HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:59:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.232815.586@kpc.com>,
emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.201529.16008@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>>They were paying more for their TV's. On the other hand, without
>>>the protectionism, they probably wouldn't have had the jobs that
>>>would have afforded them TV's in the first place.
>>
>>No, there would have been less jobs available in television
>>building but that doesn't mean that there would have necessarily
>>been less jobs -- just different job.  If were not cost effective
>>to build TV's the investors putting their money into that industry
>>would have looked for someplace they could have gotten a better
>>return on their money than it making TVs.  The result would have
>>been the creation of job in other industries *plus* imported TVs
>>that were affordable by more people.
>>
>>/June
>
>        What economic study of Japan are you basing this theory on?

None.  First, I never claimed to be an economist, much less a
specialist in Japan.  Second, what I am describing is a process
supported and explained by general Austrian (and probably several
other) schools of economic theory.

What I said is that there is no reason to believe that Japan should
be in any way exempt from these theories.  If you want more info or
detail than that you're going to have to ask over on sci.econ.  I've
read enough to convince me about this stuff, but not necessarily
enough to teach me how to convince someone else.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:09:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Apr7.094009.815@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

+>In article <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
+>> In article <1992Apr6.100838.4157@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
+>>>In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
+>> 
+>>>|> When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
+>>>|> regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
+>>>|> government is?  This party would do _very_ well.
+>> 
+>>>Business represents normal people spending money.Business has no power to force
+>>>anybody to do anything. The only thing that a business is able to do is spend
+>>>money. They get power over people, because people are willing to do things for
+>>>them in exchange for goods and services. There is absolutely no philosophical
+>>>basis for what you suggest. The only ways that businesses are limmited, are by
+>>>governmental regulations that detract from the freedom of their owners.
+>> 
+>> See, I'm a civil libertarian, and am for intelligent government
+>> policieis towards business (rather than plain antagonism) but *this* is
+>> the thing that keeps me from being a Libertarian.  This total naivety, with 
+>> a complete lack of historical perspective.
+>> 
+>> Have you heard of company towns?  Have you studied the history of the US
+>> around the turn of the century?  Do you know how Pinkertons got started?
+>> 

+>	A company forcing people to live in company owned housing, buy products
+>at the company store, etc. is in direct violation of the Libertarian
+>principles.  People are to be secure against infringements of their rights.

	A "company town" involves the company owning the property that the
town is on.  There is also nothing in liberatarianism to pervent employers
from forcing people to buy only at the company store and to live in 
company housing as a condition of employment.  The company is the employer
and the property owner.  The only "right" under libertarianism that such
people would have would be to quit the job.







Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Campaign $$$$$$$
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:25:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.212025.18123@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Dukakis & Bush spent around $240 Million combined in 1984.
                                                      ^^^^
Shouldn't that be 1988?

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Smart highways near  (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:39:00 GMT

In article <STEINAR.92Apr15171135@faust.solan.unit.no>,
steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>The person who prefers to identify himself as just "Brett" writes:
>>        Speaking of toll roads, AT&T and Lockheed announced that they will
>>jointly construct the world's first "smart highway" with computerized toll
>>booths that automatically debit your monthly account.
>
>We already have that in Trondheim.  You have a small chunk of plastic
>fastened to the windshield of your car.  The plastic contains a tiny
>transmitter that sends out a very weak signal identifying your car.
>At the toll booths, a receiver sends the information to the computer
>and the computer automatically deducts the appropriate charge from
>your account.  It's been in service since October.

Cindy,

Is there a way to turn off the transmitter and pay cash instead in
case you do not want a particular trip to end up in the computer?

/June
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party Chair to speak at Stanford University
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:28:57 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <2282.29EC2ABE@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle) writes:
>
> 
> 
>U.S. Senate Candidate, June Genis, who is running for the 6 year term, will be present to same a few words about her campaign and the political efforts of other Libertarians.
> 
    This is the same June Genis that reads this group?

  ...explains the previous biased postings against Perot :-)

   Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17131 sci.econ:3589
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Pension Expenses Re: Facts on Social Security (Berry Long)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:14:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702605648
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

Another fact on Social Security - if you are an alcoholic or drug
addict, social security will support your habit to the tune of $600+
dollars a month.  They fall under the definition of "disability" it
uses.
-- 
Archduke Ferdinand Found Alive - First Word War a Mistake.  News at 11.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17830 alt.activism:7554
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Jerry Brown on Mexican Free Trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:24:44 GMT
Organization: FYL

Some time ago there was a discussion of free trade.  Someone grumbled
about Brown's position.  However, people didn't really know his
position.  I forwarded the discussion to Brown headquarters.  Here is
the response:


    From: Brown for President <75300.3105@CompuServe.COM>
    Subject: Help on Mexican FTA statements (fwd)

    EJB is against the Free Trade agreement as it has been negotiated - the
    reason being, the ordinary workers who are loosing their jobs to "free
    trade" haven't been represented, and their interests are not
    protected.  We need a Common Market along European lines, one in which
    wage standards are protected, as they are in Germany.  Also this
    economic integration should happen gradually to protect community
    standards.  Certainly no agreement should be negotiated that does not
    protect the environment.  The question is, do we trust George Bush and
    his Administration to represent the best interests of the average
    American worker, when all that they've done to date is protect the
    interests of the multi-million dollar CEO's who benefit from using
    cheap labor on the other side of the border?
    
-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@cpac.washington.edu or fyl@fylz.wa.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:23:34 GMT

rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>>Mugging?  No, taxes.  You don't like taxes - tough nookies.
>>I have little respect for libertarians who make tax elimination
>>their top priority.  Work for personal freedom, a more just
>>society, etc. - leave the tax elimination for the last step
>>in the evolution.


>And this is the crux of it.  You seem to believe that if the majority
>decide something it can't violate personal freedom, and furthermore
>that use of force by the government to obtain involuntary funding
>doesn't violate personal freedom either.

Nonsensical.  Of course the majority violates personal freedoms -
it does it all the time.  That is the essence of the trade-off
between individual rights and societal rights.  You want to
play your stereo as loud as you want, but your neighbors don't
want to be bothered by the noise - so whose rights supercede?
In this case, the question is more complicated - society wants
to raise money to do public works, but you don't like the
public works and don't want to pay for them.  Right now society
wins.  I understand various individuals have come up with
alternate money-raising schemes to replace taxation.  Wonderful,
but I have no faith that they'd work (and no, I haven't seen
them).

> Taxes are at the root of
>government's belief that it has the authority to do whatever social
>experimentation it wants to.  I can't work for personal freedom or a
>more just society without working for tax elimination as well.

I have no respect for somebody whose primary goal in politics/social
engineering is to protect their wallet (which is not necessarily
what you are doing, but is the impression that many libertarians
convey).  Taxation is not at the root of anything.  Gov't has no
beliefs - individuals do, and it is not based on taxation.  You
could work for personal freedom w/out trying for tax elimination.
It's easy - work on legal reform, work on reduction of regulations,
work to end the war on drugs and/or drug legalization, etc.  You
can even work for a more just tax structure (I don't think that
that would be hypocritical of you) or an elimination of "social
engineering" programs (not a noble goal, IMHO).
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism: The Great Satan or NOT!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.092029.813@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>In <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>>+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>>+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
>>+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
>>+>non-interventionist foreign policy.
>>
>>       The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>>employment, housing, and "service".
>
>        Untrue.

No, it's not untrue that we support the right of someone to
peacefully discriminate, however, it is untrue to say that we think
they should.

>>       They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
>>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
>>governments abroad.
>
>        ??? I haven't seen this anywhere.  Indeed one the basic tenents of
>Libertarianism is non-intervention.

We believe that non-intervention is the appropriate position for
*government* to take.  But just as you have an absolute right to go
to the aid of someone being beaten up by the neighborhood bully if
you choose to, we think you should have an absolute right to go to
the aid of people being beaten up by Saddam Hussein.  We just don't
think the government should be able to comment everyone to doing
that, especially when he's not beating up on us in any direct way at
all.

>        [All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
>         parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]
>
>        Hmmmm.  Where is the FTP location?

Look in the /pub/libernet directory on think.com

>Brett

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18300 alt.activism:7732 soc.rights.human:1442
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: Candidate Larry Agran Excluded, Arrested
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:46:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Apr13.105112.926@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <9204110051.AA00211@wright.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>>        The statement that "117 people are running for President" is also
>> false.  The truth is that there were only four active candidates on the
>> Democratic primary ballot -- Agran, McCarthy, Brown and Clinton.
>
>	While my estimate is wrong (the tally at this point is ~338) the main
>point is correct.  There are far more candidates than can be afforded attention
>by the media.  It is natural for them to concentrate on what their viewers want
>to see.

The general public does not vote for candidates it feels unfamiliar with
(regardless of how little they actually know about the track records of the
candidates they do feel familiar with). Therefore, the process is *driven* by
the media-- no media coverage leads to few votes. Rather than being natural
for the large media to concentrate on what their viewers want, it is natural
for them to concentrate on candidates promoted most strongly by the parties,
because it gives them good relationship with the party structure so they have
easier access to "inside" political stories, and it is the path of least
resistance and least effort required. The viewers don't know the difference in
as much as they don't know what it is they are not seeing. 

>	Perhaps Agran needs to seek out a different party?

This may be true-- the Democratic Party has abdicated whatever social justice
mission it may have had in attempt to pick up the "Reagan Democrats". 
What is really needed is election and campaign reform to reduce PAC and party
influences and make third party candidacies viable (e.g. adequate and
competitive exposure so the voters have a fair basis for determining the worth
of each candidate). 

Stephen Jascourt    stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
From: his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Reply-To: his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:19:00 GMT

In reply to cl23151@ulkyvx.louisville.edu, who writes that
the Constitution guarantees a "right to own a musket," as
that's "all the firearms they had back then," I ask the following:

Does the First Amendment only apply to fredom from the impressment
of official religions that were around at the time?  Does it mean
that only movable-block type presses are free from censorship (no
free radio, laser printers, etc.)?

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to illegal searches for contraband
that was illegal at the time, or does this mean that the government
can randomly search for anything that became illegal after 1791?

Does the Fifth Amendment only apply to self-incrimination
for acts that were illegal in 1791?

You can see where this is going.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, no free man shall be debarred the
use of arms.  

--Michael DeLee
                      his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18523 talk.politics.guns:11791 alt.individualism:2480
From: his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarians ARE Liberals (was Re: Perot for President)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:44:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr16.214426.15539
Reply-To: his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Brandeis University

To those who finally recognize the LIBERAL in LIBERtarian . . .
Brandeis University has had for two years now an organization
called the "Liberals Club."  That's right, they're "true" liberals,
not "new" liberals.  Let's take back the name from the Left.
--Michael DeLee

           his99a@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17782 ca.politics:3411 ba.politics:2628 alt.politics.homosexuality:1979 soc.motss:19967
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:12:54 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:

> >it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                       lifestype upon
> 
> ...and I can't type today :-(
> 
> Doug
> -- 
>                                                      Doug Fierro
>                                       |\             UTS System Software
>   O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
>   \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
>  __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Thats O.K..  Your boat is cute and that makes up for it. :)

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Agran Gets Screwed
Keywords: BFD
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:24:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


The May 1990 journal, "The American Spectator" has an interesting
article on the Mayor of Irvine, CA. In "The Evil Emperor of Irvine,
California" David Brock talks of how Irvine was transformed into
a community with a leftist-agenda.

	"As an attorney myself ... I've concluded one of the most
	important things we can do as attorneys or citizens in
	general is to take control of local government. Most smaller
	cities or medium-sized cities can be easily controlled
	poltically with about five lawyers and some of their
	supporters. It's probably easier if you have only three
	lawyers and their supporters, and you just decide what kind
	of community you want to live in ..."
	
				-- Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, speaking
				to the National Lawyers' Guild,
				June 18, 1989
				
This is precisely what has happened in many small suburban communities,
such that the scum is firmly in control and the RKBA is mercilessly
destroyed. Agran was recently quoted in Gunweek as making some firmly
anti-NRA statements.

It talks of how, when Agran was in the minority, and was unable to
attact big-business bucks, he got a $160 cap on political
contributions. [Sounds like the Supreme Court is following Agran
too, with their support for Corporate contribution bans.]

"But he routinely violates the limit by getting large "in kind" 
contributions from Irvine groups with which he has close ties."

But, here in a nutshell is the probably the reason for the mounting
war on the RKBA:

	"As in other locales, the conservatives find themselves
	out-gunned, as too few in their ranks care to become "activists"
	of whatever stripe. So the left moves in unchallenged, and fights
	with every means availible when the public discovers the sheep
	are wolves. Sheridan reports that a campaign of intimidation
	by the Agran forces has begun, causing her to lose some real
	estate clients and receive threatening phone calls from anonymous
	antagonists. The Agran camp even has someone in her office
	monitoring her incoming calls, she says. But this is on par
	for the course in a community where "everyone is afraid of Larry,"
	as Sheridan puts it. As if the paraody the neo-Stalinist aura
	he's created, Agran recently ordered that an armed police officer
	stand gurad at each public meeting of the city council
	after a woman offered some critical comments about the mayor's
	reign. Associates say the mayor fears someone may try to kill
	him, in the heat of a Ceausescau-style upraising."
	
With neither "influence" nor "power" to remove these people, from apathy
and the selfish lack of voter registration, is it any wonder gunowner
concerns have in the past been summarily disposed of by this breed of 
politician as the mere shrill crys of a dying political power?
From: jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 16:58:18 EDT
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:

> 
>   Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
>   by Ron Sonenshine
>   San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>   --
>   A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>   arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>   is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
> 
>   perhaps through a special tax.
> 
>   According to Stephenson, women outnumber men in only two of 25 crime
>   categories listed by the U.S. Department of Justice--runaways and
>   prostitution.
> 
>   "Boys are just geared for action," she said. "That's the testosterone."
>   --
And people wonder where "blonde" jokes come from....gads.  Betcha
she'd be a *real* fun date! 
 
That's ok.  I'll get her with my proposed tax on dumb people.  After
all, they leach off the productivity of others and slow the nation
down because other people must pick up after them.
 
<Disclaimer:  If you take any of this seriously, get a life!>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc