HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:25:20 GMT

strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <rdippold.711843594@maui>, rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> >So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?
>|> 
>|> No, crime isn't acceptable when it's done by a private individual _or_
>|> a government.  That's one of the big distinctions, in fact.  Statists
>|> usually give government the right to do something that would be
>|> considered a crime if it was committed by a group of people.

>Gee, I thought it was the other way around.

>I thought libertarians gave companies the right to do something
>that they would consider illegal if it were done by the government.  

>For example, libertarians would allow my
>insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
>forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
>with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
>me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
>think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
>are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.

Exactly.  They both stem from the same principle: That people can
choose to deal with who they wish to.  A government making a law ain't
the same as a contract between two entities.  In the first case the
individuals involved have no say in the matter.
-- 
All electric components are powered by smoke.  Let it out, and they don't work.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:58:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.203709.27148@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>: 
>: Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
>: is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.  Why is this, you may
>: ask?  Because these people have never seen how terrible people can be
>: to each other.  Since they have never experienced bias, they do not see it
>: anywhere.

>You haven't met too many libertarians then. I think you are jumping to a
>lot of conclusions here - based on insufficient information. 

If he were to hang out exclusively with white middle-class males, those 
would be the libertarians he met, no?  And he's accusing ME of bias.

(Humor!  Joke!  Light-hearted-fun-poking!)


-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: elliott@a8.ima.umn.edu (Frank Elliott)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: ima
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.182432.12289@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>: |> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: |> But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>: |> mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>: |> wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  
>
>Not without laws that require such discrimination.  In the south, there were
>many businesses that would have ignored the "Jim Crow" laws, if they had been
>allowed to by the law and the racists. It was because of the local governments
>that they were not able to do so.
>

 This is the most self-serving piece of disinformation I've read in a while.
 Discrimination is possible without laws to impose it.  Remember anything
 from your highschool civics class?  It's called _de facto_ discrimination,
 as opposed to _de jure_ discrimination.  Many black men were thrown in
 jail under false rape charges and were later lynched without a trial.
 An law unrelated to race was applied to have them arrested,
 and a law against murder was not applied to those who lynched them.
 Even minor charges such as loitering or vagrancy were used as an excuse
 for imprisonment.

 I grew up in the South in the 1960's, I know the history of race relations
 there. I'm also aware of the fact that most blacks didn't leave the South
 and head for the more prosperous North because they were faced with
 discrimination in employment and housing.

 Laws to protect the civil rights of blacks were and are needed, and
 as a white southerner I am _most_ grateful people like the Freedom Riders
 who risked their lives to get such laws passed.  They made the world that
 I grew up in a somewhat better place, though there is obviously a great
 deal to be done.

> [Clap trap about a Libertarian Utopia deleted.]
>Bill
>

-- Frank
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13545 talk.politics.misc:36092
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:17:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.072220.21631@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
}In article <1992Jul24.053416.535@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr), whose mind seems to have been
}lost somewhere in the Renaissance, writes:

The Renaissance?  How do you get that?  Voltaire is from the Enlightenment,
and St. Augustine is from the beginning of the Middle Ages.  Are you averaging
the two?  It's one thing to commit an abusive ad hominem, but it's another
to do it badly!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150743.32350@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>|> No, crime isn't acceptable when it's done by a private individual _or_
>|> a government.  That's one of the big distinctions, in fact.  Statists
>|> usually give government the right to do something that would be
>|> considered a crime if it was committed by a group of people.
>|> 
>Gee, I thought it was the other way around.
>
>I thought libertarians gave companies the right to do something
>that they would consider illegal if it were done by the
>government.  
>
>For example, libertarians would allow my
>insurance company to put a clause in my insurance contract
>forbidding me under pain of losing my insurance to associate
>with blacks --- i.e. the insurance companies could coerce
>me to restrict my freedom of association.  But libertarians
>think that government restrictions *preventing* discrimination
>are an illegal abridgement of freedom of association.

The insurance company agreement only takes effect if you read it,
agree to it, and sign it; the government can change the rules any time
it wants. No company has the power to arbitrarily impose anything on
you without your permission; the government does have such a right.
You can in practice usually use another insurance company without
inconveniencing yourself too much; try getting another government.

However, it is indeed reasonable that we would restrict the government
more than we would restrict individuals. For example, minarchist
libertarians would argue that the government is required to use its
police to protect all people equally regardless of, say, their
religion, whereas a private individual might decide he doesn't want to
associate with, say, mormons, because he dislikes them. We restrict
the ability of government to throw you off its property when you say
something that offends the government, but would contend that people
have a full right to throw anyone out of their house they like for
whatever reason.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:47:46 GMT

jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:
: 
: I need some clarification of T. Archer's position and of the Libertarian
: position on anti-discrimination laws.
: 
: Aren't such laws society's way of saying that this type of behavior
: is something up with which it will not put? The so-called
: representatives of society decide that, to the best of their 
: knowledge, most members of the society do not condone this
: behavior and therefore provide sanctions to discourage it?

In theory, that is true. In practice, the politicians pay attention to
those that have the most money to perpetuate their reign.

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13289 soc.motss:32177 talk.politics.misc:35357 alt.individualism:4434
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 14:58:36 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.213645.22779@ncar.ucar.edu> 
gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|fj> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)`
|
|fj> I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a belief
|fj> that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of happiness, and
|fj> conscious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements in life, 
|
| Libertarianism doesn't mandate that these things exist in at "100% levels",
| rather, we recognize that individuals have *sufficient* quantities of these
| qualities to make a libertarian society possible.

Sufficient quantities?  Hmmmm....

|fj> with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
|fj> like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.
|
| I disagree strongly. Are you rational? Note that I *didn't* ask if you were
| "perfectly" rational. Are you rational enough to avoid sticking a lit match
| into your eye? Are you rational enough to avoid running onto a freeway? Are
| you rational enough to avoid eating rotten meat? Add in a few more ques-
| tions, and yes, you are a sufficiently rational person. Now, why do you be-
| lieve so few others are?

Let me see if I'm reading you right.  A libertarian society is
possible because (most?) people are rational enough not to
stick lit matches in their eyes, or run onto freeways, or eat
rotten meat.  And, because (most?) people share these assuredly
advanced characteristics, I needn't worry about what my neighbors
might do were big bad government to disapear?

Somehow the idea of big government asserting its power over
me doesn't sound so bad after all.

Arne
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:39:36 GMT

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:

>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>>fwiw, I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and have
>>almost 20 years experiance in data processing, currently managing several
>>VAX computers and a large PC network.

>Ah. You have an "Al Gore Degree In Scientific Studies", eh?

I love it!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  I think you pegged ole Zack pretty good...

Chad


--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:03:01 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Jul23.075934.28253@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:

>In a post here Ken McVay cites "information in my FAQ" to the effect
>that LaROuche, not Carto now controls the Liberty Lobby. This is 
>astonishing to put it mildly, and I would very much like to know
>the source of this assertion.

The source, if memory serves, was the ADL. I've tried to get some
clarification for it, and will continue to do so, since I do not want to
publish the assertion if it is not based upon fact. I never thought about it
(neither has anyone else, in the several months I have published the b-cpu
faq, the issue has never been raised - that's why I decided to raise it
myself recently) until LaRouche "speeches" began showing up here, and
triggered the memory of the faq.

>I regularly read LaRouche's paper, the New Federalist, and I can assure
>you that I have seen none of the positive referneces to the Liberty
>Lobby or the Spotlight which would be expected if they were now
>LaRouche controlled. 

Thank you - that's a good start, although I suppose he could still have an
interest without asserting it in public, yes?

>If anyone has any further doubts I suggest a simple experiment.
>Get a copy of the New Federalist. Get a copy of the Spotlight.
>Read them. The difference should be clear.

I've been trying to get ahold of the person who forwarded the information to
me, and have put feelers out elsewhere - it shouldn't take long to get some
clarification and sort it out. If I am unable to do that quickly, I will
remove the reference from the material until I can hunt down the source.

-- 
"I boiled  the soap  out  of  the  bodies of women and men.  The process of
boiling alone took several days --  from 3 to 7.   During two manufacturing
processes, in which I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap
were produced." (Mazur, from "Hitler's Death Camps")
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.222404.27664@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) 
writes:

> Repeat after me: "The Market is good, the Market will solve
> Everything, the Market is good..."

Are you the same guy who mentioned straw men in just about every one
of your articles recently?  The one above is on it's way to see the
wizard along with the tin man and the babe with the red shoes.

Do you have some aim besides demonstrating that you can be the most
pompous person in the newsgroup?

   ---   Rick

    *** I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ***
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13591 talk.politics.misc:36207 soc.culture.latin-america:2744
From: kamine@is.rice.edu (Jorge Hershel Kamine)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:47:08 GMT
Organization: Rice University

Not having first hand experience in many of the arguments offered
in the excerpts of Chomsky's work, I feel it would be
inappropriate to argue their accuracy without questioning the
accuracy of my indirect sources.  I would ask a question of those
who feel the Castro dictatorship has been vilified by the U.S.
government and not by its own hand.  Why does Castro's government
maintain such tight emigration regulations?  I have spoken to a
recently arrived refugee (escaped 4 weeks ago) who had to leave
his family behind.  He does not expect that his daughter will be
permitted to leave.  What goal can be served by preventing
emigration?  It appears to me, in my ignorance, that a government
that claims to serve the people would permit free travel in and
out of its borders.  Secondly, I would ask, as many people have,
why Cuba has not had free elections.  I do not feel the U.S. need
be present to validate such an election, but over thirty years
without a change of leadership would leads me to doubt any claim
of true representation.  Finally, although I am deeply ashamed of
the CIA's infamy abroad, I would note that the Cuban government
is hardly in a position to cast the first stone.  Like the U.S.,
it has sought to export its revolution (ideals) outside of its
borders, and beyond the need to preserve its security.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
*       Jorge Kamine Arreola      * "An eye for an eye leaves two men blind."  
*       email: kamine@is.rice.edu *  -Edward James Olmos   
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:03:53 GMT

chas@netcom.com (Chuck Fisher) writes:
>I have long felt that libertarianism makes sense in frontier
>environment, unfortunately that era has past.  California's history
>is rife with classic examples of exploitation from the hiring of
>"coolies" for buiding the trans-continental railroad, to submission of
>the native population by "missionaries", to hydraulic mining
>devastating the lowlands.

Interesting that you chose all examples which involved government
assistance and collusion.  It cuts both ways.  It doesn't mean just
government not stopping people from doing things that don't violate
others rights, it means government stopping people from doing things
that violate others rights.  The indians would probably have given
much for a truly libertarian government.

Why not compare the techniques of J.J. Hill's (?) Great Northern
railroad, the one railroad not intimately linked with the government,
with all of the others?


>The greed that generated these excesses are still with us, I'm afraid.

The government is going stronger than ever, in fact, and is more than
ever a tool of these people.



> And libertarianism seems to give it a stamp of approval.

That chant again!  We've been here before, the strains are wafting
over the hills, yes, it's the chorus... "Anything they don't want to
explicitly forbid, they must be for."
-- 
If little green men land in your back yard, hide any little green
women you've got in the house.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:45:48 GMT

a > adolphson (adolphso@mizar.usc.edu)
gs> Gary Strand
fj> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)`

fj> I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a belief
fj> that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of happiness, and
fj> conscious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements in life, 

gs> Libertarianism doesn't mandate that these things exist in at "100% levels",
gs> rather, we recognize that individuals have *sufficient* quantities of these
gs> qualities to make a libertarian society possible.

a > Sufficient quantities?  Hmmmm....

  Let's put it this way -- since perfection is unachievable and indefinite
  (how does one define the "perfect" cheeseburger?) all we require is that
  we have a reasonable and sufficient definition of what we want, rather
  than a "perfect" one. Is this clearer?

fj> with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
fj> like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

gs> I disagree strongly. Are you rational? Note that I *didn't* ask if you 
gs> were "perfectly" rational. Are you rational enough to avoid sticking a 
gs> lit match into your eye? Are you rational enough to avoid running onto 
gs> a freeway? Are you rational enough to avoid eating rotten meat? Add in 
gs> a few more questions, and yes, you are a sufficiently rational person. 
gs> Now, why do you believe so few others are?

a > Let me see if I'm reading you right.  A libertarian society is possible
a > because (most?) people are rational enough not to stick lit matches in
a > their eyes, or run onto freeways, or eat rotten meat.  

  And a few other (decidedly much more complicated) qualities too. I did not
  say that people being rational at the above-outlined simple level was *suf-
  ficient* for a libertarian society, rather, FJ!! (and most others) possess
  sufficient rationality for the statement "People are rational" to be false.

a > And, because (most?)  people share these assuredly advanced characteris-
a > tics, I needn't worry about what my neighbors might do were big bad gov-
a > ernment to disapear?

  Trust me, a libertarian society won't pop up overnight. It's a process that
  will take decades, and I believe that the government, rather than going pop
  like a balloon, will become irrelevant, and shrink to its proper size.

a > Somehow the idea of big government asserting its power over me doesn't
a > sound so bad after all.

  Question is, if people aren't rational (as FJ!!) claims, how can a rational
  government be formed? Wouldn't an irrational group of people create an ir-
  rational government? Would *you* want a big irrational government asserting
  its power over you? I doubt it.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: euaaen@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Engwall)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: The history of the Red Army Fraction (RAF)
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:01:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.024354.2700@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
show that his/her/their head is on backwards:

>>     THE HISTORY OF THE RED ARMY FRACTION (RAF)

>>     The Red Army Fraction, Germany's oldest revolutionary armed
>>clandestine organization has, for the past 22 years been, as they
>>put it, "shaking the imperialist system".

Interesting to see that someone out still takes these schmucks seriously.
Nevertheless, if you're interested in the subject, try Stefan Aust's
book "Der Baader-Meinhof-Komplex" instead. It's been published in
English, in the UK, as "The Baader-Meinhof Group - the Inside Story of
a Phenomenon" (Bodley Head, 1985). It is especially recommended to
autonome forum, whoever they/he/she is.

--
Anders Engwall				Email: Anders.Engwall@eua.ericsson.se
ELLEMTEL Utvecklings AB			Voice: +46 8 727 3893
"Alvsj"o, Sweden			Fax: +46 8 727 42 20
		"Bryna nuppa fj{ssa sp}nken" - Razor
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.223110.27143@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com 
(Kathy Beatty) writes:

> When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider 
> voting libertarian. 

When Demopublicans and Republicrats start acting in an enlightened manner,
I might consider _not_ voting Libertarian.

> You are an unenlightened idiot if you think that makes me anti-liberty. 

I don't think you are anti-liberty.  You're just unenlightened.  I don't
know enough about you to say if you're an idiot or not.

   ---   Rick

    *** I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ***