front of me with
a pen many times. The Human Resources gnome who does this is typically
surprised that I pick it up and start to *read* it. Then I make changes.
The gnome goes back to his/her boss, and the changes I made have *always*
been accepted (except once for fun I made an outlandish salary demand!).
The changes I make are typically a softening of the crud about anything I
do, even on my own time with my own equipment, is owned by the company.

(And, when I did my amendments, I told the company "take it or leave it",
that I wouldn't work under the terms of the original contract. So far,
no corporation has successfully "coerced, dominated, or manipulated" me
into signing anything I didn't agree with. Unless you count offering me
more money as manipulation... :-)).

And I am not the only one who has routinely amended these agreements. Most
of my friends do it too.

So, I quite disagree with you that I had no choice about those contracts.
From: dbp@Data-IO.COM (Dave Pellerin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Seattle Newspapers
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:45:34 GMT
Organization: The Boneless Chicken Farm

In article <1992Jul24.202709.20793@mdd.comm.mot.com> bradley@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Bradley) writes:
>                                                                 ^^^^^
>Times - very liberal
>PI - just a little less liberal
>
>

(Hi Michael!)

I can't agree with this.  The Times is what I would call moderate, and
the PI is much more liberal. Of course, if all you've seen in the PI is
the weekly George-Bush-Our-Hero ravings of Hearst (who owns the paper but
does not have direct editorial control) then you will have a skewed opinion.
Just compare the editorial pages for a few days.  I think the PI has a
better selection of columnists and generally better news coverage.  The
Times is better at "fluff".

If you want to read a conservative paper (lost out in right field, in my
opinion) then check out the Journal American.


						- Dave Pellerin
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:18:33 GMT

In article <896@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
[...]
>Corporations do not have the right to kill people, force them to break
>the law, force them to work, confiscate their property, conscript them
>into a foreign war, imprison them, etc. These are the properties of an
>authoritarian government. I wouldn't call a corporation in a free
>society authoritarian.

But corporations do these things all the time to their employees.
Authoritarian basically means "do this or else!".
Certainly, from the employee's standpoint, the company looks pretty
authoritarian.

Really, many corporations amount to mini-countries, with internal
economies, a combined private army and security apparatus, discrimination
of citizens vs. non-citizens, demands on loyalties similar to those
of a nation-state, detention facilities, currency or "funny money",
communication media, transport facilities, energy flows, legal
structures, societal sanctions, culture, borders, etc., etc.
Many corporate internal organizations look just like one of the
old-style command economies of the EastBloc!
Indeed, the distinction is less and less meaningful as time goes on.
Look at Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, UW, etc.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
e-mail me at kurt@eskimo.celestial.com for a copy of Bob Black's essay,
"The Abolition of Work"
Newsgroups: pnw.general,rec.food.drink
From: tim@mdd.comm.mot.com (Tim Rosmus)
Subject: Exploding wine warning
Summary: drink now :-)
Keywords: French Creek, Muscat Cannelli
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:58:57 GMT

Note to holders of the following wine....

	French Creek Cellars (Washington State)
	1990 Muscat Cannelli

  Because of a bottling problem, these wines are starting to explode  in
storage.  If you have  any of this vintage, drink  it now (if it  hasn't
already exploded :-).

  The wine will go into a second fermentation which will cause excessive
bubbling and eventual  explosion of the  cork and contents  (A friend is
still cleaning their  cellar).   If the bottle  is intact,  the wine  is
still good and should be drunk immediately.

  For refunds  on this  vintage, you  may contact  the following  person
after 9/3/92 (currently on vacation) ....

	Bob Nickerson		206 - 486 - 1900
-- 
 Internet:         <tim@mdd.comm.mot.com>  |      Tim Rosmus (Sys Analyst)
 Motorola-X400-ID: <ctr001>                |   Motorola - Mobile Data Division
 ...uw-beaver!uw-coco----\   (uucp)        |      19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...uunet-------------------!mdisea!tim    |     Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5928
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general,rec.backcountry
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: University County, WA!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:32:24 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

About a month or so ago, there was an article in either the Seattle Times
or the Seattle PI about some developer who wanted to split some county into
six parts.  He wanted to do this because counties smaller than a certain
size are allowed to exempt themselves from certain State regulations.

The interesting part of the article was where the rules for forming a new
county were given.  The paper claimed that all that was needed was for
the proposed new county to have at least 2000 residents, and for at least
50% of the residents of the proposed county to approve the formation of
the new county.

If this is true, how come a few thousand fun-loving students at the
University of Washington have not done the obvious thing: form a new
county, University County?  Think of all the interesting things a
county made up mostly of University students could do!  The student
government could actually be a real government!  We could have a highly
progressive property tax, and use the results to have big government
sponsered parties!  The possibilities are endless...

--Tim Smith
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: fundamental character of socialism
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:01:38 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Aug12.154906.17577@u.washington.edu> monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
/Sounds great in theory, unfortunately what is usually the case is that a
/majority of the shares are held by a small clique called the board of
/directors, whose decisions are as often as not intended for their benefit
/and not that of the other minority shareholders. 

I beg to differ. I don't have statistics, but in the annual reports of
companies I own stock in, the cumulative stock owned by the board is usually
less than 5%. In fact, I view this as a problem. I want the board to own
a lot of shares, so that when they work in their own best interest they are
also working for my best interest as a shareholder.

An exception is Microsoft, where Gates and Allen collectively own nearly
50%. But I know of very few unhappy Microsoft stockholders, most have done
very well (I bought $5000 worth in 1987, it's worth about $60,000 today,
you won't see me whining about Microsoft's board of directors).

I'm also puzzled about how a decision that is good for someone with 20%
of the stock is bad for someone with 1%.

/And the workers who produce the product/service aren't paid enough to
/purchase shares, in most cases.

A typical share price is $10 - $100. Are you saying that these are impossible
to buy? How does this compare to, say, union dues? Also, every corporation
I've worked for had some mechanism whereby the lowliest employee could buy
stock through payroll deduction (and the company kicked in a percentage too!).
(Except for Boeing, which had a different company-sponsored investment plan.)

/Since the board also decides the compensation of the corporate officers,
/which is rarely tied to the performance of the company, a large disparity
/developes between the workers and the upper management.

/I have no problem with a person reaping the benefits of his efforts, I object
/to when a minority reap the benefits of a majority.

The board of directors is *elected* by the shareholders. Have you ever owned
stock? If you have, every year you get an annual report, and a proxy where
you get to vote for who you want on the board of directors. The board is
beholden to the shareholders. Shareholders have also been known to bring
suit against board members if they mismanage the company. If the shareholders
are unhappy with management pay compensation, they can change it. And they
are the only ones who should care, because management compensation comes
out of the shareholder profits. It is nobody else's business.
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general,rec.backcountry
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Subject: Re: fundamental character of socialism 
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:49:06 GMT


Sounds great in theory, unfortunately what is usually the case is that a
majority of the shares are held by a small clique called the board of
directors, whose decisions are as often as not intended for their benefit
and not that of the other minority shareholders. 

And the workers who produce the product/service aren't paid enough to
purchase shares, in most cases.

Since the board also decides the compensation of the corporate officers,
which is rarely tied to the performance of the company, a large disparity
developes between the workers and the upper management.

I have no problem with a person reaping the benefits of his efforts, I object
to when a minority reap the benefits of a majority.

*DEAR*
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 12 Aug 92 06:44:18 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Aug9.064255.22604@u.washington.edu> davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
/Unions, as I envision them, are far more than "a business whose product
/is labor".  Unions should exist to challenge the authoritarian
/decisionmaking and management patterns of the modern corporation, and
/to replace this authoritarianism with participatory democracy and rule
/by the consent of the governed.

What about the owners of the corporation? If you are disenfranchising the
owners and giving control to the workers, if the workers did not give
fair market value for their voting stock, that is called *stealing*.

Corporations, by definition, are a democracy. One share == one vote. If
workers want a vote, they need to buy shares like anybody else. Trading
labor for money does not automatically entitle one to ownership of
the company. Some companies routinely *do* give out stock to employees,
these are called "stock options".

Corporations do not have the right to kill people, force them to break
the law, force them to work, confiscate their property, conscript them
into a foreign war, imprison them, etc. These are the properties of an
authoritarian government. I wouldn't call a corporation in a free
society authoritarian.
From: hall@cheetah.cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: fundamental character of socialism 
Organization: University of Idaho, Computer Science Dept.
	<1992Aug12.154906.17577@u.washington.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:10:39

In article <1992Aug12.154906.17577@u.washington.edu> monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
[deleted]
>I have no problem with a person reaping the benefits of his efforts, I object
>to when a minority reap the benefits of a majority.

Me, too.  Let's abolish welfare, medicare and other programs like that
where people can benefit from my labor!  No-good leeches!

(for the satire impaired, the above two lines were meant in jest)

--
| Kelly Hall           hall @ leopard.cs.uidaho.edu       |
| "Disclaimer?  We don't need no stinking disclaimer..."  |
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Seattle Newspapers
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 12:35:58 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul24.202709.20793@mdd.comm.mot.com>
  <1992Aug13.234534.11870@data-io.com>

> If you want to read a conservative paper (lost out in right field, in my
> opinion) then check out the Journal American.

For the real "lost in right field" stuff, tune your AM radio to around
570.  It's so amusing I've left that as my default station.  So far, the
only liberal I've heard there is Rush Limbaugh (sp?).  Yes, I know that
by most standards, he is conservative, but compared to the people calling
in other host's programs to talk about the Tri-Lateral Commission and
the Jewish banking plans to control the world and how AIDS may be part
of a plot by the Communists and George Bush and the CIA and stuff like
that, RL is liberal!

--Tim Smith
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Aug12.211833.14808@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
/In article <896@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
/>I wouldn't call a corporation in a free
/>society authoritarian.
/Authoritarian basically means "do this or else!".
/Certainly, from the employee's standpoint, the company looks pretty
/authoritarian.
/Many corporate internal organizations look just like one of the
/old-style command economies of the EastBloc!
/Indeed, the distinction is less and less meaningful as time goes on.
/Look at Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, UW, etc.

I have worked for Boeing for 3 years. When I disagreed with the way I was
treated, I quit. Boeing never arrested me, beat me, confiscated my property,
imprisoned me, etc, all things that authoritarian governments are notorious
for. The only threat Boeing could possibly use is to stop paying me money.
And they did stop paying me when I quit (!). All Boeing employees are free
to *leave the company* if they don't like it. The citizens of the east-bloc
countries were forcibly prevented from leaving. If they did manage to escape,
their families got persecuted. Can you honestly compare this to Boeing?
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:39:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.713749160.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Lowell Skoog <lowell@tc.fluke.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0

Lowell -

     Yes, Sweden is a Christian country, with a State church.  There are
people in the world who do not want to live in a Christian country with a
State Church.  You may also want to consider that in Sweden, there is
mandatory military service in the Swedish Army for all males when they come of
age.  Conscious objectors can get alternate government service, but some form
of service is still mandatory.  If nothing else you'll end up cooling your
heels in a Swedish jail for a while.

     Does Sweden still sound so wonderful?  [Oh, I forgot about that small
matter of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl...]

     If the idea of living in a `Christian community' where people are
`willing to pool their resources to help each other' is appealing to you, that
*is* available in the US.  Go to any place where the LDS church (Mormons) have
a strong presence.  The Mormons live precisely this sort of communial
lifestyle.  From the point of view of a traveller in need, a Mormon town is
about the best place to be.  They are also quite willing to accept new
recruits.

     On the other hand, there are those of us who wouldn't live in a Mormon
society under any circumstances.

     Beware of the greener grass on the other side of the fence.