HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:35:20 GMT

zs> Zack C. Sessions

zs> [W]hat is in dispute on Global Warming is not whether or not the Earth
zs> is warming, it is. The dispute is how much hotter it will probably get 
zs> and what the possible consequences are.

  The earth (as in globally averaged temperature) is not *known* to be
  warming. Some areas have shown warming, others have not. If you know 
  even a little bit about how the temperature data we do have is distrib-
  uted, and what data we wish we had, then you cannot say unequivocally
  that the earth is warming.

--
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,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:58:58 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>So you believe that the government should be in the business of mandating "
>good," or "moral," or "right" behavior, then.
>Personally, I find such activity by the government unconsitutional AND 
>unreasonable.

I don't think any legal scholar would agree with the first premise, so
your argument could be considered a strawman whose conclusion is suspect.

>I believe that people should be free to associate with whom they choose, 
>regardless of their motivations.

Most liberals would agree with you.  The difference they'd make (and which
is stressed in legal decisions) is that society has public and private
spheres of influence.  For example, the government has no business telling
me whom I must choose as my friends or roommates.  On the other hand,
businesses which engage in hiring, the provision of housing, the selling
of provisions or services, all of these are considered to be in the public
sphere.  Anti-discrimination laws apply only to the public sphere, and
frequently they embody criteria for the transition points between the
two (i.e., forbidding discrimination in housing for non-owner-occupied
units larger than <N> apartments, or holding a firm which employs more
than <X> individuals subject to fair employment laws, or, in the case
of gay rights laws, explicitly exempting religious institutions from
its purvue.

I'm sure someone more versed in the law can underscore the legal
machinations behind such a view better than I.  You can call the
last 50 years of laws and court decisions "unconstitutional"
all you want, but that won't make a very strong brief.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221322.14618@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
}|> 
}The competition will lose if the backlash from bigots
}exceeds the extra business from blacks and sympathetic
}anti-bigots.  And there are no checks and balances preventing
}your libertarian society from generating environments
}in which there is one and only one insurance company.
}There are such checks and balances in our constitutional
}democracy.

We aren't suffering from such policies of natural monopolies.  To my knowledge,
there has never been a natural monopoly with such a policy, and there is good
reason for there not to be.  At any rate, in common law, natural monpolies are
subject to anti-discrimination regulation anyways.  It's a special exception
which proves the rule.

Of course there are incentives against prejudice in a free society.  The
same incentives there are under statism.  The only difference is that in a
free society statists won't be able to initiate force and/or fraud against
others to try to get them not to be and act peacefully bigoted.  Do you truly
think that laws are the only means by which prejudice can be minimized?

}Don't use these loaded words.  Nobody is "bleating".  We already
}have a constitutional democracy --- *you* are the one trying
}to change the rules of the game.

That we have a constitutional democracy is another argument, at best.  But I
digress.

}And there's a difference between compelling someone's feelings
}and compelling fair play and ethical behavior.
 
Yes, in the latter case the statists claim to be acting for their victim's
own good, blissfully overlooking the fact that an individual's own good can
only be accomplished by an act of their own free will.

This is St. Augustine's doctrine of righteous persecution (and if anyone thinks
that's during the Renaissance, they're quite incorrect): coercion is justified
if the statists have good intentions.  Augustine conceived this in order to
better combat his War On Heresy, and now we have it employed in the War On
Prejudice, the War On Drugs, ad nauseum.

It's failed for over almost a milennia and a half now, people!  It's time to
try something else!


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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13271 talk.politics.misc:35319 alt.individualism:4417
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:22:37 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

What?  Libertarianism is the belief that while there are people who
are good, there are also people who are bad, and they are going to do
bad things.  And the trickier and nastier they are, the more likely
they're going to gravitate to the government as a source of power.
And even the only slightly bad people are still going to do bad
things.  Non-rational things.   The whole idea is to limit the damage
these people can do, when their best tool is the government.

Communism requires perfect people.  Libertarianism realizes that
people aren't perfect and works with that, harnesses it even.



-- 
One good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13424 talk.politics.misc:35778
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
Date: 24 Jul 92 6:30:11 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay @ The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA) once wrote....
>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 am glad you are checking it out  -- but you should realize that the 
ADL is a -- to put it mildly -- rather biased source of information.  
These are the gangsters who have been largely responsible for framing 
up Mr. LaRouche, what would you expect them to say.


----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: ault@engin.umich.edu (Matthew Ault)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:34:05 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

I'll probably regret getting into this, but...

In article <1992Jul30.154135.14340@wts.com> jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer) writes:

>Under libertarianism there will almost certainly evolve communities in which
>certain groups (majority as well as minority) are not welcome.  There will
>also evolve more liberal communities in which nearly everyone is welcome.

Doesn't sound like a world I'd like to live in, where communities have signs
like "Niggers, fags and dykes keep out!" at the city limits.

>The greater success of the more rational communities will make them more
>attractive, even to many of the children of the more prejudiced communities.
>If you don't believe that, you are suggesting that
>	THE PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT
>
>I dont believe that.  Do you?
>
>Jens

You are assuming:  a) that the "rational" communities will automatically be
more successful, b) that success of that kind is akin to moral "correctness".
What I envision under that kind of system are communites where "the right
kind of people" will be able to find shelter from those they consider to
be "the wrong kind of people" and will do their best to keep them out.  Such
a community would probably be pretty tightly knit, leading to a good deal
of economic success.  As an aside, I recall that the slave trade was pretty
successful.  Did that success make such practices correct?  It would by your
standards, at least from what I see here.

-matt

-- 
|-------------------------| Sanity is maintained only by healthy and        |
|Matthew A. Ault          |   regular promenades around its border.         |
|ault@caen.engin.umich.edu|     - from _The Complete Wilderness Paddler_    |
|-------------------------|         by J.W. Davidson & J. Rugge             |
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13544 talk.politics.misc:36091
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:19:04 GMT

In article <nkghems@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>>statist government.

>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.


Be careful how you stereotype.  That can lead to bias, prejudice, and 
racism.  Dr. Nancy Lords, the candidate for VP this year is female.

And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.

>>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

>I find it hard to believe that an american business would pay women as much
>as men if they were not afraid of a lawsuit (even with the fear of a lawsuit,
>they pay them less).  I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
>would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  

>The amount of hate that I see for being a gay man, in my day to day life,
>convinces me that given a choice, many many people would be biased against
>me.

Then don't associate with them.  Why would you want to?

>All the evidence that I have seen for libertarianism is history which has
>been rewritten to make libertarianism seem like the answer.

What?  Where?  What on earth are you talking about.

>As a philosophy, libertarianism is perfect.  However, if you think that
>the general population would behave in a rational manner, you have had your
>eyes shut to human nature for your entire life.

Believe me, I have seen human nature.  But governments are made up of the 
same people that you clearly do not trust to act in a manner you consider to 
be "right" or "moral."  If the people cannot be trusted with the choice of 
good or evil, how can a government, which is, after all, made up of the same 
people?

So you believe that the government should be in the business of mandating "
good," or "moral," or "right" behavior, then.

Personally, I find such activity by the government unconsitutional AND 
unreasonable.

I believe that people should be free to associate with whom they choose, 
regardless of their motivations.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:56:01 GMT

In article <l6trvfINNqgp@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael 
Polen) writes:

> Even if all that is true, if you limit the damage government can do, these
> tricier and nastier people will move elsewhere (private sector, TV 
> evangelists, Libertarian Party officers, etc) and do their damage there.

Are you serious?   You really need this distinction explained?    (sigh)

I've received fund-raising letters from both the Libertarian party and
from TV evangelists.   Occasionally I'll send a check to the Libs.  I
throw away the evangelist's mail unopened.   Neither of them can do anything
but _ask_ me to do something (send money to Rev. Billy Bob), or _ask_
me NOT to do something (vote for Demopublicans).   Beyond that they are 
powerless.

Neither the Libertarian Party nor any TV preacher has ever:

    - taken part of my earnings before I even saw the check
    - spent that money to do things I believe are foolish or immoral
    - told me who I _must_ associate with
    - limited the _ways_ in which I may associate with people
    - prohibited me from engaging in voluntary transactions
    - demanded that I use their paper as the only form of legal tender
    - robbed me by purposely diminishing the value of said legal tender
    - lied to me about what causes the diminishing value of said legal tender
    - told me what substances I may put in my mouth
    - maintained (by threat of force) a monopoly on the services they provide
    - imprisoned me for daring to compete with one of these services
    - demanded that I partake of their services whether I want to or not
    - made me pay more for things because of their price supports
    - forbid me to do certain things with a consenting adult in the
          privacy of my bedroom.
    - sent me to a foreign country to kill people I don't know in an effort
         to accomplish a goal I don't agree with.

Governments do all of these things, and many many more, some quite regularly.
Please tell us how the "nastier people" will be able to do anything along
these lines in the "private sector", if the government is fundamentally
limited to protecting people from force and fraud.

> Now how do you limit the damage they can do.  All Ron's proposal does is
> cause them to use a different "best tool."

None of the other tools are in the same class. 

   ---   Rick
  ***   Annoy an eco-fascist -- tell him that the spotted   ***
  ***          owls  have been eating the snail darters.        ***
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:21:10 GMT

In article <MATT.92Jul23124358@physics.berkeley.edu>, 
matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>An interesting theory.  Maybe even a true one.  Still, I'm a
>physicist, and I like to see empirical evidence for theories.  Has
>this actually been the case in societies with pervasive racism?  In
>such societies, has economic competition between insurance companies
>actually worked to eliminate the damage done by that racism?  

>A related question: free-market economics makes a certain set of
>simplifying assumptions about human behavior.  What is the evidence
>that humans actually do behave in this way?  And if, as I believe to
>be the case, these assumptions turn out to be a poor approximation to
>the way that humans actually do behave, how does this affect the
>conclusions that are based on those assumptions?

There is an interesting book you should consider reading.  "Preferential 
Policies" by Thomas Sowell, Ph.D.  This is a scholarly book on exactly
that subject.  Dr. Sowell points directly to evidence of the 
free-market working, even against preferential policies, until those 
preferential policies are strictly enforced (re: police with guns).  He 
points out situations in the US and in other places throughout the world; 
not all of the situations are contemporary, either.  This book was 
copyrighted in 1987, and is generally available in general reading 
bookstores, as well as specialty bookstores such as Laissez Faire in San 
Francisco and New York.  (I have no stake in this book, or LF Books.)

Though Dr. Sowell happens to be a black man, you will not tend to find his 
books in "Black Studies" sections.  He is not PC.

DISCLAIMER:  THIS IS MY VIEW, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 22:55:39 GMT

In article <veal.119@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <nkjfh10@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>I have been thrown out of bars
>>in Detroit where the owner has said "we don't serve faggots here."  Not
>>worth pressing charges, but you bet your ass that if people thought they
>>could get away with it, they would.
>
>     The law does no good if not used.  Perhaps that bar owner would be 
>afraid to toss gays out if he got enough charges leveled at him.

Not if, as you propose, the law which would be used here is eliminated
or not enacted.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 07:59:34 GMT


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.

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. 

I have not seen an issue of the Spotlight for a number of years.
Perhaps a more recent reader could tell us whether any sign of
support for LaROuche or his policies has been detected there.

One of the surest distinguishing signs of a LaRouche oriented 
publication is the advocacy of massive low interest credit to
be deployed by the government to be used specifically for the
rebuilding of our industrial base, our infrastructure, and for
investment in advanced scientific projects, such as a cure for
AIDS. If a publication does not advocate this, than it does not
speak for LaRouche.

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.

-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13333 soc.motss:32285 talk.politics.misc:35540 alt.individualism:4474
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:33:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


Wow, I feel like I should pull quotes from all my past arguments with
libertarians.  They all seem to misunderstand the same points.

In article <1992Jul23.010100.13640@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>: There is a difference between a personal relation and a business relation.
>
>There is? Neither is going to be good unless both parties agree to the terms
>of the relationship. If a person does not wish to engage in either the business
>or personal relationship, then they should have the right to refuse.

There is.  People need to take responsibility for their own actions.  People
within a business have too many policies (my boss told me not to sell to
faggots) behind which they can hide.  You are not personally responsible
for anything that you do in the name of business.  Therefore, businesses
are capable of doing many terrible things, without anyone taking
responsibility.


>: However, libertarians have a hard time seeing this.
>
>Please explain it to us. A bald statement means little or nothing. Give some
>examples.


Do you want my 10 megabyte mail folder called "libertarian_arguments"?




>Only by a vocal minority. They are becoming noisier and noisier as they
>see their power slip slowly away. The majority could care less one way
>or the other, as long as they are not affected. That is why anti-gay
>proposals, in most places, have failed.


And how is libertarianism going to change this.


I was talking with someone re:libertarianism yesterday.  He gave me some
fresh thoughts on the topic.  He feels that libertarianism works fine
in a fronteir type setting, where everyone has an essential service/function
within society.  Therefore, you cannot avoid doing business with someone,
despite personal feelings.  This is certainly true, and in this setting,
I could see libertarianism working.  However, once society reaches the size
that we have, individuals are no longer significant.  One person's patronage
does not significantly effect even the smallest business.  Therefore, they
can be biased without significantly hurting their business.


Jeff
-FWA
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13260 ca.environment:740 ba.transportation:1728