HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: *THREE* GAY RIGHTS BILLS AWAIT WILSON'S VETO IN CALIFORNIA!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:15:56 -0400
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA16328; Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:54:24 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13080; Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:54:19 -0700
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (lib404.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB32);id AA04228; Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:53:59 EDT for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB15);id AA21698; Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:15:58 EDT for qn@queernet.org
X-To: soc.motss.usenet, alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu, qn@queernet.org

Well, I taped THIS WAY OUT, the international gay and lesbian radio newsmagazine
today and they had the details on California's attempts to get legislative 
protection for glb-folk.

There are THREE BILLS on Pete Wilson's desk. 

AB-3825: Omnibus civil rights measure that contains the measures of AB-101 that
were vetoed by Wilson last year. Sponsored by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
The business community is opposed to it and Wilson is likely to veto it.

AB-2601: Based on the wording of Wilson's own veto message from last year that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal according to 
California's labor code. This codifies this fact. [Wilson was basing his 
position on court cases which have since been put on hold as the State Supreme
Court considers the matter]

AB-3019: Started off as a carbon-copy to AB-2601 but has been amended by the
conservative state Senate. Probably the most likely for Wilson to sign.

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Activists expect him to veto ALL THREE BILLS, but not till
after the State Republican meeting in mid-September. Wilson has until September
30th to veto the bills.

The numbers to call Pete Wilson [this can be done even if you don't live in
California!!] are:

        (916)445-2841   Gov's Sacramento Office VOICE number 
        (916)445-4633   Gov's Sacramento Office FAX number
        (916)445-5106   Gov's Chief of Staff's Office
        (916)445-0658   Gov's Legislative Office
        (415)703-2218   Gov's San Francisco Office
        (213)897-0322   Gov's Los Angeles Office
        (619)525-4641   Gov's San Diego Office

The address to write letters are:
	Governor Pete Wilson
	State Capital
	Sacramento, CA  95814

CALL NOW! WRITE NOW! RIGHTS NOW! :-)
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ***Clinton-Gore 92!***
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
PrinceMADONNAMariahCareySineadO'ConnorGeorgeMichaelKateBushEnyaCocteauTwins
MTVCNNFOXNBCCBSVH1RobertBarnardIsaacAsimovGoreVidalGlennCloseMerylStreep
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: re: dis. vs. homo/bi: justified?
From: wolfb@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:53:59 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

I feel that the younger generation that I am part of should make an 
effort to over come the racism that is around this topic.  It was up 
to the teachers in high school and our parents to offer us opions and 
education.  Now it is up to us to make up our own minds and create 
our own views on this topic.  Personally I feel there is not enough 
government invovlement in creating equality laws  for homosexuals.  
Most of the people in this country are very closed minded and believe 
their views are the only correct ones that are to be fallowed.
I feel it is time for young adults to start the education and make 
the effort to show people that homosexuals are real people.  We are 
the future of this country, it should not be our parents and 
grandparents views that run our system.  Times have changed, there 
are new drugs, new illnesses and more technology, and there is more 
room for liberal views and opions.(as I see it).
Some one tell me what you think.
               beth wolf
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [banning] cannot tell whether to ban
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: root
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:28:06 GMT


     I cannot tell whether to ban homosexuals or not -- I just heard
of Oregon.  However, homosexuality is counter-traditional, and
*objectively* speaking, it cannot be treated the same way as the
boy/girl kind of love, leading to marriage.  Homosexual couples *cannot*
lead to marriage: they cannot bear children, which come from their proper
genes.  Homosexual people are *not* a minority: you don't have a
homosexual man and a homosexual woman (of course) giving birth to
homosexual children -- a direct consequence of the previous sentence.

     If everyone listen from their grandparents, then every boy should
find a girlfriend and every girl should find a boyfriend, i.e. when they
are old enough to look for one to be lifelong partner.  Good luck to these.

					ZHONG Qi-Iao
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: Re: [banning] cannot tell whether to ban
Followup-To: null
Reply-To: null
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:50:34 GMT

     I was using "minority" in the narrow sense, i.e. a minority in
race.  This make sense because we should not discriminate those people
who are born to a minority race, things which they cannot change.
However, most others are more like interest groups or organisations.
They are minorities in number.  And then you ask about the disabled:
they are a minority in number but which are born.  They need help
so that they can have better functions, but their goal is still that
of a majority.

     As far as marriage goes, a nice marriage is a marriage of
two families, two family lines merging into one and procreating to
the descend@nts of the two families.
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: privacy
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:10:33 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <92248.191733QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

- As for PDAs (Public Displays of Affection) and other public actions,
- when the straight folks stop with the PDAs (holding hands, marriage,
- images in commercials, movies, etc, etc) then I'll do the same.  

Why?  If a huge percentage of the population stop showing their
affection in public, I see no reason to follow suit.  Love is what
we're fighting for, yes?

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: poloughl@polisci.umn.edu (Paula O'Loughlin)
Subject: outing articles
Keywords: outing, media, civil liberties
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:44:19 GMT

I'm teaching a class on civil liberties this fall and want to have at least 
one class on outing.  Only problem is I can't find any good articles pro and 
con are best for my students to read.  Please help if you can.  I'm getting 
desperate.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Gays and BSA
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.223406.4875@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>There is something I am not sure about all this debate:
>
>If the BSA stops getting money from United Way or any other tax-funded 
>charity, would GLB stop complaining about BSA segregation?
>Would GBL assume that BSA has a right to discriminate them, or would 
>GBL still complain about it?
>
>In short: All of this complaining is about BSA segregating or about
>BSA getting money from the United Way?

Both.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: walden@ready.eng.ready.com (Eugene Walden)
Subject: Re: taxes
Organization: Ready Systems
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:31:37 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Sep12085426@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>David Charlap (sp?) states that a reason to raise taxes is to pay for
>a service that everyone wants and needs.  Well if everyone wants and
>needs something, why do we need taxes to buy them?  You don't see
>people hoping that the government will raise taxes and use the money
>to make food free.  No, they just buy the food themselves.
>
>As a general rule, if someone wants and needs something and has the
>means to get it, they will do so.  Taxes create a middleperson who has
>to be paid; therefore the price of the service goes up.  That strikes
>me as the best reason why taxes should be eliminated.  If people want
>a service to exist, then they will pay for it voluntarily.  If they
>don't, then why are people in a democracy required to pay for it?

Because people in a democracy might be too short-sighted. 

Would the Average American vote to fund NSFnet? I really doubt it. 

However, one of the reasons why the US is a good place to have a computer
company is because of the infrastructure we have. The infrastructure makes 
us more competitive in the high-technology industries. 

The problem that someone mentioned before is that Libertarianism seems to 
propose a reactionary model of spending, i.e., only when you *need* a service
do you spend the money to pay for it. 

That works well for services that can be provided in a short amount of time.
What about NSFnet, though? It's taken years to get it where it is today. If
Japan has a government program to fund a national network, and the US waits
until they are kicking our butts to spend the money on NSFnet, then we are
in big trouble. 

Other services are probably the same. Military, for example. If we pay only 
for what we need, then the size of the military shrinks. If a Hilter comes
up again, though, we won't have time to respond. 

If a hurricane or an earthquake destroys a large part of a state, but we have
no National Guard to help with rescue missions and control of looting, we
won't have time to respond. 

If we have several unexpected years of crop failure and depression results, 
and we don't have a welfare system in place, we won't have time to respond. 

How can we provide these (IMHO) essential services with reactionary 
spending? 

>
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg

   - Eugene Walden (walden@gate.ready.com)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:05:46 GMT

>>If the marketplace doesn't determine your wages, the only alternative is
>>the government.  Hey, there's an idea--let the government decide who gets
>>paid what, what and how much of each item can be produced, where and for
>>how much it should be sold, and what should be done with the profits.
>>Hmmm...  Sounds familiar somehow...
>     How about collective bargaining?  Wait a minute--that would mean workers
>getting together, and GOD KNOWS workers getting together to defend their rights
>independant of (indeed, from) the heroic, benevolent businessman can't be
>anything but COMMUNISM (SHUDDER!), can it?

Collective bargaining is fine.  But when the government creates laws that help
the workers make demands against businesses (such as not allowing businesses to
fire striking workers) then a fair price for labor cannot be determined.  

One argument appearing frequently in posts trying to refute libertarian philosophy
is the claim that libertarians are selfish, uncaring, or that they defend 
"evil business".  First of all, many people are libertarians not because they
are wealthy, but because someday they hope to be.  They don't want to live in
a society which removes incentive to become rich.  This is also bad for
society since creating a business is the best, legitimate means to becoming
rich.  Businesses create jobs.  

Secondly, besides the moral justification for libertarian philosophy
(that it is NOT OK for a governent to coerce, using force,
unreasonable taxes from its citizens and to create laws limiting
individual freedom), libertarians believe that a strong economy is a
better alternative than welfare.  AND, the free market is the most
effecient (albeit, not perfect) method for creating a strong economy.
Most of the elevation in living standards throughout the world have
been a direct result of technology created by free markets.  The
alternative, socialism, has produced nothing but misery (with a few
exceptions on a small scale).

Finally, in practical terms, even if you thought it was OK for the
government to use force (via the IRS) against its citizens, and that we should
have the government fix all social problems, it's hopeless.  The government is
filled with power hungry, stupid bureaucrats, who implement ineffective, inefficient, 
well-intentioned but completely misdirected programs.  Why would you trust a centralized
govenment with no market feedback (other than from special interest groups) to make 
decisions for individuals or businesses.  People are much better positioned to decide
what to do with their money.  Besides, just because person 1 want the government to 
do one thing with person 2's money, what makes you think everyone else wants the money
spent that way.
From: wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 22:14:07 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International


Why, on Earth, should the rich pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes?
I agree that the poor should pay a very small amount (if any); but, at the 
point that taxes are imposed, a flat percentage seems fair (why penalize the
rich?  this IS a capitalistic society, right?).

I think it is a mistake to discount human nature when setting-up a
governmental system.  People will not donate taxes.  People will try to make
the most money that they can.  And, if we can tap that energy, we can tax
it fairly (thus, encouraging the capitalist nature in all of us) and have
a predictable income on which to run a government.

Wade
wade@nb.rockwell.com
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:12:48 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>1) Criticism could shame certain posters into writing more thoughtfully.
>   I can see that hasn't worked for you yet.

>2) It might keep undecided people from accepting specious libertarian
>   arguments.

>3) It might force explication of assumptions which could actually make sense
>   of certain libertarian points of view.

These look like good goals.  I hope you post with them in mind.  I
suggest that arguments for your point of view would be more effective
than name calling.

I raised what I thought were legitimate concerns with property taxes.
These concerns were based on a premise that it should be possible to
opt out of the economic system without losing your property.  You
apparently disagree with this premise.  Okay.  Should you lose other
possessions as well if you opt out of the system?  Which ones?  All of
them?  Aren't they just as much a part of the economic system as real
estate?  If not, why not?  I'm willing to listen to your arguments.
But calling me a twit isn't likely to convince me that you're right.

					Dave (Twit) Bridgham
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:27:07 GMT
	<1992Sep11.094925.9561@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

GF> == Gennady Feygin <gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu> 

 GF> Just out of curiousity --- why do Libertarians need a petition
 GF> drive?  IS THERE SOME LAW that discriminates against smaller
 GF> political parties?

Lots of 'em.  State by state, too.  Fun, eh?
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Libertarian Positions
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:56:02 GMT

> Could a bona fide libertarian please outline the party's
> position on the following areas?  If you're not a Libertarian,
> I'd rather not hear what your opinion is pro or con.  I just
> want some data.  Thanks in advance.
> 
> 4)  The invasion of Kuwait was indeed a terrible action on the part
>     of Sadaam Insane.  Would the Libertarian party condone the use
>     of force against them outside of our boarders?  It is reasonable
>     to assert that the U.S.'s participation was based upon economic
>     interests.  I'm personally glad that the u.s/u.n. kicked Sadaam
>     out of Kuwait, because I have to commute to work.   I like having
>     income.
 
This is one that's been bothering me too; in fact it's basically the only 
reason I haven't officially joined the libertarian party. The official 
form has a place to sign stating that I do not believe in the use of force
to achieve political or social goals.  That's a very broad statement, and
I'd really like to know what it means before I sign it.  Do libertarians
think it's ok to send troops to foreign countries to defend our national
interests (like in Kuwait).  This is assuming that we can all agree on 
what constitutes our national interest. :)
 
                              Ken
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <194ovmINNmgh@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes...
>In effect your parents signed a contract with the government for you when 
>you were born. They chose to have you born in this country, thus making
>you a citizen and subject to its laws. They voted or didn't. They and their
>parents were a party to the contract, or at some time in thepast decided to
>come to this country.

	Oh really?  Just what gives my parents the authority to sign
contracts for me or the government to 'make' me a citizen?  A contract
must be voluntarily entered into.  Just because the government says it
has a contract with me, that doesn't make it so.


>If you don't believe the government is acting in the best interest of the
>country you have several choices:
> 
>1) You can gripe about it, do nothing else and stay here.
>2) You can leave.
>3) You can try to change it.

	You forgot one choice (actually an offshoot of 3).  The government
could admit that there really isn't any "social contract".  This doesn't mean
that it can't protect people's individual rights.  Rights don't exist because
of contracts.

>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

Mark Sulkowski
From: wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 01:27:06 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International


Well, one disadvantage with sales tax is that in discourages buying.  In times
of recession, people may look at a slightly higher price and decide not to
buy something -- let's just hold on to that buck.  This is exactly what should
NOT be encouraged during a recession.  An income tax does not discourage
anything (especially a graduated or flat tax); people aren't going to stop making
money 'cause the government is going to get some of it.

More important than what is taxed (these days, anyway) seems to be how those
taxes are spent.  Is it too much to ask that the government not spend more than
it makes?

Just opinion.

Wade
wade@nb.rockwell.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:00:47 GMT

gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>And, if desired, an equal amount can be refunded to each person. Of course
>poor person paid less sales tax than a rich one, so poor will get all or most
>of their tax back, while rich will get back smaller percentage. 

An even easier solution is already in place (at least in Canada): everyone
gets a "basic personal exemption", which in Canada is about $6000.  So
you get taxed on the amount (Income - excemption), which clearly for
poorer people is a smaller percentage of their income.  Now the interesting
bit becomes "how much should the basic personal exemption be?"  I'd
say somewhere between $6,000 and $12,000 in 1992 dollars.

-- 
The primary goal of science is to describe whatever scientists see as being
in need of description.

Wayne Hayes     INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca        CompuServe: 72401,3525
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:45:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <ISBELL.92Sep15133018@panther.ai.mit.edu>, 
isbell@ai.mit.edu writes:

> |In other words, taking money away from somebody when they spend it will
> |discourage spending, but taking it away before they spend it won't, as if
> |the amount of money one had was somehow unrelated to how much one
> |actually spent.
> 
> Well, i think it will work out just the way the previous poster
> thinks.  That it doesn't make sense just shows that people aren't
> terribly rational (or maybe they just don't take the time to be
> rational).

It has nothing to do with the irrational spending habits.  It has to do
with the fact that you can't spend what you don't have.  (Unless of
course you borrow.  But even then, on average, you can't borrow what you
can't pay back.)  My original point was that income tax is just as much
as a drain on the economy as a sales tax.  Economically, the only
difference between all these taxes is who gets shafted the most.
(Another difference is the influence on time preference, but that's a
worm of a different color.)  A sales tax is less intrusive and easier to
understand, so I'd prefer it to income tax, but people can't go around
pretending that one kind of tax is somehow less harmful than another.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian