From: muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 05:02:05 GMT

In article <1685414BBE.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.004840.27664@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <168541234.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>>muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (MichalFriedman) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.StanfodEDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>[My, the attribution lines are getting out of hand...]
>
>>>>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>>>>>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>>>>>buying one last share?
>>>>
>>>>now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
>>>>aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite
>>>>small if all things work out.  however, you are correct one woudl have to
>>>>define what is a "US corporatioon". and as for controlling who can aquire
>>>>the debt that can be done buy the treasury department not selling it
>>>>to those that do not qualify.  as well as enact laws which prevents others
>>>>from reselling to non-US parties
>>>
>>>     You still haven't answered why non-US citizens and companies shouldn't
>>>be allowed to buy.
>>
>>i thought i had explained. the idea is to reduce foreign influence
>>on US fiscal policy.
>
>     If we're going to eliminate the debt, then this is a moot point.
>However, I was of the impression that it was generally good to have
>someone investing in your country.
>     What, currently, are examples of foreign governments exerting
>undue influence on the U.S. because of how much of our debt they
>finance?

well i am not sure about that but thre has been a considerable amount 
of pressure on other debtor nations to change their fiscal policies
like the russian federation and argentina.

>
>>>>>>	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
>>>>>>	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
>>>>>>	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.
>>>>>
>>>>>No emissions?  Nothing does that.  Not even electricity from nukes -
>>>>>there is still waste.  Maybe from hydro, but do we really want to dam
>>>>>up every single river in the US?
>>>>
>>>>you are wrong about this. there are currently electric cars on the market
>>>>that have no emissions. and in fact los angeles has adopted special
>>>>auto emmision goals that are similar to the one above.
>>>>and i mean emisions directly from cars.
>>>>and you are making needless assumptions as to {hat will happen.
>>>>i never mentioned anything about nuclear or hydroelectric power.
>>>
>>>     You really can't just eliminate car emissions and sit back and
>>>feel all warm and fuzzy about what you've accomplished.  You've still
>>>got to *charge* those batteries, and we still produce most of our
>>>electricity burning coal.  Running all the cars off of electricity will
>>>immensely increase the demand on electricity.
>>
>>this is obvious. my government will attack the problem one step
>>at a time.
>
>     In that case, I think we should install *my* government.  Not only
>will I promise to at least address one step at a time, but I will ocassioanlly
>address problems *two* steps at a time.
>     This is something that should be considered *before* we embark on such
>a path.
>     Instead of just imposing emission regulations (although those aren't
>all that bad an idea) why not also include big tax breaks for companies which
>spend money on researching other ideas to replace the internal combustion
>engine (say, $1.25 or $1.50 write-off for every $1 spent on research).


ok i like this its an excellent idea


>
>>>>>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>>>>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>>>>>	   can be obtained.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems to me it isn't any of your fucking business whether I get
>>>>>counseling or not before I get married.  And if you think my response
>>>>>is intemperate I guarantee you will not appreciate some other peoples'
>>>>>responses.
>>>>
>>>>for sure i only appreciate only rational responses. for the emotional
>>>>ones say nothing except you feelings are hurt. however my goal here
>>>>is to engage in rational discussion on these issues.
>>>
>>>     While I don't exactly agree with the wording, I most certainly
>>>agree with the attitude.  I don't even like the idea of marriage licenses.
>>>I personally dislike the whole psychology/psychatric/counseling
>>>profession, and want nothing to do with them.
>>>     It is none of the government's business who I decide to marry, or
>>>for what reasons.  I am certainly not going to appreciate the goverment
>>>ordering me to go seek counseling on the subject at my expense.
>>>
>>>>however already most states require proof of blood test befroe
>>>>one can get a marraige license. also there is the interest of the state
>>>>which here in america is also the interst of the peopel.
>>>
>>>     Having an interest in something does not confer authority to order
>>>people around.
>>
>[Ahhh, but the government can do what is in the interest of the people.]
>(I accidentally deleted this line, but I think I got the wording right...)
>
>     "In the interest of the people," is a fairly vague concept that could
>be considered to extend from your marriage counseling to outlawing fatty
>foods to prevent heart attacks or outlawing political speech to promote
>political stability.
>     The government may act in the "interest of the people" only where it
>does not interfere with individual rights.  

on this you are not quite correct. in certain situations the government
in the interests of the people *can* supress individual rights. as an
example during times of crises when martial law is imposed. or imposeing
curfews which interfere with the right of peaseful assembly. there are other
examples but i do not have a stack of constituiontal law books in front
of me.


My ideas might cause all kinds
>of uproar (though I don't flatter myself that they do) but the government
>can't show up and make me stop writing them because "it is in the interest
>of the people" that it do so.
>     Granting the government power to do things solely based on "the interest
>of the people" requires that a decision must be made as to *what* the
>interest of the people is.  Allowing the government this kind of subjective
>power is dangerous.


now it is the people that deterimine their interests and if they like
this program they will vote for it.. if it gets elected that it is 
by definintion the interest fo the people. surely this will not 
be imposed against the peopels will hoever a clear voting madate is
taken as a sign of approval.  that is why thsi is a platform and not
my poltical dictates.

>
>>in this case i think improving family life is of important enough interest
>>for the government to play a role. what it comes down to is balancing
>>the righs of individuals vs that of the people as a whole.
>
>     "The people as a whole" do not have rights.  There is no "collective
>right" because the collective has no singular existance.  All rights
>belong to individuals.

this i not quite true. for example corporations have rights.


>     When the rights of individuals conflict with even the good of the
>whole, the rights of the individual must hold sway.  

this may be your opinion but is not is certainly not a fact.
for example individuals cannot excercise their speech in certain
ways for the good of the people for example one is not protected
when one screams "fire" in a movie theater.

If you suppose that
>a group has rights, then it logically follows that the right of the
>group outweighs the rights of the individual, as you do above, based
>on nothing more than there are more people involved.  This means that
>an individual only has rights where they don't conflict with
>the "rights" of the group.  And *poof* your individual rights are
>suddenly your individual privilages, held at the pleasure of the group,
>and the government.

this certainly ios an interestin philosophy of yours but is not quite
the way the consttition is viewd by the supreme court either by the
liberals or concervatives. 




>     *My* right to see, marry, sleep with whomever I choose, is not
>for the government to review one way or the other. 

in my platform the government will not be reviewing anyone.. the governmtnt
wil not be supllying any counselors. they will be private counseloers of 
your own choosing.  now here in america there is not "absolute freedom"
there are certain stated rightsd in the constitution and those that have
come out of supreme court interpretations. but those are the only rights.

 It may be in the
>public interest, for instance, for me to marry one girl over another,
>for whatever reason.  The public, however, is cordially invited to
>keep its nose out of my business.

again the public will not know your business all the governemt wwill want
is a little pieces of paper saying you attended counseling.
>>
>>>
>>>>as i said in the
>>>>platform failed marraiges and families are costly and drain resources.
>>>
>>>     This is one of those situations where "society" has chosen to take
>>>it upon itself to pay for something, becuase it doesn't like what happens
>>>when it doesn't.
>>>     That failed marriages take up "resources" (whose?) is just one of
>>>those chances "society" is going to have to take.

as a voter i do know want to pay for other peoples mistakes or problems
especially if they could have been avoided. and i know many other people
who feel this way.  so if the majority of peopel feel this way then 
this may become law and that is an excercise in democracy.


>>>>>
>>>>>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>>>>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>>>>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>>>>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care,
>>>>>>	         responsibility and costs.
>>>
>>>     You just have to pay more money to the government unless you decide
>>>to go to somebody who wants to take a pry-bar to your brain.
>>
>>ahhh nothing liek assumptions.  i think i expalined clearly what the role
>>of the counselors are.. their role is to give out information not to
>>"pry-bar" peoples brains
>
>     I've dealt with too many "counselors."  They come in all sorts of
>flavors, and too many of them as more interested in playing games with
>your head than giving you any information.

well there will be guidle lines as to what they can do. and certalin peole
will be able to register complaints. and on such complaints and a hearing
if necessary the counselors license can be removed.


>     If their role is simply to give out information, why not just write
>up a pamphlet or something?

well a way is needed to insure that the information gets into their head.. not just into their hands and then into the garbage.  if you can suggest another
way to give out this information with a high percentate of peoplereading it
or hearing it then that migh be preferabel to what i have proposed here

>>>
>>>     If the "counselor" decides you won't make a good parent, do they
>>>get to take your child away?  What limits will the be on such a thing?
>>>
>>
>>i beleive i have answered this already. howeever the counselors have no
>>rights over anyone. they just essentialy give out information.
>
>     Yet you're going to *require* that people go to these people?  Why?
>Some of us aren't all that impressed with the general science of
>psychology.

as i said above to insure people hear the information


>     Are these "counselors" going to have to be licensed?  Can I,
>for instance, go to a priest instead of one of your counselors?  (A
>number of churches require you and your prospective spouse require
>you at least chat with the priest/pastor to make sure you know what
>you're getting into before they will let you use their church for your
>wedding.)
>

yes you may see a priest/pastor for this too.. in fact i think i mentioned
in a previsou posting that many priests/pastors wont marry peopel unless
they are counceled withint the church. so what i am proposing isnt realy
something new. i jhust want it to extend to all couples.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>16. eliminate the death penalty in the united states
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>>the death penalty serves no useful purpose. it does not
>>>>prevent other murders it does not save us court costs.
>>>
>>>     This is an implementation problem rather than one inherent in the
>>>death penalty.
>>>
>>
>>lets assume that it is a good idea to value human life above all
>>things then one cannot under that assumption have a death penalty.
>>(what i mean is that it is contradictory). 
>
>     Human life has immense value.  However, not all human life
>has equal value. 

this is a matter of opinion of yours here that i disagree with
however i will add here that the constition considers all people
equal in that sesnse that a person is a persoin. but a human
is not necessary a person (this is a supreme court interpretaion).
thus it is possible to have say abortion becusae although the fetus
is a human it is not a person and this not protected by the 
constitution. whoever even in the constitiuion a criminal no matter
how viscious has rights. but the constituiotn does allow for 
excacution under due process. that is why an amendment is necessary
for this.


 For instance, if someone is making an effort to
>kill me, I most certainly am going to operate under the assumption
>that my human life is more important than his human life.

under the law a person is allowd to use deadly force against another
if they beleive that other is about to use deadly force against them.
however they are still a person and a human. it is not that their life
is valued less than yours it is that you have a personal interst in your
survival. this may seem the same to you but personal interest and comparative
value are differnt.

>     If a human being has, for instance, killed several people, I
>am not all the interested in keeping him around, especially if he's
>just going to rot in prison and I'm going to have to *feed* him *and*
>he's taking up prison space where we could put somebody else.
>

so you feel like you can determine the value of a persons life?
by what criteria do you use? the crimes they commit? the things they
do or dont do? some times a person can commit no crime but as a result
many peopel will die are they to be excacutedd too?

where do we draw the line? 

in my opeinion we either should value all human life or not 
value it at all and kill each other off. that would stop a great
waste of internet resources

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42004 alt.politics.elections:11588 alt.politics.clinton:3029 alt.politics.bush:2943