HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:07:37 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>> >But it doesn't stop there--if the employees are being asked to share in
>> >the risk they may very well want to share in the decision-making power,
>> >as well.  Currently they possess almost no power, yet they bear a
>> >substantial amount of the risk.
>>
>> So what?  They're being PAID for accepting that risk.
>
>It's amazing what a minimum wage job will stretch to cover.  Risk of
>unemployment, risk of long-term health damage. . .
>
>You must share your budgeting secrets with us someday.

It's amazing that Peter assumes every job is minimum wage, especially
when the jobs in question aren't.

My "budgeting secrets" are that I don't do low-value things.  I also
switch to different things as "value" changes.  I don't expect the
world to stay.  Then again, I come from a family that moves for
income.  People who won't get something for their choice.  Why does
Peter think that they should get it for free?  Is he volunteering to
pay my "adjustment" costs?

>Huge fraction?  Exactly how huge?  Most businesses are props or
>partnerships, but most jobs are from corporations.  And lots of small
>businesses are corportations, too.

So?  I wasn't using "sole proprietorship" as the IRS does, but in the
relevant sense, namely "how many owners lose if the biz goes down the
toilet".  After all, we're not discussing taxation.

>> Why would anyone invest in a biz in that situation?  They might LOAN
>> money to a "probably can't fail biz", or one with sufficient assets
>> that can't be easily destroyed (so foreclosure works), but they're not
>> going to go for anything risky.
>
>Actually, the quality of a firm's workforce is a very relevant question
>to an investor.  Why should it make so much difference how business
>decisions are made, as long as the decisions are good ones?  Unless,
>of course, you think people in general are idiots and only dictatorships
>work.

Good ones from whose point of view?

Given some saved money, I can either consume it or invest it.  If I'm
not going to get a return, which is a nice way to say "good decisions
from my point of view", I'm going to consume it.

I happen to think that we need more investments with high variance,
but they won't happen if said investors don't have control.  Peter may
well think that we can do well enough with nice safe investments, ones
where it doesn't much matter whose point of view we use.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:14:11 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>>Despite your insistance, I did not advocate a cap on salaries,
>>is your comprehension of language that poor?

>My comprehension of languages is quite good.  I combine it with
>a comprehension of algebra.  Unless we IGNORE relative productivity,
>a ratio cap is an absolute cap.

If the lowest paid person in a company makes 20k per year at a
10:1 ratio top management can make 200k per year and write it all
off on taxes, every dollar over that they pay an additional (whatever
the tax rate on their earnings is, say 28%) .28 to the government.

This doesn't mean that they can't pay their top managers more than the
ratio (a cap) it means that it will cost them more to do so, but I
would not suspect that it would stop them.

Given that this would produce a fair amount of revenue, the rates
could drop substantially for both corporations and individuals, the
point of my proposal was to redistribute the tax burden such that
businesses pay a larger share than they currently do. (They currently
pay about 17% of the total tax pie, down from 39% in the 50's when
the tax code was set up to build the middle class.)

>>Let's go back to the auto factory and compare it to a standard
>>factory.  Both have janitors.  Since they do the same exact thing in
>>both factories, we'll assume that they get the same salary.  Given a
>>salary ratio cap, we have placed an upper limit on management salaries
>>at both factories.

>Now, there may be one way for both factories to escape this trap.
>Instead of hiring janitors, they might be able to get away with
>contracting out for janitor services.  Will O'Andy allow that?

It has been happening all along anyway, fine, we just raise the
minimum wage and find some way to provide the health and retirement
benefits that business doesn't want to pay for directly.

I suppose you must be in favor of socialized medicine since you don't
want businesses to take on any obligation for something that provides
a "social good," right?

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:49:02 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Milosevic wins
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

A few days ago I wrote:

>>"Fascism is a dictatorship of the extreme right?" This definition
>>can not be applied to modern Russia. In Russia HARD-LINE COMMUNISTS
>>are considered to be "the right".

Gary W. Olson replied to me:

>Then it's a good thing I wasn't applying it to Russia. I was applying it
>to *your* definition, to show that fascism was not a "dictatorship of
>the free market".

My response to Gary:

I didn't realize that definitions of words like fascism loose their
meaning when they are applied to particular countries. Are you saying
that in each country the word 'fascism' has a different meaning?
If your definition from the American Heritage Dictionary looses its
meaning when applied to Russia and my definition doesn't, then whose
definition is correct?

I never used words like "dictatorship of the free market". You mis-
quoted me. I said: dictatorship based on the free market system.
See the difference?

I guess words like 'fascism' and 'communism' can be defined on 3
different levels: a). economic
                  b). political
                  c). ideological
On the economic level fascism is free market plus a strong regulating
role of the state. On the political level the definition of fascism
should emphasize its totalitarian nature (...is a dictatorship). On
the ideological level extreme nationalism should be stressed.

Communism on the first level is a centralized economy totally
controlled by the state. On the second level it is also a dictatorship.
On the third level Marxism-Leninism should be part of the definition.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:29:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      what makes a good parent?

The really disturbing thing about that case is not that it shows that
heterosexual couples can be just as unfit to raise kids as homosexual
couples might be, but that in an adoption case, the Chicago parents
would almost be guaranteed of a better chance of adopting a kid
than a homosexual couple, JUST BECAUSE they are heterosexual.  A
responsible homosexual couple would be automatically disqualified.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:17:29 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What constitutes "proof" for you, telepathy? ...

>Val wrote:
>>So, my "proof" about Nazis being
>>rightists is at this point more reasonable than yours in that I
>>offered proofs, not mumbo-jimbo, not rhetoric.

>And I congratulate Val on this... everyone on this list should
>follow Val's example and offer proofs, not mumbo-jimbo.

So what *is* "mumbo-jimbo*?

Is it related to that soup? (the gumbo-jimbo)

Those dances? (the limbo-jimbo and the mambo-jimbo)

>--Jimbo

-other Andy
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Mondragon update
Date: 30 Dec 1992 12:58 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Keywords: Mondragon, cooperative, wages
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Several weeks ago I wrote a brief note on the Mondragon Cooperative Group in
the Basque region of Spain.  An update on the status of the Mondrago experience
is now available.

Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, as it has recently been renamed, has 170
cooperatives, 90 industrial and 80 other.  21,000 area residents are
worker-owners; 40% of the city labor force is employed in cooperatives. 
Deposits at Caja Laboral Popular, the cooperative bank, exceed $3 billion and
Lagun-Aro, the cooperative social security fund, over $1 billion.  1990
industrial sales exceeded $2.6 billion.  Mondragon's R&D center, Ikerlan, has
been invited to join the European R&D consortium.

The successes of the Mondragon system have been attributed to a series of
factors:  Basque nationalism, the intellectual guidance of Don Jose Maria
Arizmendiarrieta (d. 1976), and pro-cooperative Spanish laws, including a
higher interest rate at Caja Laboral Popular, a limit on non-member employment
to 20%, an anti-speculative provision on distribution of liquidation profits,
and a reduction in income tax.

In response to the upcoming change in economic conditions under Common Market,
Mondragon is reorganizing.  The system is being centralized, with cooperatives
to be combined along industrial sector lines, a major increase in the
top-to-bottom salary ratio (traditionally 3 to 1), and investments in
non-cooperative firms.  The Mondragon leadership is not happy about the
changes, but consider them a response to a dramatic restructuring of markets. 
Jesus Larranga, a founder of the original cooperative, ULGOR, considers the
upcoming years a test of social and community based economic structures.

See David Morris, "Mondragon:  Cooperative at Work", Co-op America Quarterly,
Winter 1992, at 6.

							Dan, ad nauseum   
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:39:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>>>What is our purpose on Earth, if not for procreation, and the
>>>betterment of the future world for our children?

>>There is no such thing as ultimate cause or ultimate purpose, except as our
>>societies define them.

>Why society?  Why not 'each individual'?

        Because societal goals and/or purposes carry a bigger punch due to
the existence of laws, traditions, enforcers, etc. If every individual
defined its own "causes and purposes in life" we would have ANARCHY. And
no one will like that, huh?

 -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:56:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: rape after rape after rape...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Amazingly, Brett' wrote this:
>>        I've been arguing for intervention since the Serbs invaded Slovenia
>>many months ago.
>>        I hope those who have been arguing that "it's too hard" or "we'll just
>>make it worse" are enjoying the harvest of the Muslims and Croats.
>
>Ok, everyone who thinks that Brett' was possessed by the spirit of Jay
>Sultan when he wrote this, raise your hands.

        The secret is out, I channel for Jay. :D

>It's the only possible explanation.  After all, we know Brett' wouldn't stoop
>so low as to suggest that those who disagreed with him must, by that token,
>enjoy watching mass murder.

        Not at all.  However, the costs of inaction must be weighed.

>(For the record, I support intervention as well.  Not necessarily from the
>U.S, but intervention nevertheless...)
>Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"

        I thought he was a sleigh man....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:07:38 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Uncl: ActUp/RI joins Colorado Boycott
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Robert:
>If you choose to be homosexual fine. If I choose not to be,

Don't you find it strange that so many people 'choose' to become
members of a discriminated minority, knowing that they will be
subjected to attacks by idiotic bigots?

The answer is that nobody 'chooses' to be gay. It's a God-given blessing,
understand?

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:38:43 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      freedom of speech

A favorite tactic of anti-choice groups is to blockade entrances to
clinics and verbally harrass people attempting to enter said facility.
I wonder what the reaction would be if pro-choice groups were to take
a similar approach and blockade entrances to houses of worship or
businesses owned by anti-choice groups and tell people entering said
places that they are contributing to child abuse and are in favor
of abusing children since it is a well documented fact that some children
have been abused by clergymen and businessmen such as John Wayne Gacey.

There has been a lot of print and air space about shock jocks such as
Howard Stern lately. Haven't the people who are offended heard of on/off
switches? Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to this stuff. Personally,
I find "send me money and I'll reserve you a spot in heaven" to be
highly offensive material but I won't lobby to have it removed from
the air waves. The owner of a local bookstore donated a copy of
modanna's book to the local library. He said he wouldn't buy it himself
but didn't see any reason to prevent someone who wants to see it from
having the opportunity. Seems logical to me.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:54:02 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
> >
> >> Just a quick question for the New Year!
> >>
> >>         If President Bush is investigated and convicted on the Iran-
> >> Contra affair before Inauguration Day, can he pardon himself?
> >>
> >>                                 just wondering...
> >>
> >>                                         Bill
> >>
> >You bet.  That's why nothing will happen until he leaves office!
> >
> >Jonathan
>
> No, that's definitely wrong. It is Triply wrong.
>
> First of all, before he is convicted he must be impeached. If he is
> impeached he can't pardon anyone, let alone himself.
But, if he pardoned himself _before_ he was impeached (which as we know from
the Nixon administration is a long drawn out affair), then he could get
away with it.
As you stated later, people can be pardoned even before they had been
convicted of anything. And I believe that I have heard that the constitution
doesn't address this specifically.  It just gives the pardon power to
the president.

> I like Brett's suggestion better. It is much trickier. I doubt
> they'd get away with it, though.
It would be interesting....
>
> Jamie
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:21:11 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      capitalism & justice
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

-T.
>>         Now your understanding of a disorder is based upon whether or not
>> a society with such "disorder" can last?  Well, let me see....

Yes, it *CAN* be a measure of what is good to *SOCIETY*.

>>         There are a heck of a lot of us out there who feel that capitalism
>> is one of the worst injustices ever created!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH???

1) What? Capitalism not just?

2) What capitalism? USA 1992/93 capitalism? let's call it mixed ecomony.

3) Is US 1992 capitalism bigger injustice than Soviet 1990 communism?

4) Is US 1992 capitalism bigger injustice than 1930s/40s Nazism in Germany?

5) Is US 1992 capitalism bigger injustice than Pol-pot regime in Cambodia?

6) just name a few injustice elements, i cannot imagine a single

>> Maybe we'd even go so far as to
>> say it's a "disorder".  How does that jibe with your understanding that dis-
>> orders destroy societies?

1) Maybe it is not a disorder   (i think so)

2)      Maybe it is not so dangerous disorder.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caius views on justice of capitalism:

Laisser-fair capitalism is THE best just thing ever on Earth (it was never
created - it evolved)
The main justices are:
-just tax (preferable poll-tax),
-you spend your money yourself,
-the only legal way of getting rich is to offer some sort of services
 to others.


USA 1992         capitalism is rather just comparable to other systems at the
same time. The main injustices are (descending order):
-progressive income tax,
-income tax,
-other taxes,
-minority quotas,
-gov't manipulated currency,
-social programmes.

The worst injustice ever created is socialism of all flavours.
-[censored]
-[censored]
-[censored]

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:17:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Milosevic wins

Well, Slobodan Milosevic won the election in Serbia over Milan Panic.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Yeah...like it was really going to be as easy as the world might have
hoped.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:32:57 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I am sorry there are not more women on his Cabinet, and I am sorry
> there are no open homosexuals, because I have been thinking about
> that discrepancy.  But I am not sorry for the course this nation is
> about to try to take.  It's our only way into the next century.
>
> Well, them's my sentiments.   :)
>
>
> Ellen
>
Ellen,
I just wanted to say that I agree almost completely with your
lengthly dissertation!

My one caveat is your paragraph here.  To say that you are sorry that
there are no more of a particular group on his cabinet, is, I think,
a shame.  The real question is, are these people qualified?  To the
contrary of previous administrations, I believe that Clinton has
appointed fully qualified people to his cabinet.  Some of his
choices may be too liberal for me and some of them may be too
conservative to me, but at the bottom line are people who are absolutely
qualified to be in these positions.
Now if you want to single out women, it is obvious that he has
appointed more women than anyone previously to positions of power.  While
it may not be enough, it certainly is a major step forward.

Jonathan
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Cross controversy?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 11:56 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92122311024943@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET> writes...
>Agreed about the bad name Libertarians get, Brett, but maybe if Lyndon
>LaRouche wasn't their best-known proponent, they wouldn't have that image.   :)

LaRouche doesn't strike me as libertarian, just dumb.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:22:30 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      leftist-rightist government
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Caius pisze:
>>1) Government intervention in economy (look at the economic law
>>Hitler and Mussolini have offered to the businesses) is enough to
>>consider them LEFTIST;

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>By your definition, ALL government is "leftist," which is hogwash!
>Government intereferes in ALL economies, but that does not make them
>all "leftist."

You misinterpret my views.

RIGHTIST government *CAN* collect taxes (as small as possible)  to pay for:
-defence (the army, embassies in other countries)
-justice (courts and some police)
     -to prevent murder, theft,
          -to enforce contracts
-maintain administration for 2 above (defense & justice)


LEFTIST government *ALSO*
-colects taxes to redistribute incomes  (most to the bureaucrats)
-controls economy by manipulating money supply(in both directions)
                                                by inflation tax
                                                by tax havens and tax penalties
                                                by establishing and changing cus
toms ( boundary tax )
                                                by dividing citizens by race, sk
in, ethnic origin, wealth,
                                                        colour of car, odd/even
number of car, sex,
                                                        date of birth, working/n
ot working, bald/not bald
                                                        AND granting "special ri
ghts" to these "minorities"
                                                by regulating every aspect of yo
ur life;


EXTREME RIGHTIST government collects poll-tax for the same purposes as rightist.

EXTREME LEFTIST government      do the same as Leftist, but *ALSO* can kill
you if you not agree to the policies. For example Stalin has killed several
milions of Ukrainian farmers because they were too individualistic and
refused to give away their land to the kolkhozes.
Hitler has killed several million Jews to redistribute their wealth.


There are also MIXED, RATHER-RIGHTIST, RATHER-LEFTIST goverments.


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU