HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: NOTA petitions
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:04:22 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: mingong-ws-2.ucsc.edu
Keywords: draft initiative, None Of The Above, Common Cause, Public Citizen


In article <1993Jan23.053819.15966@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>There's only a draft right now.  We will need to collect 1 million
>signatures in 150 days, and it makes sense for that to be the 150 days
>before an election.  A Political Committee has been registered and the

	How is it possible to do this? If we want it on the ballot
	in June of 94, don't we have to collect all the signatures
	by March of 94 at the latest? Since there is going to be
	no statewide election prior to that time (unless there is
	an unlikely recall), than isn't it better to start
	collecting signatures as soon as possible and generating
	aa discussion which will carry over until that election?
-- 
"I don't know a soul who's not been battered	|	The American Dream?
I don't have a friend who feels at ease		|	The California Dream?
I don't know a dream that's not been shattered	|  In 1993, dreams these aren't.
Or driven to its knees.				|  Rather, they're nightmares.
But it's all right, it's all right"		|______________________________
	---Paul Simon, "American Tune" (1973)	|	aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu
________________________________________________|  1991-1995; Politics/History
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Flaming (Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY! -- Elsewhere!!!)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Summary: sticks and stones belong in alt.flame
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:35:15 GMT

Mr. Davidson,

	Would you mind moving this new "discussion," which is neither about
the nuclear industry nor the Greens, to alt.flame?  Thank you.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:54:08 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1678600169@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
}
}> This is vague beyond comprehension unless vestigial marxist claptrap.
}
}Please define "vestigial marxist claptrap".

Conclusions derived from implicit Marxist premises which no one takes serious-
ly in economics anymore (the premises, that is, such as the labor theory
of value), but which conclusions people still seem to believe in for some
reason.

}Dale
}
}PS It has been a very interesting experience following this thread with
}   three, apparently irreconcilable, viewpoints:  A libertarian, a
}   defender of the status quo, and myself who is promoting something
}   like small scale businesses and decentralized socialism.  My guess
}   is that all of us are sharing in the demagoguery of which you accuse
}   William Jennings Bryan.  BTW, you should know that very many folks
}   don't hold the same opinion of Bryan as you do.

I've never encountered anyone who defended Bryan, only those who defended
positions he took because they thought them correct.  Frankly, they
went easy on Bryan in "Inherit the Wind," and if you don't believe me, then
read Mencken's coverage of the Scopes trial in The Impossible H.L. Mencken.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Outer space exploration
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:29:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


chu@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu) writes:


>Space exploration, I preceives to be an extension of the Renaissance assertion
>of man's control on the material world.  Perhaps the deep ecologists are not
>comfortable with that?

>I have toyed with the questions some time ago.  I find the possibilities for
>material benefits quite questionable.  ( just think of fuel needed to land 
>ore safely ).  However, I think it may be justified on inspirational grounds.  

You're thinking in terms of 19th century economics.

Try evaluating value of vacuum metallurgy, high energy physics,
sub-molecular fabrication, medium band astronomy, ...

These are all high-value, low-weight "commodities". They are
still marginally uneconomical in space; but the margin is not
as large as you might think.


===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================

-- 

===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================
From: spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Communitarian vs Urban (was Re: LAW SUITS, REMEDIES AND TOXICS)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:36:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu




pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:



>the suggestion ... is that certain aspects of previous human
>social arrangements, when coupled with new features, may prove more
>successful than anything we have now.

Sure and I might win the state lottery.. But both are an
odds-against bet.


>Mr. Spencer appears to believe that these [green] issues *can* 
>be addressed in
>such an economy. In the UK at least, The Ecology Party was formed
>precisely because a group of people did not believe this to be true.

Don't know about UK, but in US there has substantial improvement
in air quality, water quality, and toxic emissions over the
past 15 years. So I would say: yes it can be done under the
present sytem.

-- 

===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================
From: stewarte@sco.COM (nicest of the damned)
Subject: Re: Outer space exploration
Organization: Captain Napalm's Thermonuclear League of Liberty
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:46:30 GMT


Like a bolt from the blue, betel@camelot.bradley.edu (Robert Crawford) wrote:

>	Wealthy societies are generally better for the environment.

I don't think this claim is true.  Wealthy communities may be better
for their local environment, in that they are more likely to be able
to have some means of sewage treatment, more able to preserve open land
for scenic and ecological purposes, etc.  But all those resources consumed
by the wealthy have to come from somewhere, and all the accompanying waste
has to go somewhere.  Of course the rich societies don't want things like
toxic waste incinerators around, so they end up being built in poorer
areas.  So the wealthy areas' impact on the environment goes beyond its
local impact.

-- Stewart
-- 
"Well, then, you that is well now then."
			-- Timothy Bowden (tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us)
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:46:26 GMT

In article <9r_sz8+@SantaFe.edu> moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore) writes:
}Gas Tax cont'd:
}
}Most of the discussion has been helpful; Dale pointed out at 
}the automobile-dependent economy hurts the poor the most, and 
}I agree.
}
}But the problem with the gas tax still remains: how to deal with
}the contrast between urban areas, where the poor have no cars
}and mass transit would clearly be a big help,
}and rural areas, where the poor _depend_ on their cars,
}and mass transit is less practical?
}
}- Cris Moore, NM Greens

It actually surprises me that Greens support taxation of gas, because it
contradicts the principle of decentralization that they profess adherence to.

A decentralist approach would be to have gas purchasing policy set by each
individual according to their best judgement and grasp of information
available to them by their own efforts and those of others without any
coercive interference by others.

Taxation means (literally) forced exaction.  To support a gas tax is to
support the exaction of money from an individual such as I've described in
the above paragraph by force.  Such a policy requires a central authority
to enforce it.

Either Greens truly support decentralism, in which case they ought to
oppose taxation, or they merely want central authority which is a little
less centralized in some vague, unspecified way, or their hypocritical.
There are probably Greens in all three camps.

True decentralists are with me on this; hypocrites are against me.  To
those remaining: what principled basis is there for determining that any
level of centralization is too much?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:16:29 GMT

In article <1j9hplINNdpl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer) writes:
}
}Money represents a store of value. If everyone can print their
}own money, then no one's money has any worth (why should I do
}8 hours hard work for pretty pieces of paper some one else ran off
}in less than 8 minutes?).

Money is not currency.  Currency consists of receipts for commodities, such
as gold.  If everyone issues notes for gold, then it's value exists to the
degree that they can be redeemed for gold.

}If you are going to have money then there must be some central
}authority to regulate it. Experience has shown that the best
}mechanism is a central banking system (believe me when I say
}that a large number of other systems have been tried with
}degrees of success varying from the inconvenient to the 
}disastrous). You can argue about the details of the central
}banking system, but not at the level of historic and 
}economic sophistication represented by the questions posed.

I'm sorry, but this is simply false.  I'm currently reading The Experience
of Free Banking, edited by Kevin Dowd, a British economist.  There have been
about 60 periods of free banking in world history, without any central
regulatory authority.  Hong Kong has no central bank.  Scotland had none
for a long time, and neither did Canada and many other colonies of the
British Empire.

According to the rapidly growing literature on free banking (mainly by
Lawrence White, George Selgin, and Kevin Dowd, but including many other
authors), there is no reason in either theory or history to conclude that
central banking is necessary or desirable over the alternative of free
banking.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:07 PST
Subject: Re: IDIOTS
Nf-ID: #R:1jnie9INNk80@gap.caltech.edu:-497485263:cdp:1678600168:000:2438
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 25 06:07:00 1993


>>So, what do we think is wrong with the current "system"?
>
>Well, in my most cynical moments, I suspect that what is wrong with
>the "system" is us, Homo sapiens ... when you get right down to
>it, the problem is that people are foolish.
 
I agree with this to a certain extent, but we need to remember that
people are very, very complex.  We have been hearing lots from free
marketeers and defenders of the status quo that people are only concerned
about selfish goals of competition and personal survival.  I don't disagree
that part of a person's complex being contains this side, a side that has
been exploited by modern society.  But, I also believe that people have
equal needs for cooperation, caring, attachment to community, and spiritual
needs to connect to nature.  I think one of our challenges is to nuture this
side of humanity as well.
 
I think one of the ways we can begin to nuture the side of cooperation is
by pointing out how the side of competition is being used against us.  You
made this very point in your commentary about recycling (which I fully agree
with):
 
    The government & big business LOVE the recycling
    fervor.  My god, it is used for *marketing* now.
    "Look, product Z is packaged in this enviro-friendly
    container!  Goodness, what a concerned mega-corp we
    are." ... Really averts public attention from some of
    the real problems, eh?
 
>About the only thing that made me sicker during the
>election process than the idiot Republicans standing
>strongly behind George ...  was the starstruck look
>in the eyes of my "liberal" friends as they gazed upon
>Bill "Messiah" Clinton.
>
>COME ON PEOPLE!  Clinton is a politician like all the
>others; he just happens to be riding the PC wave and
>selling himself out to the ninties' nauseating
>neo-liberalism. 
>
>Clinton won't change things.  Hell, Clinton CAN'T
>change most things.
 
I agree fully with these comments.  My original point about
Clinton was not that he was a "Messiah" or that he would
be able to bring about the change we are seeking, but rather
that I considered him intelligent enough to realize the
problems of this country are very, very severe.
 
>The only way things will change for the better is when
>people begin to realize how their everyday actions (or
>lack thereof) affect their family, locality, nation,
>and world and THEN act on these realizations to make
>things better.
 
Let's get working!
 
Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 20 Jan 93 15:13 PST
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Nf-ID: #R:4l!sh3k@santafe.edu:-1402134433:cdp:1678600146:000:2327
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 20 15:13:00 1993


> 1. A gas tax should not be imposed in an area until there is an
> adequate mass transit system there.

Chris, I assume this means you don't agree with my proposal that
gas taxes should be used to fund mass transit?

>. in rural areas, the distance one drives is not under your control.
>. suburban sprawl development, encouraged by low gas prices, is not the
>  fault of the middle- and low-income people now living in it.  It is the
>  fault of the wealthy developers who set it up.
>
> - Cris Moore, NM Greens

As you may have read back when the topic about property rights got started
I fully agree with your analysis about the wealthy developers.  But, we
shouldn't necessarily design our platforms on how it is most appropriate
to assign fault.  I think we need to keep the long term always in view.

In light of our sustainable communities discussion, this raises a fundamental
problem that Greens (or anyone else) must deal with:  "How to bring the
change that is needed in the long term, without over burdening each other
in the short term."  (With Clinton being nominated today, I am sure this is
the very problem he will be dealing with every day.)

You oppose gas tax because it is regressive and it will hurt poor rural
folks the worst, mainly because the poor folks who live in the country
or far out in the suburbs have no option but to commute long distances
for their work.  I fully agree that these concerns should be taken very
seriously.

On the other hand, should we be encouraging this disfunctional behaviour
of commuting long distances, and the very heavy social, environmental
and emotional price that goes with long commutes?

From my somewhat limited experience, I am not aware of any person who
enjoys commuting long distances, poor or not.  There are people who work
in the Washington D.C. area who commute from central West Virginia and wake
up every morning around 4 a.m. for a three to four hour commute, and return
home around 9 p.m. for another three to four hour commute.

These are the folks who will be hurt most by a gas tax, but considering
their predicament, I wonder if they would prefer a more vibrant economy
closer to home?  I also wonder how a gas tax might either encourage them
to develop or provide seed monies to develop their hometown economies.

Just some thoughts....

Dale
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: NOTA petitions
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 08:28:37 GMT
Keywords: draft initiative, None Of The Above, Common Cause, Public Citizen

In article <1jsfd6INNrr6@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu
 (Robert D West) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.053819.15966@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>>There's only a draft right now.  We will need to collect 1 million
>>signatures in 150 days, and it makes sense for that to be the 150 days
>>before an election.
>
>	How is it possible to do this? If we want it on the ballot
>	in June of 94, don't we have to collect all the signatures
>	by March of 94 at the latest?

Robert's right of course.  What I *meant* was 150 days before the
filing deadline.  Which gives us just enough time to get organized
about it and reach out to the groups that can help us.

Cameron
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:09:34 GMT

In article <1678600125@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
}PS Is hyper-inflation only limited to locally-based currencies?  What
}   about Weimar?

Hyperinflation is limited to currencies issued by central banks.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY! -- Elsewhere!!!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:10:34 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<90432@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM's message of 18 Jan 93 20:32:39 GMT

> I believe that nuclear power can be an environmentally
> friendly power source.

=o= So we've heard.  But debate on that particular matter
belongs in talk.environment and/or sci.energy, not here.

>> If you share these values, your continued participation in
>> this newsgroup is encouraged.  However, if you do not, it
>> would be polite to find another newsgroup more to your taste.
> If the rest of the Green's [sic] agree with this attitude,
> that they only wish to discuss things with people who already
> agree with them. [sic]

=o= That's not at all what was said.  If you will check out the
other newsgroups mentioned you will see Greens discussing these
matters with some very disagreeable people.  But that's not what
this forum is about; this forum is about Green politics and
movements.

=o= There is certainly room for disagreement within those
bounds, and that is certainly part of what this newsgroup is
for.  But to use this newsgroup to attack those values is both
unproductive and, as was mentioned, impolite.  To use this
newsgroup for debate on environmental issues _per_se_ is
also impolite, because there exist other forums specifically
for that.
    <_Jym_>
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 20 Jan 93 07:02 PST
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600108:cdp:1678600143:000:1846
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 20 07:02:00 1993


> Inflation is a political decision, it is not a per se consequence
> of a monetary economy - you can also have deflation.
> Historically, it has usually been farmers (as opposed to rentiers)
> who have pushed for inflationary policies (eg the Free Silver
> movement in US in 1890's; cf Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech).
 
Presumably you are referring to farmers who were trying to have
a liveable lifestyle while trading with a centralized currency
over which they had little control.  Naturally, this would lead
to inflationary tendencies.  The suggestion is that these farmers
would be better off if they traded in a currency which was directly
tied to their labor and ability to feed and house themselves, rather
than a currency that was tied to the interests of the wealthy
industrialists on the east or the federal government whose interest
was westward and world expansion.
 
Your concerns about inflation are actually not relevant to this type
of economy.  If the currency were tied directly to the farmers labor,
then 40 hours of work per week would be worth the same number of bags
of rice, items of clothing, or boards for housing whether or not the
Time Dollar (for instance) was denominated in hours, minutes or seconds
or portions thereof.
 
Lastly, isn't your example about farmers desiring inflation only
considering the experience of Euro-American farmers in the last
100 years?  Was inflation a desired policy for the colonial farmers,
European farmers, or indigenous farming cultures?
 
> Cash or barter has no effect on life-styles. In both cases, you
> must produce surplus goods/services for exchange. The problem
> for self-sufficient life-styles is that they are usually not
> very good at producing sufficiency much less surpluses.
 
The definition of a self-sufficient life-style is one that produces
sufficiency.
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,ba.transportation,sci.environment
From: damour@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher Damour)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
     While the European experience is definately valuable it is not applicable
     My big worry about a gasoline tax is how badly it will hurt the "average"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:38:57 GMT