HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 00:48:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.123511.25466@spider.co.uk> ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens) writes:
>There is much less regulation than here or in the U.S. in the supply 
>of basic commodities like food, drink, etc.  Booths have sprung up all 
>over Moscow selling practically anything available in the West;  there is 
>no control over the sale of alcohol, for instance, and I have heard of small 
>children selling pornography on the Metro.

There may be less regulation of the final sale of products to
consumers in Russsia than in the US, but Russia's production is
far from privatized. Sure, regulation takes different forms in
the US and Russia, but if you're trying to claim that Russia's
economy is more free market than the US economy then I strongly
disagree.

>This free market has supplied unheard-of goods, but only to those who can
>afford it; generally those involved in the free market themselves, or those
>who have access to hard currency.  Much of the population go hungry, their
>salaries failing to keep pace with inflation.

Yes, and? The availablity of high-priced western goods does not
cause anyone to go hungry, unless they are stupid enough to buy
a walkman instead of food when they only have enough to buy one
of the two. If you can think of something that would improve the
situation, let's hear it. If not, what's your point?
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "And 180G"
From: mapam@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr R A Khwaja)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Looking for a book
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:56:39 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mycella.csv.warwick.ac.uk


I'm looking for a book called "The Anarchist's Handbook.
It was about making bombs from everyday items and practical advice
on being an urban terrorist, that sort of thing.
I'd be very grateful for help in locating a copy.
The only copy I ever saw was photocopied from someone else.
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Date: 24 Jan 1993 14:10 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan24.165635.143@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes...
:In article <1993Jan24.011823.22440@midway.uchicago.edu>, gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber) writes:
: 
:|> 	You know, MOST people who are taking part in the conversation
:|> you seem to be a part of call themselves "libertarians". They also have
: 
:	i hate to muddy the waters, but as far as i know it is only
:	in american use that `libertarian' has capitalist overtones.
:	why do they want the name anyway?  i has so many
:	mis-conceptions (i see from my kill file that somalia is
:	still being discussed) - i'd have thought 'fundamental capitalist'
:	would be a much better choice.
: 
:	(this might serve as a late apology to someone on this group i
:	once offended by using libertarian as a synonym for 'anarchist')
: 
:	andrew

Well,  I can answer that one.  Most libertarians (of the US variety) have no 
particular desire to be buisinessmen.  Their opposition to trade restrictions
of any form is a consequence of their belief that nobody else has any right to
interfere with voluntary actions between other people in general,  not
as overriding concerns on their own.  Here on usenet,  the idea of big 
buisness unfettered with any anti-trust laws is bugaboo number one,  so
libertarians are "those nuts who want to sell us all as slaves to big
buisness".  In the US in general,  drugs are the number 1 bugaboo and guns
are number 2,  so libertarians are the nuts who want to fill the country with
crack addicts with guns (as if it wasn't already). 

As for Metzger,  most libertarians are not anarchists in the sense that he is,
that is,  most of {us?  them?  somebody} think a certain amount of government 
is a necessary evil.  Mr. M thinks government can be done away with entirely.

Informative St. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:49:00 GMT

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>As a Christian with libertarian leanings I have to back up Tom. There
>is a moral imperative for dealing with wrong doers. In what areas and
>to what degree we persue this (as a society) is a matter for debate of
>course. Punishing (or removeing) murderers is not really what I would
>call controlling other people in the sense that RKBA people would use it.
>
>Saying (and enforcing) thou shalt not murder is a different thing from
>saying (and enforcing) thou shalt not drive a sports car or own a gun
>or drink booze...
>
>Government is a valid institution. And protecting peoples rights is
>a valid function of government.

Well, I would agree that protecting people's rights is an important
function, but as a libertarian, you would have to agree that many
important and indeed life-critical functions, such as growing food, do
not require a government. Similarly, as a propertarian anarchist (or
anarchocapitalist or voluntarist or whatever term you want to use for
me), I would argue that providing people and their property with
security from the initation of violence is indeed a critical service,
but I would argue that, as with food production, it is in fact best
done by private rather than public means.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:12:28 GMT

ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.011823.22440@midway.uchicago.edu>, gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber) writes:
>
>|> 	You know, MOST people who are taking part in the conversation
>|> you seem to be a part of call themselves "libertarians". They also have
>
>	i hate to muddy the waters, but as far as i know it is only
>	in american use that `libertarian' has capitalist overtones.
>	why do they want the name anyway?  i has so many
>	mis-conceptions (i see from my kill file that somalia is
>	still being discussed) - i'd have thought 'fundamental capitalist'
>	would be a much better choice.

We used to be refered to as "Liberals", but the Fabian Socialists in
England took over the name. If you can get them to give us the name
back, we will gladly return the name "libertarian". In any case,
though, your contention that the word is used only in the U.S. is
patently incorrect -- I'd contact the Libertarian Alliance in the U.K.
if you don't believe me.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:50:59 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan19.190623.9255@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>Get real, Mr. Cooke. Socialists have NEVER had a monopoly on the
>notion of anarchism, and if anything the anarchocapitalists have been
>around longer, as the first people to seriously broach the notion of
>anarchism in the modern sense in the 17th century were individualist
>rather than collectivist in orientation. In spite of this, of course,

Not here, they weren't; the first radical group that can be definitely
identified as anarchist were the Diggers, who were definitely collectivist;
anarchist communist, I would say.  I don't think you can claim the
individualist tradition for 'anarchocapitalism', whatever that is, and
certainly not outside the U.S.  Mr. Cooke is right; the majority of
anarchists have been 'libertarian socialists', or 'libertarian communists' 
(if only because it is the collectivist tradition that has got organised).
How does anarchocapitalism differ from unregulated capitalism (we've seen
the ghastly effects of that)?

ian

---
	 Ian Heavens			ian@spider.co.uk                 
 	 Spider Software
 	 Spider Park, Stanwell Street		
	 Edinburgh, EH6 5NG, Scotland	+44 31 555 5166 (Ext 4347)
--
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Organization: Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:56:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.011823.22440@midway.uchicago.edu>, gr2a@quads.uchicago.edu (david rolfe graeber) writes:

|> 	You know, MOST people who are taking part in the conversation
|> you seem to be a part of call themselves "libertarians". They also have

	i hate to muddy the waters, but as far as i know it is only
	in american use that `libertarian' has capitalist overtones.
	why do they want the name anyway?  i has so many
	mis-conceptions (i see from my kill file that somalia is
	still being discussed) - i'd have thought 'fundamental capitalist'
	would be a much better choice.

	(this might serve as a late apology to someone on this group i
	once offended by using libertarian as a synonym for 'anarchist')

	andrew

	is there an alt.linguistics we could move to?  ah, but 
	chomsky would be there, too....


    fax (0223) 337523          andrew cooke            (0223) 337504/48 
    institute of astronomy, madingley road, cambridge, cb3 0ha, england   
    i think about you in as many ways as the rain comes  norman maccaig
From: ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:35:11 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan25.102033.7878@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.180242.6299@spider.co.uk> ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens) writes:
>>People are starving in Moscow, because there is bread, but they cannot
>>afford to buy it.
>>
>>Not much of a choice, incompetent state socialism or the unregulated free
>>market.  The latter is a license to exploit others, as is being shown now, rather
>>than 'liberty'. 
>
>I hate to point out the obvious, but:
>
>Russia is hardly an unregulated free market

There is much less regulation than here or in the U.S. in the supply 
of basic commodities like food, drink, etc.  Booths have sprung up all 
over Moscow selling practically anything available in the West;  there is 
no control over the sale of alcohol, for instance, and I have heard of small 
children selling pornography on the Metro.

This free market has supplied unheard-of goods, but only to those who can
afford it; generally those involved in the free market themselves, or those
who have access to hard currency.  Much of the population go hungry, their
salaries failing to keep pace with inflation.  This booming sector in the economy does
not fuel investment, either. 

Of course, there are many areas, such as telecommunications, where the market
is still highly regulated.

>	and
>
>Russia hasn't even been a non-command economy for long. I don't
>expect miracles.

Yes, I realise that it is a bit unfair to criticise it at the moment.  

ian

---
	 Ian Heavens			ian@spider.co.uk                 
 	 Spider Software
 	 Spider Park, Stanwell Street		
	 Edinburgh, EH6 5NG, Scotland	+44 31 555 5166 (Ext 4347)
--
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:47:20 GMT

corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

>>Philosophy is about man in the real world.  You can talk about utopia
>>if you want but it isn't a philosophical discussion.
>>
>Sorry.  I thought philosophy was talking about what _ought_ to be, not
>what _is_ or _will be_.  Anarchy _ought_ to work.  There _ought_ be no
>murder.  People _ought_ to be able to get along without government.

	As many proponants of anarchy have admitted that it is an
impossible state to achieve, or one that would only last the 5 seconds
it takes for some genius to think of dominating others, it is a cartoon-
only concept.   Some have gone so far as to say it _would_ work, if only
humanity could change, if only nobody would think of that.

	Interjecting anarchy into a discussion of what is a good society
to have (vs democracy, free market, communism, or all the other real-life
competitors), is exactly analogous to, during a discussion of which car 
is the best buy, interjecting the comment that a giant flying bird would be 
an even better vehicle than a car.

	The topics are both non-sequitors, therefore not relevent to this 
earth, or any discussion about what might take place on it.

>No!  Of course not!  Since when have I been discussing the real world?
>I have repeatedly said I was not.  I was talking about the way things
>_ought_ to be.  The Croatians _ought_ to forgive and forget, and so

	Exactly like we _ought_ to prefer using giant flying birds to 
ride to work in over cars.

Jim Del Vecchio

"If the world were an orange, it would be much too small"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:59:00 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) writes:
> >    How do you deal with private property that extends to things you don't
> >actually own, like the earth and sky?
> 

Well, a bit of nit-picking here.
In real property law, if you own some, you own from the center of the 
earth to the end of the universe (assuming a flat universe...).
Only in relatively recent times has the _government_ taken away the earth 
and sky.  I believe the feds nationalized everything over 50,000 feet.  
State and local governments and regulations have limited local airspace 
and geological rights.  For example, I believe Utah and Nevada have 
nationalized underground aquifiers.  So you pay the government so many 
dollars for the right to pump so many acre-feet (I think 7 1/2 acre-feet 
is considered adequate for a family with farm animals in Utah).  Take 
away these governments and you could get your property rights back.  Good 
luck trying to hold on to them under anarchy!

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: adam@zooid.guild.org (Adam Lawrence Salter)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Cops on Horses! Methods of defence>?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:52:25 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids



   I was at a demonstration recently in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The police
rode into the crowd on horses and whipped the crowd on their heads and
shoulders and also the horses stepped on several people, inculding a cop who's
shoulder was dislocated by it ;->.

  Anyway, I wanted to know if anyone here knows of any methods, that won't
hurt the horses (I don't mind if it hurts the cops of course) to scare the
horses back. The horses were already extremely reluctant to enter the crowd
and only pushed in about 15 feet. They were bucking and had to be whipped hard
and constantly to make them go forward.


   Thanks!!!


             
                                                            adam

P.S. is their anybody here from Toronto who went to this demo?
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: quote
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:22:16 GMT

In alt.society.revolution <21JAN199311411917@rigel.tamu.edu>, gmw0622@rigel (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>	Mr. Clinton in his innauguarl adress said,  "Thomas Jefferson believed
>that to preserve the very foundations of our nation,  we would need
>dramatic change from time to time.  Well my fellow Americans,  this is
>our time.  Let us embrace it.
>
>	This is pretty clearly a refernce to a Jefferson quote which I'm
>sure many of you are familiar with,  it goes something like,  "The tree
>of liberty must have its roots watered from time to time with the blood of
>patriots and tyrants".
>
>	Just what is our President calling for us to do?

I was wondering about that also.  There's been talk about Clinton
setting up a new very big federal police force, perhaps he's trying to
be a good sport and arrange some resistance?

On the other hand it might be that he's just trusting that everyone
has forgotten what Jefferson really said, or that as you can check
from the History Dept, in fact Jefferson didn't really say what you
mistakenly and revisionistically claim him to say but was talking
about how the roots must be nourished with water and bullshit.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
From: duve@ellis.uchicago.edu (michael andrew duvernois)
Subject: Re: M.A.P. PURGES MIM
Reply-To: duve@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:37:48 GMT

In article <C1IqrI.DqA@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>Hank Roth <pnews@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>> While Harel [Barzilai] won't permit debate over this in M.A.P. or posting
>> by MIM [...]  And as he would have it, other *left* groups, i.e. RCP would
>> also be purged, so that a sanitized version of the LEFT would be all that's
>> LEFT. [...]  because MIM and WWP have come out in support of SL, a people's
>> communist movement in Peru, Harel deems that "moral cowardice" and
>> "cheerleading" for SL (and anyone who posts their articles are also
>> resorting to "moral cowardice".) and are not worthy of posting to M.A.P.
>
>Out of this alphabet soup I can work out that SL is Sendero Luminoso and
>M.A.P. is misc.activism.progressive.  RCP is presumably Revolutionary
>Communist Party, but do you mean the US or British one?  (they are not
>aligned together, so it matters).  And MIM and WWP are a complete mystery
>to me.  Explain?
>
MIM = Maoist Internationalist Movement   (have a neat paper distributed
                                          on campus once and a while)
WWP = World Worker's Party (or Worker's World Party)

Mike
From: bbs.odina@gilligan.tsoft.net (Henry Roth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Imperialism
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:22:06 GMT
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238


 
IMPERIALISM is alive and well.
 
GOVERNMENTS have that power, but not that right. There are no 
laws which grant to countries the right to abrogate civilized 
behavior. The U.S. ignores international law whenever it suits 
this government to do so, but employs it whenever it can bully 
others to go along. 
 
The U.S. government dominates the world through use of economic 
and military power. Those who believe that right makes right  
are on the side of imperialism, but history has proven that concept to 
be wrong. Might may not go gentle into that good night, 
but it will fail to win hearts and minds, it will cause despair 
and death and will be opposed by the greatest force on earth, 
the PEOPLE.                                                  
 
 
 
     <---HANK ROTH--->

--
Henry Roth (bbs.odina@gilligan.tsoft.net)
From: pnews@igc.apc.org (Hank Roth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Scan or Ban
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:55:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1672200006:000:2952
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pnews    Jan 26 19:55:00 1993


/* Written  7:48 pm  Jan 26, 1993 by pnews in igc:p.news */
<<< via P_news/p.news >>>

The letter following this was posted by Harel to M.A.P. to 
demonstrate support for his position. While Harel won't permit 
debate over this in M.A.P. or posting by MIM, he nevertheless is 
piling up everything he can to justify what the writer of this 
post [to follow] refers to supportively, as "N. American left 
efforts to purge these apologists from the U.S. left". And as he 
would have it, other *left* groups, i.e. RCP would also be 
purged, so that a sanitized version of the LEFT would be all 
that's LEFT. For leftists, like Harel [ET AL] to condemn Stalin, 
as he did in a previous post vis-a-vis this topic, they [Harel & 
company] certainly behave like Stalinists, with their call for 
purging MIM and RCP, among others and all their name-calling. I'm 
not defending MIM per se. MIM also resorts to it's share of name-
calling. But, because MIM and WWP have come out in 
support of SL, a people's communist movement in Peru, Harel 
deems that "moral cowardice" and "cheerleading" for SL (and 
anyone who posts their articles [referring to Kelly and to me] 
are also resorting to "moral cowardice".) and are not worthy of 
posting to M.A.P. NO DEBATE [he says]! 

That does amount to `paternalistism', censorship and 
anti-communism and I oppose it on those grounds. 

Does M.A.P. speaking through Harel also oppose the PLO for 
resorting to violence in its war for liberation against the 
Israelis? NO. I'm reminded of the confused answer to the 
question: Who is the `freedom fighter' and who is the 
`terrorist'?  Is it whoever M.A.P. and AI say it is? 

I'll decide for myself, thank you.---Hank Roth 

************************************************************************
From: MIKESH <MIKESH%EARLHAM.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
TO: Harel <misc.activism.progressive> M.A.P.
Subject: Against MIM

---------------------- Original note follows ---------------------------
To Rich and Harel:

I fear that by this time you two have received innumerable 
threats of death for your wise decision to remove MIM from Activ-
L.  After attending the Rethinking Marxism conference in November 
I became so fed up with liberals insistent on extremist free 
speech that I began to wonder where good sense had fled (the 
conference permitted the irritating prescence of the RCP). 

I am friends with one of the chief propagandists for Sendero in 
the U.S. (Carol Andreas, "When Women Rebel") and I am quite 
satisfied with N. American left efforts to purge these apologists 
from the U.S. left. 
               
Interestingly, Chomsky signed some letter criticising the 
Peruvian govenment for its "AUTOGOLPE" last year.  The letter, 
while solid enough, seemed to be the work of Andreas and her 
cohorts.  The letter was published in the Nation. 

Cheers,

Michael Shellenberger
Student

##################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Good Grief!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:22:37 GMT

> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>
>I didn't know this was a list for leftist revolution only. Guess I
>will keep looking for the Libertarian revolutionaries.
>
>				mike
then why don't you suggest some alternate form of revolution. this group
(it is not a list) is open to all types who wish to discuss 'revolution'.

however, talking about 'libertarian revolution' with a .gov email address
is at least a tad ironic.....