HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fist@iscp.bellcore.com (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Bellcore
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:31:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.174740.18045@cbfsb.cb.att.com>,
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec29.155304.16757@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu
|> (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
|> >  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
|> >to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
|> >get a license they ask you what donor status you want, and then the
|> |> >license serves as a legal document.  (I have had a Uniform Donor
|> >Card in my wallet for almost 10 years, and I just checked and found
|> >that since my intent is on my driver's license that I no longer
|> need
|> >carry the card.)
|> 
|> 	This is fine Henry, as far as it goes, but what about the question
|> 	of the default case when the person in question has no "findable"
|> 	license?
|> 
|> 	And I also wonder how many ER doctors may get into the habit of
|> 	becomming somewhat, shall we say "laid back" about fighting to save
|> 	someone's life when they know that Senator Joe Scumbag has very
|> 	discretely offered 1.5 million dollars for a pair of new kidneys
|> for
|> 	their very sick daughter.  Can you say "pressure from your
|> superiors"?
|> 
|> 	I suppose this sounds a bit cynical, but nonetheless I am certain
|> this
|> 	would become quite a frequent occurrance.  When it comes to lives, 
|> 	people will do almost anything and those of means will not hesitate
|> 	to push evey button they can in order to get that which they want
|> so
|> 	badly. 
|> 
|> 	-Andy V.

 Ever read any of Larry Niven's books in reference to 
organ donors. ?
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
From: andor@inode.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: FREEDOM, SOCIAL RESPO
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:06:04 EST
Reply-To: andor@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, Usenet Access for NYC (212-679-9146)

To me, one of the most glaring problems of libertarianism is the following
inconsistancy:

Libertarians I've talked to maintain very strongly that they don't support
monarchy or oligarchy. That is -- they don't support the idea of there being
one or a few people who own everything. 

And yet they are not willing to accept any laws that would prevent one person
from owning everything. 

With the natural tendency (pointed out by Adam Smith) of wealth to concentrate
and of companies to become larger and larger, it seems obvious that after
several hundred years of complete free enterprise one or a very few people
would own everything.

Everyone else would be merely glorified slaves or bondsmen.

That is not the future I want, nor is it the future the libertarians want.
Yet their refusal to support limits on expansion or ownership virtually
insures that this would be the outcome of their policies, if implemented. 

Responses, please.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 4
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:41:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1993Jan05.190704.8699@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
Crocker) wrote:
> 
> In article <casseres-040193094041@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> >In article <scottj-291292090620@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>,
> >scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) wrote:
> >
> >I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws, and
> >absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a contradiction so much as a choice of tackling the
> easier problem first.  While I and other Libertarians are definitely
> opposed to clothing laws, that's not an area which we are overly
> concerned about or confident that we can make a meaningful difference.
> There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
> about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because
> of any inconsistency of opinion, but simply because they aren't big
> issues on the political front today and don't deserve as much attention
> as the more pressing issues like drug laws and taxes.

That's all perfectly reasonable and pragmatic, except that I have heard so
much Libertarian rhetoric about the importance of principle vs. pragmatism;
and Libertarians on the net spend such vast energies on opposing "statist"
policies and measures on principle, when the actual damage to actual people
is very minor.

Helmet laws, as a matter of fact, are an excellent example.  I put it to
you that the *real* reason Libertarians get worked about helmet laws and
not about other clothing laws is that clothing laws are already a fact and
everyone is used to them, while helmet laws are a new idea.  Now, a really
principled position would be that the old laws are much *worse* than the
proposed new one, for that very reason.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7253 alt.activism:20032 alt.individualism:6163 talk.politics.misc:66234
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Oath/Affirmation of Office of the U.S. House of Representatives
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:22:59 GMT

One can and people have taken nontheistic oaths and/or affirmations rather
than oaths.  At least one President (C.C, I think) "affirmed" rather than
"swore."  The original Oath did not have "so help me God;" George Washington
added that phrase and it became customary for his successors to follow suit.
(So much for the claim made elsewhere that Washington was an atheist.)
In article <1993Jan6.144304.3207@athena.mit.edu>
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
 
>
>
>In article <C0Eus5.70I@cs.uiuc.edu>,
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) said:
>
>> [The Oath given by Speaker of the House Tom Foley] went something
>> like: "I do solemnly swear [...] So help me God."
>>
>> The Constitution says this about the represenative's affirmation:
>> 3. [ * * * ] shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
>> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
>> qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
>>
>> So were did Foley get on the religious stuff? What would happen if a
>> Quaker or agnotistic represenative-elect refused to take Foley's oath?
>>
>> It seems to me the Foley Oath violates the very Constitution it
>> claims to binding representatives to.
>
>Legally, it would be a violation, _if_ it was mandatory; that is, if a
>rep-elect objected to its wording and was told "Tough noogies, pal --
>take the oath the way I've worded it or you don't get seated in the
>House."  But in reality, what probably happened was that all of the
>rep-elects were briefed in advance about the ceremony and none of them
>objected to the wording, either because they didn't really care or
>because they didn't want to raise a stink (where "stink" == "the
>appearance of blatantly anti-American leanings that a Bush-like
>opponent could use to clean your clock in the next election").
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.privacy,misc.kids,misc.education
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.drugs] The drug dog arrives at LHS
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:25:30 GMT

[ LHS is a high school - jkp ]

A repost from alt.drugs:

Subject: The drug dog arrives at LHS
From: epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:06:20 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Well, I'm the guy who posted about 'who cares about the drug dog'.
Well, I was under the false assumption that the dog is worthy
of creating probable cause-I was mistaken.

Anyway, the drug dog(s 4 of them, and 8 cops) came.
they searched mike's(original poster of 'drug dog') locker
because 2 dogs agreed on it. well, what triggered them off
was a kwik shop mug that I had given mike 3 months ago with
some coke(a cola that is) in it, and needless to say it must
have had an odor with all that mold in it.
anyway, they also searched 3 other lockers that i heard, maybe
10 or 20 in actuallity(2000 student,1000 lockers).
they also searched 1 car(in the school parking lot, not the outlying
streets where everyone who doesn't get up at 6 am parks) and they
found *gasp* an old dillons salad.

BTW, of course no drugs were found at all that day(announced visit).

Anyway, I now am against drug dogs, but only because they dont present
probable cause.  The kids whose lockers were searched arent in any pos
ition to complain because the school is always saying that the lockers
are their property, but if I was the guy whose car was searched (and my
parents were rich) I would sue (or whatever other legal shit you can do)
the city for search without probable cause.
-- 

Later...

/----------------\
| Doug McClendon   \
| DMC@Planet.Pinball \-----\
| epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu \
| C.C.=Perfection            \---\
| Pain=Happiness=Sadness=Pleasure \--------\
| "Give up on life, life's given up on you" \
|      -Keith James, 1992|                  | 
\-------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: Nate.H%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate H)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 20:38:04 PST
Organization: Quake Public Access, San Fernando Valley, CA (818)362-6092
Subject: Re: 1992 only: CA DMV workaround for SSN
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Nate.H%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate H)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10a S/N 210921

Guys,
 
What they are asking you when getting a SS number is
"are you a 14th amendment citizen?"
 
In other words, "do all these laws apply to you?"
 
See, if they didn't apply (as they don't for alot of "Soverign State
Citizens") then you wouldn't be asking for "Driving Privdledges" but
you would KNOW that you have the RIGHT TO TRAVEL from day one. That
means simply that you don't need a DL or a SSN anyway!
 
There are groups if you look around that help you cancel your DL
contract (that's what it is) and get ownership of your car (the State
owns it now) and then you "TRAVEL" without a DL or Plate and if someone
IMPEDES YOUR TRAVEL then it's a civil rights violation (like a cop
pulling you over for no reason) and theres a heavy fine for it!
 
I can't save you from this, you have to save yourself. Look around for
more info on all this on BBS's and other systems around. It's
happening!
 
If you think this sounds weird, I did too... Till I wend and read some
of this stupid stuff they have thrown at us.
 
You see, they want you to NEVER READ, but go and sit and watch TV.
 
If you keep your head in the sand, your BUTT is a target!
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:11:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <ARCHER.545.725655255@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T.
Archer) wrote:

[I wrote]
> >Third, for those who answer the medical-expenses argument by saying
> >helmetless cyclists who bash their brains out should be left on the
> >pavement to die:  Get real.  This is not going to happen.  
> 
> Why not?

Because decent people will not permit it to happen.

> >And while you're at it, get less disgusting, OK?
> 
> It's a legitimate solution.  Why skip it?

It is not a legitimate solution, it is a smartass remark that would only be
taken seriously by someone with no actual knowledge of danger, injury, or
death.  A society that makes a policy of leaving injured people to die is
one that will soon become a holocaust.

> This is irrelivant.  It's still no one's business but mine if I choose to 
> wear a helmet or not.  My loved ones are free to persuade me all they want, 
> but to have the government coerce me with threats is wrong.

Are you completely unable to grasp what I said?  I *do not* propose to have
the government coerce you with threats.  I propose that you recognize your
personal responsibility to people who care about you.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:00:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.190704.8699@microsoft.com>
leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
 
>There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
>about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because
>of any inconsistency of opinion, but simply because they aren't big
>issues on the political front today and don't deserve as much attention
>as the more pressing issues like drug laws and taxes.
>
>--
>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
 
...and also because they would make you look like the absolute loons
that you are.  You only sell the parts that sound reasonable, and hide
the kooky stuff in the fine print.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Patterns of argument (was Freedom, Social Responsibility...)
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:27:33 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <casseres-040193094041@missmolly.apple.com>, 
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) said:

> > Ultra-pure Libertarian types are mostly against "indecency" laws.
> > The libertarian "philosophy" is simple and easy to apply: anything
> > you want to do is okay as long as it does not initiate force
> > against another or constitute fraud.  Most libertarians apply this
> > rule consistently, so you will be hard-pressed to catch one in a
> > contradiction.  [John L. Scott]
>
> I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws,
> and absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.

David, as you know political/social debate of this sort tends to be a
mostly reactive rather than pro-active, with intellectual discussion
triggered and tempered by emotionalism... when, for whatever reason, a
discussion about helmet laws gets started and somebody speaks out at
least semi-rationally in favor of them, it's likely that people who
feel differently -- including {L|l}ibertarians -- are going to respond
with discussions/lectures/tirades on the same topic.  The same thing
would probably happen with regard to clothing laws _if_ the topic came
up _and_ someone posted an at least semi-rational article in favor of
them... but that rarely seems to happen (at least around here, given
the general type of people who hang around in these newsgroups).

In short, I suspect that the reason that you've heard/read libs
lecturing around here on helmet laws and not on clothing laws is that
that's what the argument's been about, and not that the libs don't
also have consistent feelings about clothing laws.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 12:04:43 EST

In article <1993Jan5.174640.27264@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>Like it or not, the basis of the investigation and of the criminal
>>charges was not "These guys allegedly planned and implemented bad
>>policy."  It was "These guys allegedly broke various federal laws."
>>Recognizing that a person committed a crime is not equivalent to
>>"criminalizing" his actions.  Despite what George Bush might have you
>>believe to the contrary.
>
>What you state is a supposition and not a fact.  The guys who did break
>the law (poindexter and north for example) were convicted then the 
>convictions overturned.  If George Bush gave the orders to take actions 
>which as the VP seems highly unlikely, that were known to be illegal
>then that would be wrong.  However, all I have heard of is that the 
>policy was discussed in meetings.  To discuss a policy should not be
>criminalized because it paralyzes action and discourages the free flow
>of ideas.

You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Cap Weingburger, George Bush
and others are/were being investigated for possibly illegal actions in
*covering up* the policy--NOT FOR INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY,
ITSELF.

Obstructing justice and perjury are both ACTIONS.


You might as well be telling us that the Watergate investigation shouldn't
have involved Nixon, since he was (apparently) not involved in planning the
original break-in.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:42:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.011208.10543@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
>>>about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because
>>>of any inconsistency of opinion, but simply because they aren't big
>>>issues on the political front today and don't deserve as much attention
>>>as the more pressing issues like drug laws and taxes.
>> 
>>...and also because they would make you look like the absolute loons
>>that you are.  You only sell the parts that sound reasonable, and hide
>>the kooky stuff in the fine print.
>
>I disagree.  I have a difficult time with some aspects of the Libertarian
>platform but I think the general direction they want to take, that of
>minimizing government interference in life, is the correct one.
>
>Let's face it, the government has too much power over our lives right now!
>
>As for the specifics you refer to, I don't care for the thought of selling
>body parts...but I fail to understand why dueling should be illegal, so
>long as personal weapons and not tactical nukes are used.
>
AND all of the participants are VOLUNTARY AND sufficient caution is taken to 
maintain public saftey for non-participants.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Details, please  (was interesting [and scary] blurb...)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:01:54 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.171319.3743@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, 
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) said:

> Curiously, I recall a case where a Nazi-type died in the USA, and
> willed his assets to organizations willing to carry on those values.
> Some Jewish group or individuals went to court to block the asset
> transfers, and the courts AGREED.
>
> Interesting that PC applies even AFTER you have bitten the dust; who
> the hell is some f***ing judge to say that willing your assets, for
> the entirely 100% legal purposes of advocacy of some political
> viewpoint is to be forbidden????

Could you please post some details about this case (e.g., the name of
the case, the court which decided it, the date of the decision, etc.)
so that I can look up the actual holding?  Thanks.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7334 alt.activism:20227 alt.individualism:6190 talk.politics.misc:66836
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:12:08 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <16B4E8CD2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
>>about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because
>>of any inconsistency of opinion, but simply because they aren't big
>>issues on the political front today and don't deserve as much attention
>>as the more pressing issues like drug laws and taxes.
> 
>...and also because they would make you look like the absolute loons
>that you are.  You only sell the parts that sound reasonable, and hide
>the kooky stuff in the fine print.

I disagree.  I have a difficult time with some aspects of the Libertarian
platform but I think the general direction they want to take, that of
minimizing government interference in life, is the correct one.

Let's face it, the government has too much power over our lives right now!

As for the specifics you refer to, I don't care for the thought of selling
body parts...but I fail to understand why dueling should be illegal, so
long as personal weapons and not tactical nukes are used.

   don
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7282 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1384 alt.atheism:25069
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism
Subject: Oath/Affirmation of Office of the U.S. House of Representatives
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:26:28 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

I heard the Oath (given by Speaker of the House Tom Foley) on the
radio today.  It went something like:

"I do solemnly swear [...] So help me God."

In contrast, the Presidential Oath is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Constitution says this about the represenative's affirmation:

"3.  The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and  the  members  of
the  several  state  legislatures,  and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by  oath
or  affirmation,  to  support this constitution; but no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under  the
United States."

So were did Foley get on the religious stuff? What would happen if a
Quaker or agnotistic represenative-elect refused to take Foley's oath?

It seems to me the Foley Oath violates the very Constitution it claims
to binding representatives to.

- Carl



-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns