HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:41:17 GMT
 <1992Oct9.012531.19830@yang.earlham.edu> <1992Oct9.145233.1663@vexcel.com>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct9.145233.1663@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.012531.19830@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.182609.4636@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>>>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>>> 
>>> The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human.  It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
>>> _jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem.  Furthermore, non-sustainable
>>> logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry.  Is a loggers job
>>> more valuable than a fisherman's?
>>
>>	Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important 
>>than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the 
>>government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to 
>>intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the 
>>difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal. 
>>Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them 
>>about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
> 
> It might be wrong for govt to _stop_ the automobile, but govt is not
> really _stopping_ logging.  Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
> The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
> for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
> the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests.  By making
> certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
> the subsidies.  The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
> the fisshing industry.

	The question on federal land usage is a different one entirely, at 
least in the case of the spotted owl. But in those cases in which it is 
the federal government stopping private usage of land- usage that 
doesn't, for instance, cause pollution that gives others cancer- that I 
object to.
> 
> I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
> to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement.  It has
> been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
> to add to it.

	As long as you don't try, say, to stop me from eating meat 
(including veal) whenever I wish and have the cash, feel free to have your 
viewpoint. It only becomes wrong when you try to enforce it on others.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.012531.19830@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.182609.4636@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>>In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>>>>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>>>>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>>>>in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>>>>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>>>>on human individuals.
>>>
>>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>> 
>> The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human.  It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
>> _jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem.  Furthermore,  non-sustainable
>> logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry.  Is a loggers job
>> more valuable than a fisherman's?
>
>	Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important 
>than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the 
>government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to 
>intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the 
>difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal. 
>Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them 
>about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
>	-Allen

It might be wrong for govt to _stop_ the automobile, but govt is not
really _stopping_ logging.  Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests.  By making
certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
the subsidies.  The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
the fisshing industry.

I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement.  It has
been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
to add to it.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5714 alt.activism.d:3676 talk.environment:4143
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:29:05 GMT
 <BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Oct8.171558.28040@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct8.171558.28040@athena.cs.uga.edu>, brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
> In article <BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>>In <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>
>>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>>>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
>>
>>But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
>>not regulation or use restriction on private property.
>>
> 
> Okay -- bad example. :-)  How about sinking whaleboats?
> 
	Whether that is right or wrong depends, I would say, on whether 
one considers whales to be intelligent individuals or not. I'd say yes, 
and so would agree with not only sinking (without loss of human life, so 
far as I know) but torpedoing whaleboats. By my viewpoint, whalers are 
committing murder.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
From: wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Reply-To: brew@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:04:52 GMT

jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
>(Daniel Brown) writes:

>> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism?  Greenpeace,
>> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
>> for individuals (at least not human ones).

>I take exception with your claim, however.

>=o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist.  I can see how
>=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
>readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some

Jym, I know you're sincere in your beliefs, and sorry if I seem to be
attacking them, but there are other interpretations that may have some
validity. True, most green talk has to do with expressing concern about harm
to individuals, and can thus be read as individualist in that light.

However, I've been following the green movement with great interest for over
twenty years, and where the "individualist" perspective sort of begins to
fall to pieces, IMNSHO, is in the area of proposed solutions. I won't beat
the same dead horse (from some of our previous conversations) too much, but
it seems clear to me that most of the solution/response profile of greens to
ecological "problems" seems to focus on devolving more power to government,
as if that is the only way to "solve" the particular problem. This attitude
appears to be so pervasive in the environmental movement generally as to
constitute grounds for a belief that much of the environmental drum-beating
is yet another way to expand the role of "the state" in our lives. While you
may not agree, many of us believe that the state is one of the last entities
in society demonstrating any great concern for the well-being of the
individual citizen. 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force! 
 Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

				---  George Washington ---


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
brew@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5701 rec.food.veg:9441
From: keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Clinton restricts food supplements
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:23:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: klic.1992Oct6.202321.3894
Organization: KLIC

Thought you would like to know:

On June, 1985, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton signed a state regulation which
requires a physician prescription for food supplements and herbs.  Strangely
enough, King George has gone on record as being against such regulation.  Gee,
it's getting so you can't tell the fascists from the fascists anymore ;-)

A complete report may be found in the October 1992 issue of the Townsend
Newsletter for Doctors, along with the text of the regulation.  

Keith
-- 
Keith Lofstrom         keithl@klic.rain.com       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:32:37 GMT

In <1076@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>Obviously you don't live in the Pacific Northwest.  The debate maybe
>primarily over public lands (75% of the state of Oregon), the spotted owl
>issue has been used to stop or restrict logging on private land, so the
>last line of your sentence is not correct.

Can you provide more information?  Sounds like something the readers of
alt.individualism, at least, would be interested in.  (For that reason,
I've directed followups there)

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 "A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other,
  if they don't destroy their knees first, or start sleeping with 
  each other's girlfriends." - Rigler, about Indiana Ultimate
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5739 alt.activism.d:3783 talk.environment:4164
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Keywords: money gold_standard keynes silver_standard federal_reserve_bank bankin
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:27:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In <1676@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:

>The better is the enemy of the good.  A return to the gold standard
>is a simple change in terms of what the general population would
>understand and accept.  A GNP standard would be less understandable.
>You could pass a law that states "The money supply shall be fixed
>at 0.2 times the GNP", or whatever number is appropriate, but I place
>less trust in the governement's ability to adhere to such a rule than
>in the chances of gold suddenly becoming less scarce.

So do I.  But my understanding of the ideas of the monetarists would be
a legislated increase in the money supply, say .005% every year, or something,
which has no direct relation to the GNP.  I don't understand what the
gold standardists' objection is to this.

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 "A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other,
  if they don't destroy their knees first, or start sleeping with 
  each other's girlfriends." - Rigler, about Indiana Ultimate
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5712 alt.activism.d:3675 talk.environment:4142
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:25:31 GMT
 <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> <1992Oct7.182609.4636@vexcel.com>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct7.182609.4636@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>>>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>>>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>>>in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>>>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>>>on human individuals.
>>
>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
> 
> The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human.  It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
> _jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem.  Furthermore,  non-sustainable
> logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry.  Is a loggers job
> more valuable than a fisherman's?

	Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important 
than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the 
government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to 
intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the 
difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal. 
Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them 
about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

> >In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
> >Fatuous.  That is the nicest thing I can say about your tactics.
> >I have been aware of the holocaust since I was a child, and
> >it has shaped my awareness in ways you cannot guess.  The fact
> >that it occured is one of the most horrifying and distressing
> >lessons granted us by the twentieth century.  The millions
> >that died are noble martyrs to the truth about human nature, and
> >I honor them in my thoughts frequently.  
> >
> >doug
> 
> Since "In the real world, A is most assuredly never equal to A",
> your awareness of the Holocaust is, in the real world, most assuredly
> not equal to awareness of the Holocaust.  Therefore, you are not aware
> of the Holocaust.
> 
> Furthermore, in the real world, a fatuous tactic is most assuredly not
> a fatuous tactic.  Therefore, my tactics are not fatuous.

This is only because you have not taken the time to find out what
I meant by the A!=A statement.  You are applying your meaining
and using it to try to suggest that I somehow support genocide.
This is, without question, the most detestable thing I have seen
from an objectivist.  

doug
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5722 alt.politics.marrou:1526 talk.politics.misc:50655 alt.politics.democrats.d:190 alt.politics.bush:8482 alt.politics.clinton:9482 alt.politics.libertarian:751 pgh.general:240 pa.general:330
From: tsf+@cs.cmu.edu (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian,cmu.cs.general,pgh.general,pa.general
Subject: Where's the Crisis? (was Re: Economic Crisis Talk)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:02:35 GMT
Distribution: pgh
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Several people asked me where the talk was.  From CMU, you should go
downtown on Forbes, and then shift to Fifth when Forbes becomes the
wrong way.  Go to DeSoto street, and take a right.  The Graduate
School of Public Health Auditorium is the first building on your
right.

If you aren't coming from CMU, the building you want is north and east
from the corner of DeSoto and Fifth.

It is very large, and unfortunately I have no idea where in that
building you will find the auditorium.

Here's a repeat of the original announcement.

In article <BvKrv1.8Hr.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsf+@cs.cmu.edu (Timothy Freeman) writes:

      How government is contributing to our impending economic crisis,
		     and what should be done about it.

   A presentation by Robert Chamberlin, CFP, author of
   _The_1990's:_Decade_of_Depression_, who was rated one of "the best
   financial planners" in the nation by Money Magazine.

			Thursday, October 8, 7:30 pm
	   Graduate School of Public Health Auditorium (Room G23)
		      University of Pittsburgh Campus
			  DeSoto Street, Oakland.

			       Free Admission

   Sponsored by Pittsburgh Chapter, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania.
   Call 422-5361 for details.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:21:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190415.5180@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.000452.4784@mtek.com> brew@mtek.com writes:
>>jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
>>>(Daniel Brown) writes:

>I think you are confusing green with Green.  The traditional environmental
>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>solutions, which is traditional among liberals.  The _G_reen movement,
>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>to local jurisdictions.  

But never to the individual to control HIS OWN life, right?  It's just as 
wrong for a mayor to run your life as it is for the President to do so.

>The central concept to the Green Party USA is
>not environment, it is community.  

The collective over the individual again.

>I believe that there are _some_ areas
>where state activity is needed.  I also think that many of the things the
>state is trying to do today could be done better at a local level.
>I don't claim that this view dominates environmental thinking.  Its obvious
>that the lobbying of the mainstream organizations fits your complaints
>fairly well.  The debate then becomes whether ineffective government
>regulation is better than the blind trust in the market exhibited by
>Libertarians.  

What is so "blind" about allowing people to run their own affairs?  Individual
people are far less "blind" the the facts of the economic affairs than 
any government agency...even a "local" one.  By the way, I'm NOT a Libertarian
and I am a radical capitalist.  The two are not identical.

>While the Green solution is complex, the exercise of
>gevernment power locally gives the individual a much greater voice and
>makes the impacts of those decisions more personal, both of which should
>help to limit government coercion.

I suppose that's why the "local government" of Salem Mass. what such 
an exemplar of limted coercion, tolerance, and good judgement, right?
What matters isn't the size of the area covered, heck, there are a lot of
simple pairs of people who have abusive relationships, and that doesn't
stop them!  On the other hand, the US government did a pretty good job
of staying out of people's way until the "New Deal", and most of the 
worst abuses of the early 20th century were by the smaller units of
government (say, with racial segregation laws) not with the feds.
What matters is the philosophy of the government, not it's size.

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:18:03 GMT

allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
: 
: 	Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important 
: than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the 
: government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to 
: intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the 
: difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal. 
: Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them 
: about as we would treat a hunk of rock.

So, you feel it is ethical to destroy a rock - just because it is there
and cannot retaliate?

The Spotted Owl is not the real issue - although you would think it was,
from all the publicity. The real issue is the rapidity at which the
forests are being clear-cut. This is threatening to destroy far more than
the spotted owl. 

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Crises (was Re: Boot camp?)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:26:38 GMT

 "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:


>The "drug crisis" began nearly 80 years ago when the feds decided
>to move in the direction of drug prohibition.  Instead of admitting
>failure, ever more draconian laws have been enacted which have had 
>the effect of exacerbating the problem and making the "crisis" more
>urgent.  This crisis has served the interest of a growing enforcement
>bureaucracy and, in recent years, has also benefited the instrumentalities
>of the national security state.

	Does this not make an almost perfect parallel to the crisis of
firearm violence?  Let's see, wasn't it 1934 that machine guns were
outlawed under the pretext of a mob/gang crisis?  It's amazing that
so many people cannot make the connection.

>Clinton may actually believe that his half-brother was "saved" by the
>criminal justice system and that "boot camps" are needed to prosecute
>the drug war.

	Speaking of which, I had a pleasant suprise a few years ago.  I
was driving my sister's Suzuki Samurai (hey, it's *HER* car!) down to her
home in North Carloina, and while driving through the mountains in
Kentucky, or perhaps Tennessee, at about 2:00am local time.  I popped
over a hill and found the entire roadway lit up with spotlights, police
milling about with shotguns, and about fifty convicts doing road work.
Now *that's* prison rehabilitation!  Think of it -- learn a skill that
is applicable to the outside world, the state gets something from it's
taxes, and the convicts learn the value of honest work.  Boot camps?
I hated basic, but looking back on it I'd have to say that it worked
wonders in making me a more responsible citizen.  Perhaps that
southern state has already found a less drastic and more usable solution.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment