HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Hawai'i Greens (was Re: Greens vs.
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:35:51 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1678600077@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
>Dean,
> 
>I appreciate your efforts to try to sort out the many different threads
>that have been started on the "Greens vs. Property Rights" topic, but
>just starting a new topic mid-way through the conversation can be
>very confusing for new readers or for historical reference.  Would
>you be willing to sort through the Property Rights topic and re-post
>the discussions about Hawai'i over here?
> 
>Dale

I rename the threads so that I don't have to filter through all of the
libertarian stuff (Which I have benn through many times before in
lib groupd).  If I choose a good enough name, it shouldn't be too
confusing since the old name is still in parantheses.  I would
encourage people to change the names of their posts as the subject
changes.  Since I don't archive posts, I can't repost them.
> 
>P.S. I know will be a hassle for the readers to have to re-read all
>this stuff again, but I think it may be worth it.
> 
>P.P.S  Karen, maybe you'd want to post the Green Party of Hawaii's platform
>here.  (Folks, I would ask that you refrain from criticizing the platform in
>this forum, if Karen decides to post it.  Platforms are developed through a
>very long and tedious process and represent the best political, social and
>ecological hopes that the party plans to put forward.  I think it is best to
>refrain from criticism because these are not simply the opinions of one person
>who would be able to fully respond in this forum.  Additionally, it should be
>clear to all of us right now that there are very many different opinions on
>this newsgroup and that the platform would certainly not please everyone.)
> 
If Karen supports the platform and wishes (and has the time) to support
it, I think we could discuss it.  If there are parts she does not agree
with, she need not support those parts.  Of course, any discussion
should respect the process that went into its creation.


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 09:07 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600032:000:787
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  5 09:07:00 1993


> In a free capitalist society, where a worker is free to choose whether or
> not to accept the conditions of employment offered to him, no working man
> can be said to be "exploited" by his employers.  [Continued with lots
> of standard Libertarian arguements]

Hi Lee,

In general, I am very sympathetic to Libertarian views.  However, what
I have never heard Libertarians explain is how capitalists and the
government always seem to be in collusion.  It seems to me that the
problem of freedom is not as simple as promoting the free market while
criticizing the government.  It seems the problem is how power, whether
in the form of a centralized government, a multi-national corporation,
or some combination of both, only seeks more power for itself at the
expense of the few.

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: -=- Welcome to alt.politics.greens -=-
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:36:25 GMT

The quote "Property is theft..." was first coined by P.J. Proudhon in
his essay on property.
Maybe Groucho was a Proudhonist.  Maybe he was joking.  Maybe he was
stealing.

-- 
Complain yes; but organize!
Join the Wobblies.  Phone (415)863-WOBS


Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUS
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:02:29 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1678600053@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
>>>Ah, but in theory, he *is*, in a democracy.  Or hadn't you heard?
>>>The problem with this theory is:  What about the man who *wants*
>>>to exploit and dominate those around him?
>
>>Nonsense.  "Democracy" is where each man's life, liberty, and property
>>are subject to the whim of 51% of the people in his country.
>>Democracy and Freedom are not only unequivalent, they are mutually
>>incompatible.
>
As Dale described, decentralization and consensus should limit this
problem, but they will not guarantee that the threat of majority
tyranny disappears.  The only guarantee of that is anarchy.  
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore)
Subject: Gas Tax?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:52:54 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

The Gas Tax is an issue that Greens, and environmentalists in general,
are going to have to address.

My question is this: the Gas Tax, like any tax on basic necessities
like food, milk, and so on, will hit the poor the hardest.
They have the least choice about where to live, and where to work;
they have the least ability to buy a new, more efficient car;
mass transit systems often ignore their neighborhoods;
and they have the least income to spare.
This makes the Gas Tax _regressive_: i.e. unlike a progressive tax,
it hits the poor the hardest.

I think the Greens should oppose the Gas Tax unless some measures
can be added to alleviate this.  But I haven't thought of a good alternative.

I want to hear from other Greens what you think about this issue.
"Gas Stamps" for the poor?  Demanding that employers pay transportation costs?
Making sure that the money is spent locally so that the neighborhood
being charged will be benefitted?  What do you think?

Please, if you don't feel yourself to be Green, don't reply.
I already know what the a) Libertarian position and b) main-stream
environmental positions are.  But if you consider yourself to be part
of the Green movement, help me out!

- Cris Moore, NM Greens moore@santafe.edu
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 04 Jan 93 10:50 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600025:000:1393
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  4 10:50:00 1993


> economic prosperity are given only to a few, and where scientific
> progress and economic growth benefit all, _not_ producing as much
> wealth as one is capable of is immoral.

> Food, shelter, defense, and all of the other things to which leftists
> would "entitle" everyone do not fall from heaven; they are the products
> of work.  Providing them means encouraging work, and history has shown
> that the best way to encorage work is to guarantee to each worker his
> or her exclusive right to the fruits of his/her labor.  That system is
> called Capitalism, and any other system is heartless and immoral.

Lee Daniel Crocker:

I am certainly NOT suggesting that everyone should be "entitled" to
these things by not working.  Greens are very much for personal
reponsibility.

I am, however, suggesting that not everyone in society is getting
a fair chance.  If you grow up in a wealthy family, have good nutrition,
go to the best schools, and inherit a vast fortune (more than the amount
which could reasonably be claimed as neccessary to take care of yourself,
your family and community) you certainly are more capable of providing
for yourself than someone from a poor working background.  In fact, if
you find you are able to maintain your privilege by keeping the poor
worker impoverished (union busting, low pay, regressive taxation, etc.),
history has shown you will do that.

Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 20:16 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600047:000:773
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 20:16:00 1993


John McCarthy,
 
> We are exploiting Chinese labor, because they are paid much less.
> It is nevertheless to their advantage to be exploited for now.
 
Says who?
 
> Note that the exploiter is the person who benefits from the work and
> not merely the employer.
 
I am certain that some of the clothes I got for Christmas were produced
by children working upto 16 hours a day in unsafe factories of S.E.
Asia.  I deeply grieves me that I participate in their exploitation,
but I simply don't have the heart to presume it was to their advantage.
 
> In a free market relations of exploitation are not likely to persist
> indefinitely.
 
Is this a statement of faith?  An assumption of theoretical possibility?
Or, an actual historical event which you have witnessed?
 
Dale
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Are Breeder Reactors Heterophobic?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:02:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Give me a few minutes on this one.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 20:13 PST
Subject: Re: Long-term leases?
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan5.223313.2223@magnus.acs.:905728211:cdp:1678600042:000:244
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 20:13:00 1993


Paul,
 
I found your discussion of Henry George very interesting.  I have
heard many Libertarians speak fondly of him, though my guess is
not all the Libertarians on this discussion would agree.
 
I would be interested in learning more.
 
Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 09 Jan 93 16:51 PST
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600010:cdp:1678600080:000:579
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 16:51:00 1993


> ... where people who aren't members of the activist community have
> a hard time being taken seriously as activists, I'm not active in the
> party - I'm just a number. But numbers are important, too, I guess ...
 
Robert, numbers are very important, too!!!  And don't feel badly about
not being in the activist community.  Being an activist is very, very
hard work.  While I enjoy it and I find that I easily get as much out
of it as I put in, it's demanding, the pay is lousy (I am a volunteer),
and many have personal responsibilities that preclude their involvement.
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz)
Subject: Re: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:10:55 GMT




In article <1678600005@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
	[stuff deleted]
> 
>In California, The Green Party has the option of running a
>"Non-of-the-above" (NOTA) candidate in their primaries, which is
>their way of excluding candidates who they don't consider appropriate
>to represent their platform, among other reasons.  California law
>apparently does not allow political parties to exclude potential
>candidates from running on their party's ballot line.  However, the
>Green Party has the option to "close the race" if they can muster more
>votes for their NOTA "candidate" than the candidate they don't want to
>support.  This is not strickly a candidate accountability and recall
>issue, but does provide a method the party a method to help ensure that
>the candidate who runs on their ballot line, will support their platform.


	Just to clarify:

	The issue about the NOTA and the California Green Party.  
In California, each political party has to draw up it's bylaws, then
submit them to the Secretary of the State (March Fong Eu in this case)
for approval, and inclusion in California State's Election Code.
	What happened is that the state objected to our bylaws on
NOTA, and also the option to close a race to all potential candidates.
California state objects to these bylaws on the stated grounds that
they feel it will interefere with their ability to hold on orderly
election.

	Back in January, the Green Party General Assembly (our supreme
policy making, and rule making body on the state level) authorized our
legal group to sue California state over the objection. On a practical
level, the state tried to prevent us from passing certain bylaws, and
the Green Party sued in court.  The Green Party won the court case, but
the Secretary of the State's office is appealing.

	The Green Party (in my view) has two issues in mind.   The
first is the more obvious surface issue of the bylaws themselves.  The
second issue is that the Green Party does not believe that the
government has the right to say yeah or neah to a political party's
bylaws, so long as they do not directly breech the law.


Geoff Galitz
Computer Services Coordinator
Green Party of Santa Cruz County




-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you ask them?  You'll probably get just as a fanciful answer
from them, as our Bible gives us."   
	- Bishop Jose de Acosta on the origin of the Native Americans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Geoff Galitz    geoffg@sco.com ** or ** galitz@igc.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:36:56 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1678600046@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:


|Lee Daniel Crocker,
| 
|> Marx missed the point by blaming the Capitalist ideals which were not
|> what was being practiced, but only being preached as justification
|> for the slavery.  No nation in human history has every had a truly
|> free capitalistic society, and until one does, there will always be
|> slavery.
| 
|It's understandable Marx was so down on capitalism since history only
|showed him how it produced slavery.  Do you see anything different
|in capitalism today?  What steps would you suggest to make it freer?

Dale,

You seem to have missed Lee's entire point.  Or are you ignoring it.
Lee argued that what Marx and you have labeled capitalism is not in
fact capitalism.  The era in reference was at best Mercantalist with a
few Feudalistic tendencies thrown in.

|>>Wealth creation is only half of the equation of providing the minimum
|>>level of wealth for human dignity.  Wealth distribution is the other
|>>half.  History has shown that Capitalism is a very good way to produce
|>>wealth, but it has also shown that it is a really crappy way of spreading
|>>it around.  What tends to happen is that a small minority get all the 
|>>power and keeps it.

All other methods of organizing society have proven to be quite crappy
at creating wealth.  If there is no wealth, then it is irrelevant how
well spread around it is.

|>This can only happen when capitalism is corrupted by government, as it
|>is in the US.  In a fluid market, millionaires are made and unmade
|>every day and the turnover of wealth is high.  Only when the government
|>steps in with subsidies and licensing laws and taxes and other
|>encumbrances to free trade do people acquire power.  Wealth is only
|>power when there exist a power base (i.e. government) that can be
|>bought.  If the government were not powerful enough to be worth buying,
|>wealth would simple be wealth, not power, and the wealthy would
|>spend it while they had it like there was no tomorrow.
| 
|    [ and nearly the rest of your arguments ]
| 
|Please explain why the capitalists and the government always seem
|to be in collusion with each other.

This is a problem with government, not capitalism.  When government is
powerfull, those people who want power gravitate towards government.
This same phenomenom also occurs in socialistic and communistic
societies.  For that matter it occurs in every model of society that
I have ever heard of.
This is an argument against strong government, not an argument against
capitalism.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600087:000:333
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 11 15:09:00 1993


Sorry Lee, I double checked.  The quote about "pure laissez faire being
lethal to itself" was written by Dean Myerson.  It's just that everyone
has different ways of referring to previous messages that it gets
kind of confusing.  I guess there are more differences between Libertarians
and Greens than I thought.  Oh, well....

Dale
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 04 Jan 93 10:54 PST
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600010:cdp:1678600026:000:1820
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  4 10:54:00 1993


From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen>
Subject: PLEASE SIGN IN!

From LAURA@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu Mon Jan  4 09:32:42 1993
Received: from UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.52 )
	id AB24804; Mon, 4 Jan 93 09:32:36 PST
Message-Id: <9301041732.AB24804@igc.apc.org>
Received: from UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU by ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0968; Mon, 04 Jan 93 12:06:56 EST
Received: from UCF1VM (LAURA) by UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 4954; Mon, 04 Jan 93 12:06:56 EST
Date:         Mon, 04 Jan 93 12:02:10 EST
From: Laura Kittleson <LAURA@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject:      Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
To: dmcmillen@igc.apc.org
Status: RO

Hi Dale, nice to meet you.

I'm a computer consultant at the University of Central Florida in
Orlando.  I'm not political at all.  I *do* have strong opinions and
concerns, I try to be principled, tolerant, objective, and globally
minded, but these, to me, are matters of character, not politics.
I base my voting decisions on issues, not party.  So I will never
be very informed about "political" stuff.  I'm here on the greens
list to learn, so I can make even more informed choices.

I have a B.A. in English, have been a technical writer for the
university system for years, use a Macintosh and the mainframe
but couldn't program my way out of a paper bag, love animals,
birdwatch, sing in the local Episcopal cathedral choir, am
intolerant of intolerance, and hug trees as often as I can.
I have no human children; I have eight birds.

Thanks for starting interesting -- and potentially helpful
and important -- areas of discussion.

-Laura

===================================================================
Laura Kittleson                                        407/823-5494
laura@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu               University of Central Florida


Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:39:29 GMT

In article <1ig99mINN1rv@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
}
}Pull the other one, John, it's got bells on.  We live on a *FINITE*
}planet.  Surprise, surprise.  We live on a finite planet with finite
}extents of forest remaining,

Yet, somehow, the USA has more forestland now than it did earlier in the 20th
century...

and those forests - the tropical rainforests
}in particular - do the lion's share of recycling CO2 into O2, as I've
}already pointed out.  *That* is what Michael Wendling is talking about.

Actually, this may not be true.  I've heard that marine life may do much
more of this than forests.

}Believe it or not, the act of felling a tree does have environmental
}effects that are totally independent of whether you decide to burn it
}or not.

How profound.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Maintaining an bottom-up opposition
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:20:13 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan6.184032.11035@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <JMC.93Jan5204248@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>Is it possible that when a bottom up movement gains power, it cannot
>>sustain its alleged bottom up character.  Read _Red Star over China_
>>by Edgar Snow for its description of the alleged bottom up character
>>of the way the Chinese communists did things.
>
>
Using a communist regime as an example of a bottom up structure is
curious.  Do you believe they actually were bottom up?  The Green
model of bottom up is based on a community.  I would say that
bottom up is hopeless when the "up" is a national government that
has a population of 100's of millions.  If most functions were
managed locally (shades of libertarians!), then the ability of a
bottom up structure to persist is enhanced.  That some functions
continue to be managed at various higher levels than the community
is problematic for the bottom up idea, but presumably not fatal.

In fact bottom up societies
were common in the early days of the US when a lack of technology
left many communities with no choice but to manage there own
affairs.  We can see that it is, to a large degree, technology
that changed this situation.  Most bottom up societies persisted
for quite a long time in pastoral communities and it is the arrival
of technological society that has led to the domination of the
top down model.  This may be a generalization worldwide, but it
seems to be true of the US.  Can we have both?  How do we separate
the conditions that create the technology that we want from the
conditions - to the degree they are the same - that cause the centralization
that we don't want?  Maybe technology wasn't the root cause, but an
intermediate one.  Maybe it's the inherent centralization that occurs
in laissez faire systems that led to higher technology _and_ top
down authority structures.

-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Gender Balance?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:05:41 GMT

Hey, folks,

	I've been following the "please sign in" thread, and I've noticed
that the overwhelming majority of people who have signed in are men.  One
of the things the Green Party purports to advocate is gender balance.  
California Green Party meetings are a lot more balanced by gender than what
I've seen thus far in this forum.  Are we doing a good job of encouraging
Green women to get involved in the electronic workshops and discussion
groups?

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens