HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:07:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article phil@netcom.com, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In short, I accept Ayn Rand's reasoning. Oversimplified (essentials are
>left out), it is immoral to expect/force/try to have a living organism
>act other than how it has been evolved to survive.
>
>I.e., it is immoral to try to force a lion NOT to hunt, or a herbivore to
>run from a predator.
>

Why is it immoral? It may be impractical and unworkable, but these are not the
criteria used in evaluating morality.

>Man's survival is based on thinking, and on applying rationality to
>the process of survival and the Pursuit Of Happiness.
>

What if I apply my rational mind and get different answers than you and ayn?
It seems perfectly rational to me to take something through violence if
I'm sure I can defend myself against your reprisals.

>Since in a rational mode, my only outcome from rational thought is non-coercive
>mutually voluntary behaviour, any coercion interferes with either my thinking
>or the result of my rational thinking and hence is immoral because I am
>being asked to NOT survive as per the only way I was evolved to survive.
>

Are you saying evolution is directed to produce one goal? This is bunk. Evolution
has given us many tools, one of which is the ability to think, another is the
ability to use force, both are required for survival. To put one above the other
is to make an a priori moral evaluation, not reasoned scientific judgement.
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:21:21 GMT
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, 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.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>      Also, legal complexity to a very real extent reflects the actual
>      complexity of the real world.  Even as it is, judges and juries
>      constatnty faced with having to decide how a particular laws maps
>      to some real world problem, a situation which would suggest the
>      need for more and more detailed laws, not fewer.

I contend that most tragedies that lead to lawsuits today happen because
people don't understand their responsibilities under the law.  If the law
was understandable either through simplicity or cleaner structure, most
tragedies would not have happened IN THE FIRST PLACE.  (Or we can have
everybody go to law school if they don't want to operate
in an increasingly insecure legal environment.)

Also, if the law was understandable either through simplicity or cleaner
structure, it would be much easier for voters (and hence legislators) to
see what areas it doesn't cover and fix it as necessary.
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:32:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM's message of 3 Sep 92 15:44:51 GMT

In article <laccnjINN2h6@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:

> I think the world system is evolving in the direction you are proposing.
> Information flows are effectively global, businness is global, travel
> is global and readily available, trade is in general free, coercion levels
> are generally low, in short there's very little that actually ties
> you to one area. 

	If you are familiar with recent news of the Haitian "boat
people" or have any knowledge of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS, "La Migra") I do not see how you can make any such
claim.  True, the international mobility of capital may be rising,
with problematical results, but human mobility hardly is - the fall
of the Berlin Wall notwithstanding.

> Problems with GATT and economic imperialism may make trade less global.

	The problems I see with GATT are primarily that it WILL
make trade more global, and concentrate global wealth in fewer
pockets.

> But nothing will stem the tide of the universality of information and
> culture.

	There is that danger (to culture more than information).
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Competition  (was: Jobs)
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:24:35 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <18lubrINNfie@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
>-*----
>In article <dliebman.1e26@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
>writes
>> of all the time-energy that is expended in this country Competing, 
>> how much for Innovation?  and how much for Manipulation?
>
>I will ignore the false dichotomy.
>
>Undoubtedly, only a small percentage of competitive effort
>results in something truly innovative.  Similarly, only a small
>portion of the sunlight that falls on a garden is used to produce
>tomatoes.  If you believe Pournelle, 95% of everything is crap. 
>If there is a creative process that produces only -- or even
>mostly -- gems, I have yet to hear of it.
>

so much effort is determined not towards the possibility of innovation, but
towards the exploitation of it.  how many different brands of toilet paper are
there in the united states?  how much effort is expended by the companies that
produce toilet paper to convince people that _their_ toilet paper is better
than everyone else's?  how much effort goes into designing packages, creating
and testing new smells and colors?  how much petroleum wasted packing toilet
paper in protective plastic wrapper so that more petroleum can be wasted
shipping toilet paper hundreds of miles so that one oversized conglomerate can
dominate the toilet paper market?  how much money spent buying ads to
manipulate us?

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Remember me?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.151020.7677@auto-trol.com>, johore@auto-trol (John Orendt) writes:
>Are you saying you are for strong central (government) control?
>
>If so, pity you.
>
>The U.S.S.R. is in such sad shape because of strong central control.

You seem to have two extra letters (and dots) in that sentence - USSR
doesn't exist any more.

//Jyrki
From: dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Subject: If a President resigns (Was Re: Is Ross Perot sandbagging?)
Summary: we DO have to put up with the vice-president 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:48:00 GMT

In article <9SEP199214590887@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes...

>More curious a question -- If a sitting president resigns, do we have
>to put up with his VEEP, or is there a way to force a general election,
>through recall?

	According to the Constitution, when a President resigns, the
Vice-President becomes President for the remainder of the term.  The only way
to remove the new President "before his time" is to go through the impeachment
process; there is no provision for a recall election.
	I do not remember the exact place of this provision.  I THINK it's in
the 20th or 25th Amendment.  For a precedent, consider the term of Gerald Ford,
particularly after he pardoned Nixon.  If the people could have recalled him,
they would have.
	Of course, in a rational world, this sort of imposition would not be
made and we'd have a general election a few weeks after resignation.  But who
ever said the human race was logical?
From: robertj@Autodesk.COM (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Censorship is never safe
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:25:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

In article <18j8u4INNgot@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>If the Canadian Government thinks that Bad Attitude deserves
>censorship, then I think the magazine deserves support.  Does
>anyone know what a subscription costs, and where I send the
>check? 

Bad Attitude
P. O. Box 390110
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subscriptions are $24/year (6 issues) for individuals in the U.S., and
$40 for institutions or foreign subscribers.


--
Rob Jellinghaus                | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc.                 |  a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM |  ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS             |    -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:33:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA




In article <#1pnbvq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In short, I accept Ayn Rand's reasoning. Oversimplified (essentials are
>left out), it is immoral to expect/force/try to have a living organism
>act other than how it has been evolved to survive.

  Obviously.   But so what?  That you accept Ayn Rand's reasoning 
  is no more a defense of absolute rights than the statement that
  one accepts St. Paul's reasoning is a defense of Christian doctrine.
  I've read both Rand's essays on ethics and the Bible, and I find 
  neither of them intellectually compelling.  In the specific instance
  of Rand, she uses undefined (in any objective or operational sense)
  terms, e.g., "rational" in key places in her thesis, makes all kinds
  of unsupported assumptions (see below), and generally does a laughable
  job of trying to construct an ethical thesis.  



>I.e., it is immoral to try to force a lion NOT to hunt, or a herbivore to
>run from a predator.
>
>Man's survival is based on thinking, and on applying rationality to
>the process of survival and the Pursuit Of Happiness.
         
  Why does it follow that interfering in (or preventing) the survival
  of something is immoral?   Isn't this a case of assuming one's
  conclusion?  


---peter
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:05:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>I find that politics and morality are most usefully thought about IN
>TERMS OF people's desires, purposes, and inclinations, rather than
>under the assumption of some Good that transcends these, which seems to
>me to cloud the issues rather than help.  
>
>Perhaps Jim Kalb would be good enough to give an example where this
>assumption is helpful.

Sure.  You're trying to decide how to raise your son.  Your son's own
desires, purposes and inclinations ("I'd like to eat chocolate more
often", or what have you) may be relevant, but more as data to take
into account than as something to negotiate about.  It seems to me
that you should not make your decision based simply on whatever your
own desires, purposes and inclinations happen to be, and still less on
those of third parties.  You can't sensibly make the decision based on
speculations as to your son's future (and presumably mature) d., p.
and i., if only because those things will be formed by his education.
So the only thing left (or so it seems to me) is to base your decision
on the good of the child, conceived as in principle independent of
anyone's actual d., p. & i.

-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Remember me?
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:10:20 GMT

wshi@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Weiping Shi) writes:
: Three years ago, I post many articles here about things
: happening in China.   In particular, the necessity to have
: a strong central control in order to perform economical reform.
: Today,  considering what happened in former
: U.S.S.R,  do you agree with me now ?
: 
Are you saying you are for strong central (government) control?

If so, pity you.

The U.S.S.R. is in such sad shape because of strong central control.

Nowadays, thing look bleak in the U.S.S.R. What you are failing to
notice is things have always been bleak in the U.S.S.R. but now thanks
to freedom of the press we hear about them.


-- 

------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Competition  (was: Jobs)
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:46:20 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <18fvp3INNejk@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
>-*----
>In article <1992Sep7.042857.9173@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
writes:
>
>> ...  Competition makes everything boring.  The original, which
>> is what is interesting, is outside of competition precisely 
>> because there's nothing like it.
>
>The above comment *might* apply to a sports match (though, no 
>doubt, Michael Jordan fans would object), but it misses the
>point of economic competition.  There, "something totally 
>different" can take the place of, or even, just show the
>lack of need for, a myriad of minor variations of what was
>previously used.  

of all the time-energy that is expended in this country Competing, how much for
Innovation?  and how much for Manipulation?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Jobs
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:37:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA



johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt) writes:

>It's competition that makes the world interesting.

  Maybe so, but to someone without a job, whether the world is
  "interesting" may be of less concern than whether he can feed
  or house his family.    And if enough people find themselves in 
  such a condition then the world might suddenly become very "inter-
  esting" indeed for those who are well off.  


---peter
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:29:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  The bottom line is still that it's hard (I would say impossible) to 
>  come up with an intellectually credible defense for the existence of
>  absolute rights.

I take it that your complaint would equally apply to claims that there
are objective standards of right and wrong.  But why is it harder to
come up with a defense for the existence of objective morality than for
a defense of the proposition that minds other than one's own exist, or
similar things that philosophers sometimes worry about?

It seems to me that we accept the existence of things if we can't do
without those things when we try to understand the world and human
conduct.  It seems to me impossible to think about human conduct
sensibly without assuming that there is objective right and wrong.  Try
to discuss politics, for example, or think about how to treat your wife
or bring up your children, without the assumption that it really is
better -- regardless of what one's own purposes or inclinations may be
-- to do some things rather than others.  But if that's so, how can we
reject the assumption that some things really are better than others --
that is, that morality is objective?
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Transcendent values  (was: human rights...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:30:02 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Sep11.010546.5396@panix.com>, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
|> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
|> 
|> >I find that politics and morality are most usefully thought about IN
|> >TERMS OF people's desires, purposes, and inclinations, rather than
|> >under the assumption of some Good that transcends these, which seems to
|> >me to cloud the issues rather than help.  
|> >
|> >Perhaps Jim Kalb would be good enough to give an example where this
|> >assumption is helpful.
|> 
|> Sure.  You're trying to decide how to raise your son.  Your son's own
|> desires, purposes and inclinations ("I'd like to eat chocolate more
|> often", or what have you) may be relevant, but more as data to take
|> into account than as something to negotiate about.  It seems to me
|> that you should not make your decision based simply on whatever your
|> own desires, purposes and inclinations happen to be, and still less on
|> those of third parties.  You can't sensibly make the decision based on
|> speculations as to your son's future (and presumably mature) d., p.
|> and i., if only because those things will be formed by his education.
|> So the only thing left (or so it seems to me) is to base your decision
|> on the good of the child, conceived as in principle independent of
|> anyone's actual d., p. & i.
|> 

How does "the good of the child" makes itself known to you.  Since this
knowledge is presumably arising within you, how do you distinguish between
it and your own "desire?"

Paul Collacchi
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:12:56 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In my opinion, no president has the slightest idea of how to
"run" the economy.  I could tell them the secret, but I can't
even convince the regular denizens of talk.politics.theory of
the rightness of my views -- even though they should be
obvious to anybody.

So, yes, definitely, it's Nixon's fault.  Just review the
"Checkers" speech.  Ask yourself what happens to a country
when one of its leaders talks like that to it.

"Guilty, guilty, guilty!!!"     -- Gary Trudeau
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:07:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  *I* don't believe in objective rights but I have no trouble
>  thinking about the world and human conduct.  That is, model that
>  says that rights are socially defined and granted has at least 
>  as much explanatory power as one which assumes absolute rights.

To gain my point I would have to discuss the world and human conduct
with you and show that the things you say implicitly assume
transcendental standards of conduct (I prefer that phrase to "absolute
rights" because it's more general).  Maybe you could consider the
example I just presented to Russell Turpin.  In dealing with your son
would you consider your obligations to him to be reducible without
remainder to whatever they are socially defined to be?

>  But "better" could be defined in terms of practical consequences.
>  And that doesn't support absolute rights since I can conceive of 
>  situatioons where it would be better in a practical sense to kill
>  or rob someone and other where it would not

I don't think this gets to the heart of the matter.  Possibly, what is
absolutely right could be to promote the best possible practical
consequences.  The issue at this point (at least from my point of view)
is more the existence and status of moral truths than what those truths
are.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Grace in non-Christian Religions?
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:22:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <gate.H86NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
>JM>Without exception Christianity is the only "religion" which recognizes that
>JM>man, of himself, cannot please God or be reunited with Him.  I know you
>JM>know this, but it is still the most amazing fact about Christianity and one
>JM>that makes it truly unique.
>
>This is not correct. The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of
>the Lord, no one can approach Him or please Him.

Let me clarify:

God cannot look on less than perfection.  His mercy towards those who have
acepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is that of providing the
ultimate sacrifice so that we no longer require mercy (are without sin)
through Jesus.

Many people are hoping to be "good enough" so that God's "mercy" fills in the
rest.  What they fail to realize is that God's mercy (in whatever form) must
also satisfy His will (the law -- perfection -- w/out sin).  When God judges
the believer, He judges Jesus Christ, who was perfect!  The believer will be
found pure and righteous in spite of his/her independent deeds and thoughts.
This is grace... it is not merely mercy, which must compromise!  God is above
compromising His standard -- THE standard -- so He fulfilled it with one last
sacrifice for all time, so that whoever places their trust in Jesus will
obtain eternal life!

As we have seen, this is one of the simplest yet hardest things to do.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep3.230154.8103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<1992Sep5.010257.2857@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.010257.2857@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> 
prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>I am a Hindu. A part of Hinduism, Bhakti Marg, demands the same as
>Christianity. If you care to read Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 12, 
>Bhaktiyoga), you will see that some Hindus do not "base their beliefs
>only on reason and intellectual feasability".
>Christianity is an instance of Bhakti Marg (in Hindu terms). But
>Bhakti is not the only way to understand/serve the Lord. 

Just curious, I do not claim any religion, that is I claim all, if that
makes any sense. I have read several English versions of the Mahabharata
as well as the KJV and JPS Bibles. Just so you know I mean no malice,
but what do you think of the idea of Krishna similar to Christ and
Christ similar to Krishna? Similar or no similarity, good or bad?
Namaste.
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Cr
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:15 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


JP>In article <exukjb.107.715033652@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ke
JP>ll) writes:
JP>>The problem of the paradoxical stone too heavy for an omnipotent
JP>>being to lift is susceptible of a similar analysis--the task it proposes
JP>>cannot be coherently described, which leaves the traditional doctrine of
JP>>divine omnipotence pretty much intact.

JP>The irony here is wonderful.  Seriously, though, far from "pretty much
JP>intact" you have cut to the heart of the problem of the traditional
JP>doctrine of omni-* divinity: it cannot be coherently described.  This
JP>is quite evident in the circumlocutions required to justify this whole
JP>"free will" concept, just as one example.

Actually, the resolution to the problem of the stone too heavy for God
to lift is as follows:

God is omnipotent, and He has made a stone so heavy that He Himself
cannot lift it. The stone is the Absolute Truth.
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA