HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: 3rd parties
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:54:31 GMT

I used to be sure of this but now I'm not:

If I vote for, say, Bill Clinton on the liberal line, that will
be counted towards his WHOLE vote total in this state. Correct?
In other words, when they say Clinton got xxxx votes in NY vs
yyyy for Bush: they mean xxxx is a total of the Democratic,
and Liberal/other votes for Clinton and yyyy is the total of
the GOP, Conservative, Right to Life/etc votes for Bush. 
Am I right?

Thanks,
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: tiered wages
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:54:35 PST
Organization: BBS

instead of fixed minimum wage, why not establish the minimum as a percentage
of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices this: the most
trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation no less than
X% of that of the highest-paid.

unlike other manners of redistributing wealth, the tiered-wage system would
not incur the offense of the libertarians or laissez-faire marketeers among
us.  in fact, such a system would seem to stimulate the practice of efficiency
among our corporate leadership, as their profit would be tied to what they
could afford to pay their employees.  and the worker's interest in the
success of her business would follow the executive's, linked by that little
percentage sign.

a thought.

--dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:11:13 GMT

dl> David Liebman

dl> Instead of fixed minimum wage, who not establish the minimum as a percen-
    tage of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices this: the
    most trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation no less
    than X% of that of the highest-paid.

  Why not simply let the market determine if people want to work for (or own)
  companies with this wage system, instead of imposing it on everybody? If the
  idea is so superior, then enough companies will end up having such a system
  that those of us in the Working Class will finally get our just dues from
  our Robber Baron Overlords.

dl> At any rate, perhaps the more immanent rationale for a wage limitation
    would be to prevent excessive executive salaries.

  Define "excessive" in this context.

dl> The ratio must be mandatory, not negotiable, as in federally regulated (and
    it must be federal, to prevent capital flying from state to state).

  This isn't good enough anymore. Capital flies from country to country these
  days, and countries that harass this flow (like the US) are signing their
  own economic death warrants.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.000511.19890@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>In article <dliebman.1uce@terapin.com>, dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
>> instead of fixed minimum wage, why not establish the minimum as a percentage
>> of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices this: the most
>> trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation no less than
>> X% of that of the highest-paid.
>> 
>	It's still offensive to libertarians, since it states that a 
>company and an individual can't agree on whatever wage rate they wish.
>	-Allen

Another interesting idea is the 'salary cap' system employed by the NBA.
The idea here is that the players as a group are entitled to a certain
percentage of total team revenues. The exact division of the money is
a matter of negotiation between the individual players and the team, but
both parties go into the negotiation with the understanding that there
is an absolute limit on how much can go to the players.

The system has been successful enough that both the NFL and major league
baseball are looking into it as a solution to their salary problems.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:22:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Bw2C2C.Azv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.010651.13634@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>Taking pain to balance the budget on the one hand, and losing confidence in
>>the US government because of the hopeless debt, on the other, will result in
>>structurally different situations.  In the latter case our entire social and
>>legal structure is gone or at least severely damaged.  In the former, when
>>we do it gradually and spread out the suffering, this structure is still
>>intact: we're simply getting high unemployment and the things that go with
>>it.
>
>  The problem is that **NOBODY** has proposed a way to "spread out the
>  suffering".  If we have, say, a 12% unemployment rate, then this means
>  that 12% of the working population have NO jobs, so they bear the full
>  brunt of the economy's wrath, and the rest have jobs and can live normal
>  lives.  "Spreading out the suffering" means that when there is not enough
>  work to go around everybody agrees to work, say, 12% fewer hours, with
>  12% less pay and benefits, so that something like full employment can
>  be maintained.  But there are no practical and ethical ways to do this.
>  Attempts to do so are called "socialism" and are wretched failures.

As I have been trying to point out, it's not like WE HAVE A CHOICE.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: International Relations - any students out there?
Keywords: international relations
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:31:19 GMT

I was wondering if anyone reading this newsgroup was a student (or teacher)
of international relations, and interested in an ongoing discussion about
issues and/or theoretical developments relevant to the field?

I'm currently studying international relations, and will most likely be
writing a 4th year thesis next year on an IR topic (yet to be finalised),
so would appreciate the opportunity to be able to discuss various issues
with others studying in the area elsewhere. 

Feel free to reply via email or to this newsgroup.

Dey

Dey Alexander
Department of Politics, Monash University (Australia)
pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au
Fidonet: 3:632/352 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Nozick on Anarchy (was: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:42:40 GMT

I've always thought that the main virtue of Nozick was his critique of Rawls
and his ability to make academics realize that ol' Locke's theory is worth
reconsidering.

George Smith has published an essay refuting Nozick's argument that private
protection agencies would go minarchist titled "Justice Entrepreneurship
on the Free Market" in his book "Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies."


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:56:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct13.010651.13634@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>Taking pain to balance the budget on the one hand, and losing confidence in
>the US government because of the hopeless debt, on the other, will result in
>structurally different situations.  In the latter case our entire social and
>legal structure is gone or at least severely damaged.  In the former, when
>we do it gradually and spread out the suffering, this structure is still
>intact: we're simply getting high unemployment and the things that go with
>it.

  The problem is that **NOBODY** has proposed a way to "spread out the
  suffering".  If we have, say, a 12% unemployment rate, then this means
  that 12% of the working population have NO jobs, so they bear the full
  brunt of the economy's wrath, and the rest have jobs and can live normal
  lives.  "Spreading out the suffering" means that when there is not enough
  work to go around everybody agrees to work, say, 12% fewer hours, with
  12% less pay and benefits, so that something like full employment can
  be maintained.  But there are no practical and ethical ways to do this.
  Attempts to do so are called "socialism" and are wretched failures.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: AIDS
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:17:08 GMT

UCal-Berkeley scientist Peter Duesberg noted, in 1987, that there was not a 100%
correlation between HIV and AIDS. Therefore, HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV and
AIDS are old diseases. AIDS increased after recent sex and drug revolutions.
    The hard drug lifestyle of malnutrition, sleeplessness, and chronic tension
causes AIDS. Some homosexuals into hard drug lifestyle to relax physiologically
and psychologically. Homosexual activists pressured Am. Psychiatric Assoc,
between 1968-73, to define h. as healthy. This removes APA from science and onto
side of Church against Galileo: politically correct.
    Gov't funds much science and in very conformist, anti-science way. Duesberg
was denied further NAS funds by panel that included Gallo (who stole HIV virus
from Montagnier) and Gallo's mistress! Most scientists fear unpopularity and
drug companies went along. 
    AIDS activists fear free will responsibility for rational lifestyle and
claim AIDs just happens. They like egalitarianism to claim all are equally at
risk.    
    References will follow rational replies.
From: dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Recall a prez?
Summary: Nope, no way.
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:32:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <farenebt.718647055@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, 
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes...
>Question:
>Many states have provisions in their state law/constitution that
>a petition can be circulated to recall a governor or other state
>elected official. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms but I know
>some states have it. Is there any provision in federal law or
>the Constitution for the recall of a President or Congressman?
> 
>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
>CLARKSON '95			 	   
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================
>CLINTON FOR PREZ, BOB ABRAMS FOR US SENATE, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-22ND)

	There is no provision in the Constitution for recall elections for any 
federal officers (and I know of no recall statutes, either). However, there is 
at least the theoretical possibility of removal from office.  A list of 
examples appears below:

1) Impeachment and conviction process for President, Veep, and Judges
2) By a 2/3 vote of a house, a member of that house can be expelled.  No
reason is Constitutionally necessary.
3) 25th Amendment process for relieving the President of his duties for 
(supposed) health reasons.  Of course, this procedure is too awkward to use as 
a recall provision.

	If you want recalls, you'll need to push for Constitutional Amendments.

Sincerely,
Doug Chatham

P.S. You're a politically incorrect _liberal_ (!!)?  It's nice to know some
liberals are capable of independent thought. . . .
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:06:51 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>
>In article <1992Sep29.062745.26471@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>
>>The key to this problem is not to say maybe this or that will happen
>>under this or that circumstance, and then we should do this or that.  My
>>whole point was that any academic speculation is playing catchup with
>>hopeless chaos.
>>
>>The key is not to let it happen at all.  That's the difference between
>>proaction and reaction.  Balance the budget.
>
>  But as I pointed out in an earlier posting, effectively taking $350
>  billion out of the economy to pay the deficit could cost nearly nine
>  million jobs -- this would precipitate a depression.   Arguing about
>  whether it should be spending cuts or tax increases only affects what
>  sector of the economy the jobs are lost in - private or public; it
>  doesn't change the basic numbers.
>
>  The point is that a significant chunk of our ~ $5 trillion national
>  economy is borrowed money -- the economy is, in effect, artificially 
>  big and we now need to get back to reality.  I don't see any good way
>  to do this without precipitating one of the problems suggested
>  earlier: depression, high inflation, breakdown of social order, or
>  a totalitarian government -- and maybe ALL of these.

It boils down to this: what happens when one of the world's most trusted
governments says: "I will pay you back" and then doesn't?  I think you'll get
total chaos.

Taking pain to balance the budget on the one hand, and losing confidence in
the US government because of the hopeless debt, on the other, will result in
structurally different situations.  In the latter case our entire social and
legal structure is gone or at least severely damaged.  In the former, when
we do it gradually and spread out the suffering, this structure is still
intact: we're simply getting high unemployment and the things that go with
it.

The EARLIER we start doing it, the EASIER it will be to do it gradually and
fairly.  The earlier we do it, the more structure will be there and therefore
the more people will understand what's going on and not get into panic mode.
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: tiered wages
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:42:13 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
 
> instead of fixed minimum wage, who not establish the minimum as a
> percentage of the maximum?  the ben and jerry's corporation practices
> this: the most trivial wage slave of the company may receive compensation
> no less than X% of that of the highest-paid.

If this were done, I would imagine that the tendency would be to
contract out the lowest-paid or highest-paid jobs.  For example, law
firms or investment banking houses would fire all their clerical
workers and contract with someone to provide clerical services to a
shrunken firm consisting solely of high-paid professionals.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 11 Oct 92 09:26:39 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <37276@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F.
Hranicky) writes:
>
>Social "engineering" has failed because of the premise that people can be
>treated like building material, i.e., the "enlightened" will decide for the
>"material" what is best for them. The irony, as is so often when people feel
>they have the right to direct the lives of others, is that these "engineers"
>have done precisely what is worst for the "material"--preventing some from
>thinking for themselves, and allowing others the luxury of not needing to
>think for themselves.
>

revolutionary! i've not heard the political system of the united states of
america described as "social engineering" before.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: AIDS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:11:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BvxKsM.C53@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>UCal-Berkeley scientist Peter Duesberg noted, in 1987, that there was not a 100%
>correlation between HIV and AIDS. Therefore, HIV does not cause AIDS.

  This is debatable.  The *vast* *overwhelming* majority of AIDS victims 
  *are* HIV+.   The percentage of those who are not is way down in the
  noise level of the tests, i.e., below the false-negative rate of the 
  tests.  Note also that the most sensitive tests for HIV are antibody
  tests which require the immune system to respond properly to the 
  presence of HIV in the blood -- and since AIDS is a disease of the
  immune system it should surprise no one if it doesn't.  The only test
  for the virus itself, PCR, is even less reliable.   So bottom line:
  there are no statistically significant cases of non-HIV AIDS.


>    The hard drug lifestyle of malnutrition, sleeplessness, and chronic tension
>causes AIDS.

  This is idiotic.  First of all, there are well-documented cases of non
  drug-using people with healthy lifestyles who have gotten AIDS from
  transfusions, dental surgery by HIV+ dentists, etc.

  Second there have been millions of people who lived lives of "malnutrition,
  sleeplessness, and chronic tension" with no cases of AIDS or general 
  immune system collapse following these events.   Consider all the people
  who lived in concentration comps in WWII, or POWs of the Japanese, or
  even soldiers on both sides of such prolonged conflicts as Guadalcanal.
  Half the Japanese soldiers on Guadalcanal between August, 1942 and
  February 1943 died of starvation and the rest were being incessantly
  bombed and shelled by the Americans.  Likewise the US 7th Marines on
  the island were malnourished and under 24-hour attack.  But there was
  no recorded outbreak of AIDS in the survivors of these groups over
  subsequent years.   (I just finished reading Richard B. Frank's 
  landmark study of the battle -- strongly recommended, BTW, for 
  military history buffs).


---peter


   





Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Recall a prez?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:10:55 GMT

Question:
Many states have provisions in their state law/constitution that
a petition can be circulated to recall a governor or other state
elected official. I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms but I know
some states have it. Is there any provision in federal law or
the Constitution for the recall of a President or Congressman?

============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON FOR PREZ, BOB ABRAMS FOR US SENATE, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-22ND)
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Force
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:40:49 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

>>Tell me -- how does your wife "coerce" you?
>
>She tells me that she wont do this or that if I dont fix this or that,
>just for example.  This compels me to certain actions.  It is a
>good healthy form of coercion, the same as the kind I apply to my
>kids to get them to go to bed, or to practice piano.

No, it does not compel you to certain actions. You choose these actions
because you don't want to be alienated from your wife. Here, you are free
to choose the action which suits you best. If your wife held a gun to your
head, you could only choose between pleasing her and your life. You are
no longer free to choose to do things about which she might have dissaproved,
because you'll be dead.

>>
>>I don't coerce you.
>
>Never honked your horn or blinked your lights at someone on the road?
>From some of your postings I get the impression that you might be
>a rather rude driver.  But I have no first hand knowledge of course.

This still doesn't compel the person who was being honked at to do anything
else. Have you ever honked your horn at someone going slow and had them
not care? The only time you truly coerce them is when you threaten them with
violence.

>>Just WHAT is this initiation of force that your wife enages in? And
>>have you considered calling the police the next time she does this?
>>
>
>Like I said, coercion is not necessarily the use of force.
>If you want to talk about use of force, do so, but most coercion
>does not involve the use of force, it is much more subtle.  

Certainly, it depends on your definition.

>Stoplights are a form of societal coercion, one which none of us
>challenges.  

Stoplights are eventually backed by the coercive violence of the government.
First a ticket, then loss of licence, then jail, etc.

>The problem with Ayn Rand was that she latched onto "fringe" definitions
>of words like "coercion" and "altruism" and tried to re-write the accepted
>meanings of these words.  I suppose this would be OK if the
>entire world went Objectivist, but since this is unlikely, Randites need
>to check their semantic premises.

With all I have said, however, I agree with this statement. Much of the 
Objectivist philosophy revolves around redefining words--to me, it seems
to be a misleading act, an kind of act I would think they would condemn,
when they present arguments without telling others about the changes.

I agree with much of the Objectivist philosophy, but this is one of the 
points which bothers me.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory