HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: why another party, was Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:01:39 GMT
Reply-To: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us


In article 1i009kINNb64@fido.asd.sgi.com,
  livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>Then what do we need a new party for?

Because there is no other party whose design, platform, and bylaws
reflect Green values.  More specifically, in the USA,
all the existing national parties (yes, even the National Libertarian
Party, the 21st Century Party, and the New Party) use an elite-oriented
command structure, in which policy is formed by a small group of elites
and handed down the ranks.  Only the Greens use grassroots consensus-
oriented decisionmaking in which *everyone* has a say.  Only the Greens
(in California) have "binding none-of-the-above" for office races.
Only the Greens test each policy proposal for conformance to the Green
Values (which Mr. Ladasky has already listed in this newsgroup).

>
>jon.

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose^H' (cls@truffula.sj.ca.us)

"They're not the best at what they do.  They're just the *only* ones
who do what they do."
  -- the late Bill Graham (referring to the Grateful Dead)
From: mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:09:47 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <JMC.93Jan1085512@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1678600003@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>   John McCarthy,
>
>   Your comments in response #6 bring us much closer to understanding the real
>   problem of property rights. (Two people buy adjacent lots. One builds now.
>   Other wants to build in 10 years.  The first complains that it will destroy
>   the view, displace gophers, take away playground, etc.)
>
>   It seems to me that both purchasers of these lots were victims of a system
>   that allowed the original subdivider to reap windfall profits at the expense
>   of the the land, its future inhabitants, and probably the taxpayer if there
>   were S&L complicity in the original deal.
>
>   Dale
>
>I don't see that the subdivider's profits, large or small, have anything
>to do with the fact that the person who built first got used to having
>an empty lot next door and is inconvenienced ("harmed") when someone
>builds on it.

I don't see what the subdivider did that was so immoral and explotative.
Where the hell are people supposed to live if not in houses, apartments,
etc.?  Where the hell are those houses to be built if not on previously 
undeveloped property?  The land already developed for residential use 
is insufficent to continue to provide housing in a growing population,
unless we want to start living in ever smaller and smaller homes ala the
Japanese. I really don't think that's practical or healthy.  Perhaps the
best solution would be a slowdown in (or elimination of) the rate of
population growth.  But that is such a remote likelyhood at this point
as to almost not worth discussing. Until our society becomes more
responsible about reproduction, we're going to have to continue to
develop property and the people initiating this process (the developers)
are not automatically evil.  And not every S&L loan automatically
defaults. To say "if there were S&L complicity in the original deal"
that it probably cost the taxpayers money is a gross overstatement.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:38:57 GMT

In article <1678600006@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>1. In this world where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty,
>wealth beyond what one needs to take care of one's self and family is
>immoral.
> 

FALSE!

I could give away everything I own (which is considerably more than what
i _need_ to take care of my self and it would not help the Somalis one
bit (nor the homeless in NYC for that matter). 

There is inequity in the world. The way to solve it is to help those in need, 
not punish those who succeed. The way to help those in abject poverty
is to establish democratic capitalism and western values. 

Once #1 is  removed, 2 no longer neccesarily follows, although it may
still be true.

>2. Reaping windfall profits to gain weath beyond one's needs is therefore
>immoral.
> 
[...]
> 
>5. People find spiritual inspiration by being grounded in their communities,
>their soil, and their natural surroundings.

What does this mean? Grounded in their soil? Earth is electrical ground
but I doubt that is what you mean :-).


[6-10 deleted]

These are all nice thoughts, but are you really serious?


>11. But, how can a subdivider (who presumably does not live in on the
>land) or an absentee land-lord truly care for that piece of earth if
>if s/he does not live there?

She does not need to care for it. Thats why God invented tenents.

[ A very long and thoughtful critique of capitalism deleted]
-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
From: arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:31:39 GMT
Organization: FORWISS, Uni Erlangen, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: bfws46.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de


	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
rights?  Is it in the party line?

Mike Arras
arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:44:54 GMT

In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de>, arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
|> 
|> 	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
|> (far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
|> anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
|> rights?  Is it in the party line?
|> 
|> Mike Arras
|> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de

What in the world do you mean by "property rights".  The laws and
customs concerning private property vary considerably throughout
the world.

There certainly has been and will continue to be conflict between
greens and land owners over exactly what "rights" may be exercised
by the "owner" of the land and by governments (which residually
"own" the rights to the land).  Similar issues arise over the use
of water, air, and other natrual resources.  The issues are really 
a confict of rights (the right of the individual to exploit property 
vs. the right of everyone else to not be damaged by such exploitation), 
not really a question of being for or against "rights".

Not knowing anything about official green party positions, I cannot
speculate on party line.  In the US, party lines have precious little
meaning anyway.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Philip Brewer)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:33:05 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

> What is the *least* harmful thing I would be prevented from doing
> with my own property?

It's not the thing, it's the harm.  That makes it impossible to say in
the abstract.

Heat your house with a wood-burning stove in rural Illinois and nobody
is going to care.  Doing the same thing in Denver during an inversion
kills people.  It makes no difference whether or not you own the house,
stove, and wood.

Most of the borderline cases come about when circumstances change.  The
first few hundred wood-burning stoves in Denver made no difference.  The
next few thousand made little difference.  But some people installed
wood-burning stoves right before the rules requiring catalytic
converters went into effect.  They, no doubt, felt quite unfairly
treated.

-- 
Philip Brewer                   pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Motorola Urbana Design Center   ...!uiucuxc!udc!pbrewer
Mia urino sendrogspuras.  Jen atestilo!  ^Cu mi pli bone laboras nun?
From: pmurphy@nrao.edu (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:54:56 GMT
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory

In article <1992Dec31.012951.6457@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John
   J. Ladasky II) writes: 

   [...]
   There was a famous case recently in South Carolina in which a developer
   purchased about $1 million of waterfront property, only to have his plan
   to build houses on the property rejected by the government.  I don't 
   remember the exact details, but some endangered species would have been
   devastated by the construction.

I thought the main reason the government (and the US supreme court?)
rejected the builder's right to develop was that the state might have
to deal with the consequences of those houses being wiped out by a
storm or hurricane (quite probable given the area) in the future.  Not
to say that the effect on an endangered species is not significant;
IMO it is very much so.  It's just not the only thing to worry about.

				- Pat
--
==========================================================================
| Patrick P. Murphy, Ph.D.                Scientific Programming Analyst |
| National Radio Astronomy Observatory    Net:       pmurphy@nrao.edu    |
| 520 Edgemont Road                       Phone:     (804) 296-0372      |
| Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475          VoiceMail: (804) 980-5889      |
|      "I don't believe in the no-win scenario"  --- James T. Kirk       |
==========================================================================
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:33:39 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec31.155423.21680@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
|> In article <1htnhtINNit@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec30.224714.29832@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
|> >|> In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
|> >|> >(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
|> >|> >anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
|> >|> >rights?  Is it in the party line?
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Mike Arras
|> >|> >arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
|> >|> 
|> >|> "Against" and "for" are simplified positions.  The position of the USA
|> >|> Greens (from their program) is that private property should carry the
|> >|> responsibility that it not be used in a way that is harmful to other
|> >|> people or the environment.
|> >
|> >What is the *least* harmful thing I would be prevented from doing
|> >with my own property?
|> >
|> >jon.
|> 
|> As a response to this and to John McCarthy's response I would say that
|> neither I nor any other individual can determine exactly where
|> the boundary between permitted and not permitted is.  John McCarthy
|> says human rights include property rights and I agree.  Human rights
|> also include the right to prevent being harmed by others.  The exact
|> boundary will be determined by law with input from science and ethics.
|> As scientific knowledge advances and ethics evolve, the limits will
|> evolve.  Such laws are never adsolutly stricly defined.  Thats one
|> reason why we have judges and juries.  The point is that ownership
|> of land is not a free ticket to do things that harm people or the
|> environment.

The implementation of the platforms of all parties are subject to legal 
restraints, but most parties don't find that this makes it impossible 
to state their platfoms.

Are you saying that the Greens prefer not to state their platform?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:04:11 GMT

 
>I'll start first.  My name is Dale McMillen and I hook into this
>list via econet.  I am a computer programmer by trade, but my main
>activity is helping organize the Greens in Northern Virginia.  I have
>been an active member for about 3 years, and am currently a Green
>Council Rep from the Mid-Atlantic Region.  I have a degree in music
>and nearly a masters in Divinity, Business Administration and 
>Information Systems.
> 
>Next?
> 
>Dale

A newsgroup with a Welcome Wagon(tm)...how neat.  My name is Walter Lee and I
hook into whatever this is via Oakland University, where I'm trying to change
my undergraduate major from math to computer science "retroactively".  I'm a
data-entry operator by trade and a computer programmer wannabee.  My political
interest is primarily in anarchy (of the type that seeks freedom FROM
enterprise).  I don't consider myself well enough informed of the science of
ecology to identify myself as "green".  For example, I'm for alternative energy
100%, but more as a monopoly-breaker than an earth-saver.  I live in Detroit
(the Motor City), where it's not unusual to see low-end (low-wage) help wanted
ads for which one has to own reliable (read late-model) transportation to
qualify.  This, to me, is SICK.  I consider the automobile, the supermarket and
the suburb to be inventions of negative social value (and the automobile, at
least, is a lifestyle choice that is literally FORCED on me by the "system").

My impression of the GPUSA (entirely from reading this newsgroup) is not
entirely positive.  They seem to be sort of, shall we say aggressive, in holding
their people to the party line.  Given the political circles I travel in, I have
more exposure to the more "hard core" green movements, like the Left Green
Network and Earth First!

Anyone know if there's gonna be a "Detroit Summer '93"?

Next?
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Candy is dandy, but liquour is quicker.
                                -- Ogden Nash.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Jan 93 08:55:12

In article <1678600003@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!ames!sgi!cdp!dmcmillen
   From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
   Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
   Date: 31 Dec 92 07:34 PST
   Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@igc.apc.org>
   References: <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de>
   Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600003:000:576
   Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Dec 31 07:34:00 1992


   John McCarthy,

   Your comments in response #6 bring us much closer to understanding the real
   problem of property rights. (Two people buy adjacent lots. One builds now.
   Other wants to build in 10 years.  The first complains that it will destroy
   the view, displace gophers, take away playground, etc.)

   It seems to me that both purchasers of these lots were victims of a system
   that allowed the original subdivider to reap windfall profits at the expense
   of the the land, its future inhabitants, and probably the taxpayer if there
   were S&L complicity in the original deal.

   Dale

I don't see that the subdivider's profits, large or small, have anything
to do with the fact that the person who built first got used to having
an empty lot next door and is inconvenienced ("harmed") when someone
builds on it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:50:17 GMT

In article <1678600005@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>The Greens in the U.S. have often thought that the German form
>representation is more ideal than ours.  In their system, as I
>understand it, people vote for parties and their platforms but
>not individuals.  And, if a party recieves at least 5% of the
>vote, the party can place its proportion of reps in the legislature.

I recently heard William F Buckley argues this model because in the US
some large percentage of congress members are democrats while the population
at large is prety much 50-50 dems/repubs.

>whether or not to recall the President.  As I understand it, some
>states do provide this option for their members of Congress, as
>I believe some in Oregon have considered for Packwood.  Clearly,
>on the more local level this is an option in some areas (not my
>own in Virginia, unfortunately).  About a year ago, some group
>was organizing in Washington D.C. to petition for a vote to recall
>their mayor, Sharon Pratt Kelly.  This didn't get very far, but
>you better believe that it drew public attention!

The thing is, if there was a vote of confidence held for clinton 
tomorrow or next year it would end up as a vote of no confidence. 6 out of 
10 voters voted against clinton in the general election.


> 
>In California, The Green Party has the option of running a
>"Non-of-the-above" (NOTA) candidate in their primaries, which is
>their way of excluding candidates who they don't consider appropriate
>to represent their platform, among other reasons.  California law
>apparently does not allow political parties to exclude potential
>candidates from running on their party's ballot line.  However, the
>Green Party has the option to "close the race" if they can muster more
>votes for their NOTA "candidate" than the candidate they don't want to
>support.  This is not strickly a candidate accountability and recall
>issue, but does provide a method the party a method to help ensure that
>the candidate who runs on their ballot line, will support their platform.

This sounds good, So you would have one candidate that everybody
knew was the NOTA candidate. Who would be that candidate. What heppens when
they win.


> 
>In a proportional representation system, like Germany's, this is all
>taken care of.  If the Pro-Choicers got 70% of the vote, then they
>get 70% of the people in Congress, and the Pro-Lifers get 30% of the
>people in Congress.  Now, clearly the Pro-Lifers are in a minority in
>this system, which would not please them, but at least they get their
>30% 

This adds up to 100%. What about the other political groups.
-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:47:14 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
>
>	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
>(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
>anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
>rights?  Is it in the party line?
>
>Mike Arras
>arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de

"Against" and "for" are simplified positions.  The position of the USA
Greens (from their program) is that private property should carry the
responsibility that it not be used in a way that is harmful to other
people or the environment.  Since this responsibility should be
legally binding, people would be prevented from doing things that
they might want to do if it harmed others.  Also, private property
should be the result of a persons labor or whatever value they put
into it.  Property with natural value should be used for the good
of all.  Forests and rivers would not be privately owned under this
idea, since they are not the work of any person.  These lands
would be _locally_ controlled (Greens support decentralization),
not centrally controlled from Washington, D.C.  Of course, this is
a long-term goal and I presume that use of such lands would still
have limitations based on ecological sustainability and such.

I have no idea what percentage of people who consider themselves
"Green" support these principles.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 1992 23:38:28 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec31.163305.4934@urbana.mcd.mot.com>, pbrewer@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Philip Brewer) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> > What is the *least* harmful thing I would be prevented from doing
|> > with my own property?
|> 
|> It's not the thing, it's the harm.  That makes it impossible to say in
|> the abstract.
|> 
|> Heat your house with a wood-burning stove in rural Illinois and nobody
|> is going to care.  Doing the same thing in Denver during an inversion
|> kills people.  It makes no difference whether or not you own the house,
|> stove, and wood.
|> 
|> Most of the borderline cases come about when circumstances change.  The
|> first few hundred wood-burning stoves in Denver made no difference.  The
|> next few thousand made little difference.  But some people installed
|> wood-burning stoves right before the rules requiring catalytic
|> converters went into effect.  They, no doubt, felt quite unfairly
|> treated.

So we already have the rules we need to prevent the kind of harm
you were thinking about?   All we need is to adjust thresholds
in the currently existing laws?

Then what do we need a new party for?

jon.
From: jclarke@teal.csn.org (J Christopher Clarke)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:16:19 GMT

arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:


>	...... All Things Considered (far left)

  Actually, I don't think they are THAT left, just slightly left of our
new White House..

J. Christopher Clarke
jclarke@teal.csn.org