HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:10:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes (from a complete lack of understanding):

> Unfortunately the real goal pops up instead. The Libertarian party is
> merely a group of isolationists who want to abdicate from international
> responsibility just as they do in all other fields.
>
How is it "abdicating responsibility" to suggest that individuals
should take power and responsibility away from government and take
it upon themselves?

> I fail to see any validity in a "Libertarianism" that could stand idly
> by and allow Hitler to commit genocide in Europe. Would Libertarians
> support an embargo against a country if its leaders were commiting mass 
> murder?

Any company that exported to a nation like that would face boycotts and
other financial and public relations consequences just like companies
that traded with South Africa did.  The US never forced American
companies out, but the free market and bad PR did.

As far as military action goes, we would not stand in the way of
anyone who wanted to go abroad and fight in a foreign conflict for
hire or for personal reasons, and we would not stand in the way of
anyone funding such an operation.  We simply wouldn't want the
government to force anyone to do it against their will.

> The propblem with the US libertarian party is that they have no interest
> in anyone else's liberty but their own, self-interest clothed in
> self-righteous altruism. A transparent creation at the best of times.

We have an "interest" in everyone's liberty precisely because we have
an interest in our own.  No one is free until all are.  You mistake
us for being unconcerned simply because we refuse to believe as you
do that government is the best way to achieve what we both want.

Compassion at gunpoint is not compassion.  Charity with someone
else's money isn't charity.  Altruism is not altruism unless it
is _voluntary_.

If you continue to insist that Libertarians are not caring, giving
people, then post some numbers: compare charitable contributions of
Libertarians to those of Democrats and Republicans.  I think you
will be enlightened.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:08:14 GMT

In article <1k97isINN9eo@titan.ucs.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
}In article <1993Jan28.050019.6834@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) takes his mishapen head out of his hairy butt long enough
}>BAD - not hiring the most-qualified job applicant because he is a
}>      Hispanic.  Because you think Hispanics are sub-human.
}>
}>GOOD - Ordering chicken instead of a chef's salad at the local
}>       restaurant.  Because you think that's what you prefer to eat.
}>
}
}BAD - throwing away perfectly good chicken, when people are starving,
}because some type of pollophobia prevents you from letting people
}eat what they want.  If you don't want the chicken, fine. Order a 
}chef salad.  You're not homosexual.  Fine.   Fuck all
}the women you want - if you can convince any of them to put standards
}of personal decency and hygiene aside.  But who are YOU to mandate
}anyone else's dinner menu or bed partners?

Or taking a shower with, or bunking with...

Oh, Bill would?  Guess that makes Jenny a bit of a hypocrite...


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69822 ca.politics:10666 ba.politics:8309 alt.sex:43183
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:44:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU>, by budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd):
> In article <1993Jan22.174346.4717@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
>>some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  

> I would disagree with this claim alomst certainly. You offer no
> reason why you assert this. SO, I refute simply in the way that
> you do. A 17 year old is not an adult, contrary to your claim.
> I tend to side with the law, and not you, on this one.

I hope that your faith in the law is not blind.  The real world
definition of an adult is someone who is physically and
emotionally mature.  Legal statutes have their own definitions,
in this case often it is 18 years of age.  There are indeed 17
year olds who in my opinion are capable adults.

>>But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
>>"anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.

> This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
> from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
> to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
> to be preyed upon.

I do agree with the present age of consent laws, but perhaps
for different reasons.  I believe that at least 90% of the 17
year olds out there could engage in sex with out damage, but
the problems incurred by the remaining 10% would by far
outweigh the benefits enjoyed by the other 90%.

And it is up to the various governing bodies to determine the
point of dimishing returns.  Debate on this subject is sticky
because people tend to regard their own experiences as being
representative e.g. "I had sex at twelve and it didn't harm me!"

There is, at present, apparently no easy way to determine the
capability of juveniles on an individual basis.  I can see it
now:  "Jane, before we go any further, can I at least see a
copy of your sex license?"

> I suppose that you also favour the removal
> of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
> of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
> level of pay?

This is far easier to deal with because unlike sex, there
is the matter of degree e.g. the number of hours per week
that a juvenile is allowed to work.  Again, a line has
been drawn by our governments, only it is not a vertical
line as the function is not so binary.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:28:15 GMT


In article <1993Jan26.193602.18031@news.acns.nwu.edu>, 
pakrat@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Grogan) said:

> The American people were taken in hand by a PR wizard with the morals
> of an alley cat and the principal stability of a Kenmore.  There is no
> defense for baltant lies and broken promises.  Accept that you were
> conned into electing this jerk and just shut up for the next four
> years.

Just out of curiosity, when would you say was the last time that the
above _didn't_ apply to the winner of a U.S. Presidential election and
the people who voted for him?

(By the way, who's Kenmore?)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:53:16 CST


In article <1jnlcsINNoqr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

> >If the finalists he was refering to happen to be women, does that mean
> >only women were considered?
> >
> >Keep looking for the quote...
> 
>      Nah, I  seen enough.  Better to continue work on my make-shift
>      boat to the Cayman Islands and learning spanish.

Good Luck.  I hope your successful.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70172 talk.politics.medicine:736 soc.culture.usa:10208
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:33:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

>All of this right wing jazz is really amusing. At the economic conference
>in Little Rock, the president of Ford said that health care now costs
>more per car than the steel. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to
>know that this must be true of many products. We spend more on health
>than any other country and have nothing much to show for it - look
>around you, what is the state of health of the people you see.

    I'd like to see some evidence that more spending on health care is 
    something abnormal.  Could it be that the average consumer would 
    rather spend money on his/her health than yet another steel gadget?
>
>If we fix the problem, distribute the money WE ARE ALREADY SPENDING
>in an intelligent manner, might not the costs of many products drop?

    No, to reduce the costs we would need to spend less on healthcare.

    Besides, do you really expect our goverment to spend our money
    "in an intelligent manner"?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70114 alt.atheism:27128 talk.religion.misc:27697
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:37:28 GMT
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN

suopanki@stekt3.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes:
>>>>>> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:
>>> Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis
>> This is America here.  
>No, this is Usenet.

>>In this country, the word is spelled "tire".

On this net, the name is spelled "KKKaldis".

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Summary:  an answer
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:08:58 GMT

>Who is the injured party in prostitution?

The Treasury.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased?
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:09:47 GMT

     I basically gave up on network news and usually watch the McNeil-Leheur
(I probabbly mispelled it, but you should know what I mean) news hour.  Granted
nearly everyone on the show is biased some way or another, but they at least
get a variety of biases on the show to argue, so you usually hear both sides
of the story.


					Craig
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70200 alt.politics.elections:25224 alt.politics.clinton:21418
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:46:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nfs@elan (Norbert Schlenker) says:

>have been bawling in talk.politics.misc (crossposted to
>alt.vietnam.rape) about how the country was going to hell and how you
>were thinking of escaping to a decent reasonable pacifist place like
>Sweden or Canada.  And the crackers would have jumped on you and said
>"Love it or leave it".  Admit it.


        America is flaming on before their very EYES, yet nobody 
        will admit.   Can you BELIEVE, Norbert?   

        Holy MOLY!!  I publically thank you, Norbert.  Without you,
        I would NEVER had guessed it was coming from Japan.  I was 
        still stupidly watching the NYSE.

>A bit tetchy here, aren't we, Doctor?  I can certainly understand
>that, working for a big military contractor and posting from a NASA
>site.  You know, now that NASA's chief protector in Washington, that
>boob Quayle, has gone to enjoy his billions, I wouldn't be surprised
>to see real big budget cutbacks.
>
>You know what would be really ironic?  Suppose we start sending
>letters to that boob Gore attributing the destruction of the Amazon
>rain forest *and* the ozone layer to NASA operations?  I'm sure we can
>cobble together some reasonable sounding justification, at least
>something that will satisfy President Rodham's third in command.
>Where will you be then?  French Guiana, perhaps?


        I already checked out French Guiana.  It appears to have a 
        seriously corrupt government ( how UNUSUAL! ) and I didn't 
        like it's history or ethnic make-up.


Peanut-Gallery -  " Did you see that, Bob?!  He DISCRIMINATED against
                    French Guiana.  Maybe they should file a LAWSUIT "

   
        Which, by the way, is another lesson I've learned.

        Got my Gravy Train lawsuit in the mail now, too.  

        YEAH!  COME ON, GRAVY TRAIN!      

>
>Norbert
>nfs@cs.princeton.edu
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
X-Xxdate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:22:49 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:26:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.212019.27219@Princeton.EDU> Norbert Schlenker,
nfs@elan writes:
> >It WAS HE who said he was going to leave, not I. I just suggested
> >that if that was his attitude, I hope he doesn't let the door hit
> >him in the *** on the way out.
> 
> Well, of course.  Now if the net had existed 25 years ago, you would
> have been bawling in talk.politics.misc (crossposted to
> alt.vietnam.rape) about how the country was going to hell and how you
> were thinking of escaping to a decent reasonable pacifist place like
> Sweden or Canada.  And the crackers would have jumped on you and said
> "Love it or leave it".  Admit it.

I would never leave my country. period. I would have worked to fix the
the problems as I saw them. You don't know me well enough to make
statements like this. The fact is that Broward stated he was going to
leave. If he doesn't love his country well enough to stay and work to
fix it, by all means he should leave.

> 
> >> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> >> >Senior Engineer
> >> >Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
> >> 
> >> Hmmm... Lockheed.  How long is your job going to last?  Maybe
> >> you should be checking out Uruguay too.
> >
> >Maybe you should read the thread more carefully before making
> >a fool of yourself.
> 
> A bit tetchy here, aren't we, Doctor?  I can certainly understand
> that, working for a big military contractor and posting from a NASA
> site.  You know, now that NASA's chief protector in Washington, that
> boob Quayle, has gone to enjoy his billions, I wouldn't be surprised
> to see real big budget cutbacks.

Clinton and Gore have stated their support for space exploration. I
have been working hard to help them develop space policy. I have
no fear for NASA's future.

> 
> You know what would be really ironic?  Suppose we start sending
> letters to that boob Gore attributing the destruction of the Amazon
> rain forest *and* the ozone layer to NASA operations?  I'm sure we can
> cobble together some reasonable sounding justification, at least
> something that will satisfy President Rodham's third in command.
> Where will you be then?  French Guiana, perhaps?

Those damn LSD hallucinations are a real problem, aren't they.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:05:09 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan22.163654.28452@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.183705.29526@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> That risk was accounted for ex ante in the original interest rate.  Some
>> investors guessed wrong.  That just gives a better incentive to guess
>> right.  That's the free market, no?
>
>No.  Government is the only entity responsible for inflation in any significant
>way.  

False.  Unless you want to hold the government responsible for weather,
price rises in natural resources not controlled by the government (remember
OPEC?), changes in technology, and many other things that affect price
levels without having anything to do with the money supply.

>> >Adam Smith noticed that goverment debt has sometimed been paid back
>> >with a pretended payment, but never with a real one.
>> 
>> That's empirically false.  People holding T-Bills can expect about 2-3%
>> real interest rates.
>
>Now they can.  We've been pretty stable for awhile. But it happened before, and
>it can happen again.  Besides, paying interest doesn't amount to paying debt
>back, if that money is just borrowed again from someone else.

Or even from the same person.  What difference does it make?

Once again, the risk of future inflation is taken into account in current
interest rates.  The investors are compensated ex ante.  If inflation remains
low (and government has an incentive to do this in the long run and even the
short run), then the investors win.  If not, they lose.  You pays your money
and you takes your chances.  That's the free market.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Am I A Statist? (was Re: Amazing (Was: Libertarianism...))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan19.230508.5712@s1.gov> <ATAYLOR.93Jan20204822@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:03:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

<	   Nosy, why do you have this compulsion to smear me as a
<   statist?

	Compulsion? What compulsion? 

	Is it a compulsion to ask a question that a known flamer
	continues to duck?

<	   I think that it is legitimate to charge a government-basher
<   with being for anarchy, since if government is bad, then no government
<   is good, and no government is anarchy.

	If so, then it is just as legitimate to charge a government-
	lover with statism, since if government is an unalloyed good
	than total government is the best.

<   :    I was only asking if those who think that government is wicked
<   :    have anarchy (no government at all) as their ultimate ideal. And if
<   :    not, then what do they think that the legitimate functions of
<   :    government are.
<   >
<   >	Yes, and I replied with the question:
<   >
<   >	"Is there ANY aspect of life that Petrich feels the
<   >	 government has no business in".
<   >
<   >	A question to which I have seen no response; perhaps
<   >	our buggy newsreader missed the posting?
<   >	
<   >	Or perhaps Petrich cannot really think of any?

<	   I'll show you my list of things I consider it inappropriate
<   for government to be involved with (and it's a sizable list) if you
<   show me your list of things you think that government should be
,   involved in.

	Considering that I have posted said list on this and 
	other newsgroups numerous times over several years,
	we can put this down as yet another dodge by "Blaster".

	Which leads to the conclusion that Petrich's "list"
	probably consists solely of things that bring personal
	pleasure to Petrich....

	Something like, "The government has no business interfering
	in *MY* sex life".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Subject: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Originator: era@teal.csn.org
Keywords: Extremists, Christian Right, Amendment 2
Reply-To: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Citizens Project; Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:47:51 GMT

We of the Citizens Project (Colorado Springs, CO) are looking for people
who could assist us in re-distributing the Citizens Project Newsletter
to non-Internet computer services.  If you have an account on any such
services (CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, Prodigy, America Online, and others)
and are willing to help us, please let us know via return email to
era@ncar.ucar.edu.

The Citizens Project is a Colorado Springs, CO - based group of volunteers
who seek to prevent extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms,
in the face of growing political and religious intolerance in Colorado.
--
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
-- 
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:58:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.014206.7988@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I don't see where spending comes from: The clause empowers Congress
>>to tax, but I don't see any reference in it to spending. 

>"pay the debts and provide for"

I see these as the reasons for which taxes may be imposed, not 
a blank check for spending.

>>Further,
>>wouldn't that interpertation be in conflict with the rest of
>>Article One, Section Eight? Most of the other listed powers amonut
>>to spending "...provide for the common Defence and and general 
>>Welfare..." It seems that interperting that clause as a power
>>to spend would reduce the rest of Article One, Section Eight to
>>redundant and meaningless provisions. Since the framers clearly
>>intended these provisions to mean _something_, I think there
>>is a serious flaw in your interpertation.

>But by your interpretation, "General Welfare" is redundant.  Surely
>they meant that to mean something?

I don't think it is redundant: The clause allows taxes, even if the
tax does not raise money. For example, a heavy tax on cigaretts: This
is a tax to "promote... the General Welfare", even if it doesn't
put any money into the treasury. The framers were very familiar
with taxes as a means of regulation, instead of a a means of raising
funds (This distinction was central to their objections during the
1760s which led to the revolution.)

>Some circumstantial evidence for a broad reading of Congressional powers
>was that the word "expressly" (as in "[expressly] delegated") was deleted 
>from the original version of the Tenth Amendment.

This certainly argues against the narrowest possible reading, but on
the other hand it doesn't rationalize all possible broad readings...

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder