HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: The Purpose of alt.politics.greens
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:08:09 GMT


	Jym Dyer and Cameron Spitzer both make the excellent point that
the purpose of alt.politics.greens is to discuss Green movement/party issues,
not to debate things we've largely accepted already.  I agree.  Thanks, guys,
for reminding us.

Cameron wrote:
>One of the 10 Key Values is "respect for diversity" and IMHO that
>includes respect for diverse opinions.  However, continuing discussion
>which is completely unrelated to the known charter of a group AND which
>is more appropriate to another newsgroup, by people who know better,
>is IMHO not just rudeness, it's *vandalism*.  Let's not vandalize
>alt.politics.greens, please, and let's try to respect one another's
>diversity.  No insults!

	Many aspects of the California Green Party platform are in a state
of flux.  I would surmise that other Greens are probably still formulating
policy in many key areas as well.  Would people agree that debates of
importance to internal Green decision-making belong on this newsgroup?

	As for issues on which the Greens have more or less made up their 
minds, I agree, the debate should be taken to another newsgroup.  I think
that we Greens out to tune in to those other groups now and again, though,
just to see what everyone else is thinking.

>ps. If you don't know what a Vibes Watcher is, then *please* come to
>your next local Green Party meeting and find out!

	At a calm Green Party meeting, a vibes watcher gets to sit back and
enjoy the proceedings.  We've got a way to go here before our vibes
watcher gets a rest.

-- 
== 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
============================================================================
From: ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:17:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan1.200947.18330@news.vanderbilt.edu> mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion) writes:

>Where the hell are people supposed to live if not in houses, apartments,
>etc.?  Where the hell are those houses to be built if not on previously 
>undeveloped property?  The land already developed for residential use 
>is insufficent to continue to provide housing in a growing population,
>unless we want to start living in ever smaller and smaller homes ala the
>Japanese. I really don't think that's practical or healthy.  Perhaps the
>best solution would be a slowdown in (or elimination of) the rate of
>population growth.  But that is such a remote likelyhood at this point
>as to almost not worth discussing. Until our society becomes more
>responsible about reproduction, we're going to have to continue to
>develop property and the people initiating this process (the developers)
>are not automatically evil.  And not every S&L loan automatically

I think the solution to the problem of where should people live is twofold:
in the buildings currently available that are underutalized, and in denser
housing complexes.  In every major city today, there stand hundreds of 
empty buildings.  Often these are right in the same neighborhoods where
there are hundreds of homeless people.  This strikes me as absurd.  I
know that in many cases, the buildings are not up to code, but they 
never would have run down to that sorry state if it weren't for the
developer/speculator fueled suburban "boom" of the 50-80's.  People
can live comfortably in much denser housing situations.  Yes, this 
means living in "smaller and smaller homes ala the Japanese."  I think
that this is not only practical and healthy, but inevitable.  I think
of lot of our economic troubles can be traced to our low density life-
style.  We drive twice as many miles a year as the Europeans and three
times as many as the Japanese.  We spend vast amounts more than both
on vehicle, roadways, etc.  Who really benefits?  Well, the land developers
and speculators certainly do.  Does the Common Joe (if you will allow
me to use such a term) who lives in a big house in the suburbs instead
of a smaller house or apartment closer in?  I don't think so.  Most
of the people I know would gladly give up their 2-4 hour daily commute
if they could.  But they cannot afford to live in a "safe" neighborhood.
Why not? Because many of the people with jobs, civic attitudes, a sense
of neighborhood have moved to the suburbs!  Look at L.A.  This is an
example of where this mindless development at all costs attitude leads
to.  You are certainly right that population growth is at the root of
the problem.  But so capitalist greed!

Okay, I'm sure I'll get flamed for that last bit, but I couldn't help it. :`)

Jim Ausman
-- 
	"You are not thinking.  You are merely being logical."
				-Niels Bohr to A. Einstein 
				(during their famous debates on QM)
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 04 Jan 93 21:01 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600029:000:910
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  4 21:01:00 1993


> In the very long run, as Keynes put it, we are all dead.
 
Is Keynes speaking about us as individuals?  A species?
Or the planet?  And....how much of his theories did he
base on this morbid presumption?
 
> There is one major change from the past.  Formerly the poor were
> overwhelmingly exploited workers.  Now, while workers are still
> exploited, most of the poor who get the sympathy are suffering
> because, for a variety of reasons, they are not exploited.  The
> exploited workers battle to get *more*, but they aren't starving.
 
People can be exploited without starving.
 
> Does the experience with having socialists in power in many countries
> in this century have any relevance at all to what to do next?
> What ought present socialists to learn from it?
 
This discussion is about The Green Party.  Perhaps you would like
to ask these questions in a discussion for The Socialist Party?
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Long-term leases?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:55:44

The problem with leasing land is that the lessee is constrained
from investing in improvements unless he can be sure of getting
the benefits.  Suppose someone is running for office and wants
to change the terms of all leases to your disadvantage.  You
would not invest.  This has a large effect with regard to lumbering.
If the lumber companies had to buy the land, they would invest
in its continued productivity according to the properties of
the particular piece of land.  When they lease Government land
with the terms of the lease fixed by law, they do exactly what
the law requires, nothing different.

In order to achieve proper motivation of all parties, all sorts of
business arrangements have to be possible.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:50:02

In article <1678600031@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:


   > 2. The 30 billion is based on a National Academy of Sciences study
   > of some years ago about food.  As for everything else, name what you
   > suppose to be a limiting resource.  Name two, and I'll discuss them.

   1. Land fill space

   2. Energy

   3. Clean Water

   4. Clean Air

   5. Forest Products (oh, how I hate to use those words together!)

   ... Just for starters ...

   > 4. The two billion malnourished people are less malnourished than
   > before the Green Revolution, and there is a lot more where that
   > came from.

   The Green Revolution [sic] brought in mono-culture crops supported
   by biocides, fertilizers, and oil consuming farm machinery.
   Originally, there was a surplus because the soil was still rich from
   its previous organic care and because the insect pests had not mutated
   to adjust to the biocides.  However, this method of farming began to
   render less and less as the soil was depleted of its organic nutrients
   and the insects became resistant to biocides.  In many parts of the
   world, the situation has gotten so bad that farming communities have had
   to revert to traditional organic methods of farming.  And guess what?
   The soil began to produce abundantly again!

   Dale

You just made this up out of anecdotes.  Look up some actual
statistics of world agricultural production over the last 30 years.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 22:41:20 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

In response to Karen Lofstrom:

The Greens is probably the most democratic organization of its kind
in the country.  I'm sorry you've been too busy to take part in the
process of deciding the platform, but it's never too late!
You can send delegates to the next Gathering (financial aid is
available for low-income Greens) and make your view heard.
You can write letters to the Editor of the national newsletter,
Green Politics --- and I have _never_ seen the editor, Eric Odell,
commit any bias towards the Left in that publication.  In fact,
several letters to the Editor stating exactly your views have been
printed.

No one "grabbed" the organization.  No one is claiming to be
"Greener than thou".
There is nothing wrong with a diversity of views on how much transformation
our society needs.  Many environmentalists like myself have, through long and 
careful consideration, come to the conclusion that corporate capitalism
is inconsistent with ecological and humanitarian ideals.  

Your comment about the "bureaucrat's government" shows that you have
never seriously looked at the proposals of the Greens where economics is
concerned.  We are NOT calling for State control of everything.
We are calling for community control of things that affect us all,
through a local democratic process where the people themselves,
not elite experts, lobbyists and special interests, can be heard.
Our vision has a lot more to do with a Town Meeting than with a
Central Soviet.

If you disagree with all this, that's fine.  
The Green movement needs both of us.  But let's discuss issues in a 
substantive way.  The Green platform was adopted democratically;
if your views are persuasive enough, it can be changed in exactly 
the same way.  Let's get on with the business of building a
Green movement!

- Cris Moore
New Mexico Greens
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 20:12 PST
Subject: Re: Long-term leases?
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan5.223313.2223@magnus.acs.:905728211:cdp:1678600041:000:749
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 20:12:00 1993


> If the lumber companies had to buy the land, they would invest
> in its continued productivity according to the properties of
> the particular piece of land.  When they lease Government land
> with the terms of the lease fixed by law, they do exactly what
> the law requires, nothing different.
 
I wonder who set up the terms of these lease laws.  It wouldn't
be the lumber companies by any chance, would it?
 
I know you've probably getting tired of hearing it, but.....
 
The Greens are opposed to centralized control.  In this example,
the problem, it seems, is not necessarily whether the land is
leased or owned, but whether the locus of control, responsibility,
and consequences is local and decentralized or remote and centralized.
 
Dale
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:42:02 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1678600047@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:


|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?

If their only alternative is not working and therefore starving to
death, then I would say they are better off.  Dale, how do you propose
to help these people.
| 
|> 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.

If the alternative is for them and their families to starve to death, I
am sure these children are glad that someone buys the products they make.
| 
|> 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?

All of the above.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 05 Jan 93 03:24:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <JMC.93Jan4081611@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
> Now, while workers are still exploited...

It is unsubstantiated empty rhetoric like this that gives leftists
a bad reputation.  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.  No man in history has ever gotten rich without making
everyone around him rich as well, except by slavery; and slavery
must be maintained by force of law to work.

If a worker is exploited at all, it is by those who use
force to reduce his options--the government that hordes public land
that might be used to feed him; the licensing, minimum wage,
and zoning laws that prevent him from going into business on
his own; the building codes that prevent him from finding affordable
shelter; laws against gambling, prostitution, and drug use that limit
the businesses he may choose; it is the tax collector who robs
half of his wealth before he can invest in in useful enterprise
to squander it on ineffective social programs.  It is this, not
the free market, that is the modern slavery.

Saving the planet is the goal of my life, too.  I want the Earth to
be a clean, beautiful place for me and my children to live in.  It
is for that reason I cry out against the true enemy of the planet:
socialist ideology and governments.  Only when man is free to think,
speak, work, and trade will he accomplish what all of us want--a
clean planet and a decent living for all of us.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 03:57:49 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1993Jan6.194324.13459@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
] I say that the phrase "Save the Earth" is the worst thing to hit
] environmentalism and green politics since the Industrial Revolution.
] Let me count the ways:
] 
] 1) its ridiculous
] 
] 	- nothing that humans are doing right now threatens the
] 	  earth as a planetary body or a geological entity.

True.  However, that's small consolation to the creatures living on it.

] 2) its foolish
] 
] 	- few people seriously believe that anything humans are
] 	  doing will eliminate life on earth either. 

That's part of the problem.  All too many people - Professor McCarthy,
for one - labor under the infantile delusion that the resources of our
planet, and its resistance to the environmental damage we cause, are
infinite.

] 3) its simplistic
] 
] 	- the effects of human activity are on the types and distributions
] 	  of ecosystems on the planet, not the presence of life
]           here. The choice is not life on earth, but particular
]           kinds of life, particular kinds of landscapes.

True.  Cockroaches will survive almost anything.  Trust me, it really
makes a believer of you the first time you see a cockroach casually
amble out of a microwave oven that's just been running on High for
ten minutes.


Despite all its faults, "Save the Earth" does have the virtues of
being short, to the point, and a lot more comprehensible to the man
in the street than "Save the biosphere" or "Preserve our ecological
diversity".  If someone doesn't understand your rallying cry without
your having to explain it to him, you've lost him right there, because
if all he hears is gibberish he's not going to wait for explanations.
He's just going to leave.


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:00:53 GMT



   Are you one of those who grieves for the poor? Can you give a
single example of their plight being caused by other accumulating
wealth? Are you now giving your substance to help the homeless, the
poor, the disadvantaged? Do you live in a cardboard box so you can
give the equivalent of a house payment to the poor. Do you eat garbage
so you can spend your earnings to feed the hungry? What have you done
to help these miserable wretches?

   Or are you part of the legions of hypocites that like to attend
marches when the weather's nice, spend hundreds of dollars each year
on books and magazines that tell what you want to hear? What kind of
car to drive, how many cars do you own, how many TVs, VCRs, tell us
about your stereo, your computers, your furniture, the artwork you've
collected. Show us the receipts for the clothes you've bought for you
and yours this last year. Your protests degrade you and your cause.

Bill
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 21:53 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600063:000:1450
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 21:53:00 1993


From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen>
Subject: Greens vs. Property Rights

From arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de Thu Jan  7 21:26:44 1993
Received: from faui45.informatik.uni-erlangen.de by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.53 )
	id AA29912; Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:26:41 PST
Received: from bfwser.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de by uni-erlangen.de with SMTP;
	id AA23048 (5.65c-5/7.3q-FAU); Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:24:25 +0100
Received: by forwiss.uni-erlangen.de;
	id AA19262 (5.57/7.3m-FAU); Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:30:22 +0100
From: Mike Arras <arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-Id: <9301080530.AA19262@bfwser.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:24:11 +0100
To: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Status: R

In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org>, you write:
>Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
> 
>How do you justify poisoning Native Americans by mining the toxic
>radioactive ore from their lands?
> 
>How do ensure there will be no more Chernobyls or Three Mile Islands?
> 
>Are you concerned that the radioactivity will create mutant life forms?
> 
>How do you justify the very expensive cost of generating electricity
>by using nuclear reactors as opposed to conventional methods?
> 
>Don't you think the government's real purpose for promoting nuclear
>energy to convince us that there is a peaceful use for the nuclear bomb?

	I suggest you start laying off all those drugs you seem to be
taking.

Mike
From: jdgilardi@ucdavis.edu (James Gilardi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:35:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.greens
Organization: University of California, Davis

I'm currently slogging through an Ecology Ph.D. here in Davis and generally
ignore the potential of political solutions to solve environmental
problems.  I do however find the growth of the Green Party locally and
other recent political events to be very encouraging.  Presently, I'm an
inactive member, but would like to change that if I feel I can make a
contribution.  

I'm generally into direct action/conservation and have been involved in
efforts to reintroduce endangered species, rehabilitate habitat, and
monitor environmental impacts of humans on the planet in general.  I'm
particularly interested in the neotropics and its associated oceans, and
currently study parrot ecology and conservation in Guatemala and Peru.  
Being new to networks, I find it interesting to know what people do other
than post intelligent/inflammatory quips on the net.

Ciao,

Jamie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.93Jan6223505@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1ilg5uINNpcu@smurf.sti.com>
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:33:46

Look it up yourself.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:57:13 GMT

In article <1ig9ntINN1rv@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
}
}All too many people - Professor McCarthy,
}for one - labor under the infantile delusion that the resources of our
}planet, and its resistance to the environmental damage we cause, are
}infinite.

This static view of our resources is the delusion - but not that of the earth's
ecological resistance to tampering.

}Despite all its faults, "Save the Earth" does have the virtues of
}being short, to the point, and a lot more comprehensible to the man
}in the street than "Save the biosphere" or "Preserve our ecological
}diversity".

And it's a damn sight more PC than that of the original environmentalists,
the Nazis, who cried "Save the Race!"

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