HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:56:00 GMT

In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>The posts regarding the libertarian attitude toward Dueling and Gladiator
>contests was very interesting. My assessment is that libertarians seem
>not to find anyting in the tenants of libertarianism that would make
>such events illegal. However, it seems that many of them seem a bit 
>uncompfortable with the thought of them being legal. 
>
>To take the case one step futher.
>
>Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
>stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
>for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>
>Would this be legal in a libertarian world.

I don't know libertarian from shinola, it's her life. Why shouldn't she be
able to do with it as she pleases?

jack

--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Libertarian Elector History (Was: Previous Libertarian showings)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:41:52 GMT

From article <1571@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>, by king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King):
> 
> the maverick elector in a footnote, and didn't list a party.  I take it
> that John Hospers and Theodore Nathan were the people on the Libertarian
> ticket that year?  For what it is worth, the elector came from Virginia.
> 
> jking

The maverick elector was Roger McBride, a Republican who could not stand
voting for Nixon.

Close, but not Theodore Nathan.

McBride voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.
Tonie Nathan was the first woman to receive an electoral vote in the U.S.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.desert-storm
Subject: No More Jets for Saudi Tyrants
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:32:25 GMT
Organization: Virtuoso Realities
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu



George Bush, master of foreign policy, has just announced the sale
of seventy-two F15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia.  Some facts about
the Saudi government:
   * No elections
   * No legislature
   * No political parties
   * No free press
   * No trade unions
   * No constitution
The F15 is arguably the most advanced tactical fighter produced (I'm
not an expert) and it seems to me that Bush should have learned from
his mistake in Panama (supporting Noriega) and especially in Iraq
(supporting Hussein), but Bush is either an amnesiac or lacks any
discernible principles whatever.  The Republicans love to crow about
freedom and liberty, but they sure are quick to embrace the most
repressive governements they can find.  (I am reminded of Senator
Alan Simpson's spirited defense of Saddam Hussein.)
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

 Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    --Lord Acton
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:49:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
>the Detroit News did a series on school spending in Southeast Michigan,
>and area that includes the highest and lowest spending per pupil in the
>state, as well as some of the highest and lowest scores on standardized
>achievement tests. Their staistician found no correlation between per-pupil
>spending and achievement.

Well-behaved children in prosperous areas with supportive
parents are likely both to do better at tests and to require
less spending to educate and keep disciplined. This is why
correlations between per-pupil spending and achievement are
likely to be negative if anything. I would have thought that
any competent statistician who wasn't acting as a paid agent of
some particular political creed would have noted this right
away.

Matthew Huntbach
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gallup circa Labor Day
Date: 6 Sep 1992 05:29:06 GMT
Organization: Psephology R Us
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


[Gallup Poll; 1007 registered voters surveyed from Aug 31 to Sep 2;
 m.o.error +/- 3%; all figures in %.]

         Current Aug_22 Aug_20 Aug_12 Aug_1
Clinton    54      52     51     56     57
Bush       39      42     39     37     32

                  Very_Important  Bush_Better  Clinton_Better
Economy              89              34              55
Education            84              35              54 
Deficit              77              32              53
Health care          75              27              62
Taxes                69              38              50 
Environment          62              30              58 
Family values        52              47              38
Foreign affairs      42              67              24
Abortion             38              32              52
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

 The great tragedy of Science --the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
 by an ugly fact.
    --T. H. Huxley
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.101741.12698@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
 
>In article <1685FE58A.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>
>>3)  Suppose the vouchers drain a large portion of the students (and
>>money) from the public schools.  There is a critical mass of students
>>(and money) below which the school cannot survive.  If the only
>>students left are those who are too poor to afford a private school
>>even with the voucher, what do we do?
>>
>That is the whole point.  If the local school is soo bad that everyone sends
>their kids to different schools, that school should be closed down.  If I have a
>restaurant that serves bad food, and no one buys, I shut down.  Why
>should a school be any different.  This presumes that other schools
>are around (in all but very small towns).
>
>People vote with their feet now.  They move to neighborhoods with
>good schools.  This leaves inner-city schools in a lurch.  Why should
>people in inner cities not hav a chance to get their kids a better
>education?
>
>
>sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
>sean@cae.wisc.edu
>
Thank you for the response, but you did not quite answer the question I
asked.  I asked what if a *majority* of the students abandoned the
public schools, what do you do with those that are too poor to afford
an alternative even with the voucher.  I repeat:  What do we do with
them?
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.023634.837@news2.cis.umn.edu> stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
>confusing indeed.  I still can't get over
>the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
>in public.  According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
>Is this true?  It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
>of the vote with such a wacky belief.  If it's not true, then I wonder
>if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
>If so, I shudder.  If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
>No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
>contact.
>
>Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
>anywhere near the Presidency.

:-) 

We'll find out in November if you're still alive or not. Please post and
let us all know, ok? Thanks!

Vickie


"Kill, for god forgives.../You should be certain to kill/Bush never lies...
Kill without feeling.../For the United Nations will clear the path"
                                                            Astrid Hadad


>
>Jack Stecher
>stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12578 talk.politics.misc:44082
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:19:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Sep7.181148.22935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
   college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
   most popular votes to be the winner?

Quite simply because the people of the state of Wyoming would have their
legitimate interests subordinated to the interests of, say, New Yorkers.
Some columnist brought up an interesting thought on this a couple weeks
ago.  (Sorry about the lack of refs)  He showed how 51 votes in the state
of Alaska could elect the President.
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Some state polls
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:56:31 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <1992Sep7.153823.9803@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>One more [poll] I heard about: in Tennessee, Clinton/Gore only lead by 4 
points.
>Kind of surprising in Gore country. Could be a fluke.  
I'm not surprised.  After all, Dukakis couldn't even raise a fight in Texas 
with Bentsen on his ticket.  I figure the Dems. see any state in the old
South (besides Arkansas) that goes for them as gravy and an indication
that things are going very, very well.  Rather they look at the South as
a Bush base where they can give him trouble.  The more he has to work to
nail those states down the less emphasis and energy he can devote to New
Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan.
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:19:21 GMT

I have been following the "school choice" arguments with interest.  I
can see some attractive features in the voucher concept, but I am not
yet convinced that it is a good idea.  I have a few points that make me
uneasy.  Perhaps the voucher proponents could address these.
 
1)  Some have stated that only the "rich" can afford to send their
children to private schools.  This is not true.  My family was
definitely middle class...my father was a postal clerk.  When busing
started, he put my younger brother and sister into a private school.
Vouchers would have made it easier, but he could definitely afford the
expense without them...he did it for ten years.
 
2)  The argument has also been advanced that a voucher would enable a
poor person to make the same choices as the "rich".  I disagree.  The
really rich can send their kids to prep schools whose expense rivals
Harvard's.  A $2000 voucher would not come close to giving the poor
or even the middle class an equal choice.  In fact, it seems to me that
a $2000 voucher is worthless to a poor person unless there is a school
nearby for which it covers the entire expense.  If the tuition is $2500,
the really poor would be unable to scrape together the extra $500.
Even if the voucher covers the expense of the school, how would the
poor pay for other expenses like transportation to a distant school?
Vouchers would really give "choice" only to the marginal few who can
almost afford it already.  It mainly subsidizes those who can already
manage the expense.
 
3)  Suppose the vouchers drain a large portion of the students (and
money) from the public schools.  There is a critical mass of students
(and money) below which the school cannot survive.  If the only
students left are those who are too poor to afford a private school
even with the voucher, what do we do?
 
I am undecided on this issue, and willing to be convinced.  I need to
decide by November, because Colorado has a school voucher initiative on
the November ballot.  If anyone can address these issues (pro- or anti-
vouchers) it would help me to make up my mind.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Previous Libertarian showings (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:02:48 GMT

jking writes:
>                                 The American Independents under
>Wallace were the last third party to win electoral votes...

It must have been a maverick elector, but I notice that the Libertarians
garnered 1 electoral vote in 1972. So when it's all said and done, at least
it won't be a shut-out. But mark it down as an error, not an RBI.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:52:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.005048.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>OK, I *won't* say it's a dishonest trick.  It is an indication that Marrou
>either is stupid (for thinking that the D.N. results truly measure the LP's
>influence) or thinks we're stupid (i.e. you don't know how truly unrepre-
>sentative Dixville Notch is of the U.S., and thus it's OK for us to pretend
>that it's important).

Look, it's very simple:  The point is, given a level playing field, we can
hold our own.  We were able to saturate tiny D-N the way the Repubs and Dems
can saturate the whole country, and we not only did well, we won.  If you 
don't think it's impressive, fine.  But I don't understand why you consider
it insignificant.

>But the whole meta-psychology of the LP, as outlined in this relentlessly
>cheery series of articles out of their camp, makes it unlikely that they will
>attract new supporters to get themselves out of the rut they're in.

Huh?  The Repubs and Dems got where they are by appearing before the voters
morosely reciting lists of their defeats?

  Thanks awfully,
           Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: New Newsweek Poll
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:57:55 GMT

    According to the results of a new Newsweek poll which I heard about on
the radio last night, Clinton has widened his lead over Bush to a 15 point
margin, up five points from the previous poll.  The actual numbers were
53-38.

Greg

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:13:24 GMT

In article <1685EBB22.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>,
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>Why is it that no one wants to take on the only real issue there is
>regarding abortion?
>
>There is one, and only one, issue: Is abortion murder?

Murder is the willful taking of another human life in something
other than an act of self defense.  Thus we can not answer the
question as to whether or not abortion is murder unless we first
come to a consensus about what constitutes a person.  Since
personhood involves issues of both science and religion I don't
think it is something that we as a society will ever reach consensus
on.

The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
determination for the rest of her life.

As a pragmatist I also recognize that it is impossible to enforce
laws against anything when even a small but significant minority
does not see anything wrong about the behavior being outlawed.  This
is one of the major reasons that the war on drugs has been a dismal
failure and there are far more people who think that abortion is
okay than there are people who think drug use is okay.

> Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13248 talk.politics.misc:45683 rec.gambling:4824
From: gelman@smiley.Berkeley.EDU (Andrew Gelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,rec.gambling
Subject: "Vegas" or "London" odds on the Presidential election
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:40:43 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley

Does anyone know what the "official" odds are for the U.S. Pres. election;
"Vegas" odds, "London" odds, whatever, would be fine.  (Actually, if anyone
has this on line, I'd also like to get the odds from the 1988 election too.)
In either case, the ideal thing would be a list of the odds over time,
but even just the current odds would be nice.

Thanks in advance.  Please reply by e-mail rather than the net.

Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: More polls (early Sept.)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:43:56 GMT

Recent nationwide polls:

polling org.       dates     Clinton  Bush  plur. margin  group polled
================   ========  =======  ====  ===== ======  =================
Post/ABC           9/2-9/6      53     38    15      3    registered voters
Gallup/USA Today   8/31-9/2     54     39    15      3    registered voters
NBC                9/3-9/5      49     40     9      3    registered voters
Harris             8/26-9/1     50     45     5      3    likely voters
Tarrance group     9/1-9/6      48     43     5      3    likely voters

"registered voters": People who say they are registered to vote. In the
last election, about 66% of eligible voters were registered. About 75%
polled claimed they were registered however. Polls based on self-identified
registered voters typically overstate Democratic strength, because the
non-registered people participating in the poll tend to show Democratic
preferences.

"likely voters": the polling organization uses models based on demographics,
past voting records of respondents, their interest in politics, etc., to
predict what the likely voters will do.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12547 alt.rush-limbaugh:4318 talk.politics.misc:44034
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:18:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <pgf.715630578@srl07.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>Yah, god forbid we should sell fighters to a country which will
>use them to maintain their national security and identity separate
>from such a paragon of virtue like Communist China.
>
>Let's not forget that this is the first time Bush has risked
>pissing off the Communist Chinese. And what happens but all
>the retarded liberals start attacking him for it...

I'll speak for retarded liberals to say I'm pissed that Bush doesn't even want
to revoke Most-Favored-Nation trade status for China when they run over their
students with tanks, but when he's 15 points down in the polls, hey, "I'll do
anything it takes to get elected."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: DATA: LA Times Cal. Poll (was: A guess at the electoral votes...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:06:41 GMT
Keywords: electoral votes, poll, polls, california, clinton, bush, toast, :-)

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
Re: LA Times poll showing 8% of Dems crossing to Bush; 16% of Reps for Clinton

A data point from the poll in Ohio: 8% of Dems vs. 9% of Reps.

This seems fairly unremarkable, except that the Columbus Dispatch pointed out
that it's the first time in the polls they've done for last three elections
where more Republicans crossed over than Democrats. It looks like the
Return of the Reagan Democrats. What a fickle bunch though.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:06:26 GMT

rf> Richard Foy

rf> Would libertarians allow gladiator contests as in ancient Rome except that
rf> they would not be involuntary, they would be by contract?

  Boxing is pretty damned close these days. Boxers die on a semi-regular basis,
  but they seem to know those chances when they decide to box. Indeed, we all
  regularly take voluntary risks every day. Now, some people are willing to
  engage in behavior many others may find extremely dangerous, but almost al-
  ways at that kind of level, the participants know exactly what the risks
  are.

  I see no reason *personally* to pass a law against such contests, however,
  anyone who wants to form an Anti-American Gladiators group won't run into
  interference from me. If people are willing to risk getting killed in a
  sporting event, why not let them?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:51:25 GMT

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

>The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
>role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
>consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
>answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
>individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
>determination for the rest of her life.

How then, would a libertarian have acted during the days when slavery 
existed in the United States? Isn't justice a legitimate interest of the
government?

-ACF