HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:28:44 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Stanford University

In article <1k9l7nINN164@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:

>It is all very simple- you, I and everyone else posting against this concept
>of 'social contract' are unwilling, willing, blindly or whatever, going 
>along with it.  Now the snowballing effect, if you, I and everyone else
>wishes to live here, in these United States, then we have an obligation
>to make the system reflect what we want it to be.  If you, I and everyone
>else let's this system goes, on its own, without our intervention, then
>it will turn into what you don't want. 
>
>You cannot have what you want if you do not work to bring about.
>
>One of the most simple ways to bring the whole system to its knees,
>is right in your own hands- stop paying taxes, if you can convince
>10,000, 20,000, 1,000,000 people around yourself, and others do the
>same all across the country.  Then government as it is will stop and
>pay very close attention.  But as we see, the majority will sit and play
>along with the whole game. And will they do anything, some small percentage
>will, the rest will not.
>
>Your choices become somewhat limited then, according to the grand
>scheme of things. If the majority does nothing to insure that the 
>government does what it is suppose to do and no more, then as a famous
>quote goes-
>
>The people get the government they deserve.
>
>Now why any government or the infamous phrase 'social contract'. IMHO
>most people cannot take care of themselves or things around them, without
>being told to do so.  Now granted I based this on histoical context and
>partly on what I see occuring today.  

Sounds kind of Hamiltonian, to me. Reminds me of a quote from the
film "Citizen Kane." CF Kane and his wife are discussing over
breakfast what will happen if he fails to do sometthing. (it's been
a long time, and I don't quite recall what.) Anyway, his wife
asks indignantly, "What will the people think?"
Kane sharply replies: "EXACTLY what I TELL them to think."

>Without many of the laws and regulations that are in place, we would have
>a society (actually we not have one at all) that is out of control and
>definitely based upon power leveraging (weapons).


What do you think a society is? It is entirely based upon might makes
right. What are the police?



--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8291 ca.politics:10652 talk.politics.misc:69615
From: kburgess@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Ken Burgess  RCS)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Rush Limbaugh
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:40:13 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

Where can I hear Rush Limbaugh on local radio or TV.

Thanks
-- 
	Ken Burgess 
	kburgess@ames.arc.nasa.gov
	Nasa-Ames Research Center
	(415)-604-6347
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8292 ca.politics:10653 talk.politics.misc:69652
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups... (Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:58:34 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan28.003138.18020@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Whether or not "everyone holds XYZ" is meaningless here. If everyone thinks
>the world is flat, it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is an oblate
>spheroid.
>
>You have made an assertion with NO rationale.
>
>Consider this: There are three kinds of property, your body, your ideas,
>and your tangible derivatives.
>
>Without freedom of the last two, the freedom of your body is literrally
>meaningless!
>

1) Your body- obviouly yours and you have dominion over it.

2) Your ideas- quite right, if they are your original ideas, but the
   rest belong to the public domain.  You cannot take the idea of
   Special Relativity away from me.  But it is not my original idea.
   In the general sense, most of your ideas and concepts are borrowed.
   Now you could keep ideas away from me, and that is not correct.

3) Your tangible derivatives- I only arrived here with my body.  Now it
   is up to a collection of these bodies to decide what I can and can't
   have. Face that reality at least. For example, I want the whole world
   for myself only. So we have the choices of living with our freedoms
   as you state, and having to fight off any who should try to take it,
   or working as a group to assist each other in maintaining our
   liberties.

   So this is the philosophical mind field- when we extrapolate our
   bodily rights onto private property.  For what then is to stop me
   from getting everything in world for myself- since if you try to
   stop me, you are denying me my rights to have all property as
   my private property.

>
>You have NO security or any ability to exercise freedom of your body WITHOUT
>the other two properties & assocaited freedoms.

And you have NO security or ability to exercise freedom without the
contractual consent of everyone else. Especially those that disagree
with your position.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 29 Jan 93 01:40:18 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1k6ftsINN1mv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
> In article <1k4ueaINNooa@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> >But what allows you to compell me to be a member of your "group".
> 
> Number one, you live and function ( I assume ) within the social and
> political structure of the US.  That for one, makes it someone compelling
> to become and belong to the social/political contracts that we based the
> operation of our society on.  You of course, are quite free to make change
> via democratic processes.

I think he is arguing that if a state passes a law making sodomy
a criminal offense, "Hey!  It's just part of the social contract."
If he can't persuade people, he'll just have to learn to change.
It's not like there's any fundamental human right, involved, or
any of that other silly "moral absolutist" nonsense that proper
intellectuals have learned is to be avoided.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:59:59 GMT

In article <13961@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <lln00iINN7fr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >>Also, I think it is important that even if the majority of
    >>the population was afraid of having homosexuals present in
    >>various compromising situations, I still don't respect their
    >>viewpoint. I may acknowledge it if sufficient evidence is
    >>presented, but in my mind they are just stewing in their own
    >>ignorant fears.
    >>
    >In short, if someone doesn't agree with you, force your
    >morals on to them.

Which is why hate, fear, and its eternal companion, coercion, will always be
with us.

And it will remain so until the majority of people on this planet can
live and let live -- that a persons hate and fear of something that
somebody else does STOPS being translated into coercion -- the "there oughta'
be a law" syndrome.

In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of saying "We, the
State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults what you can or
can not do".

In California, they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way of saying "We, the
State, are going to tell you two (or N) consenting adults what you can or
can not do".

The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the same
damn coin.

Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters start to put
a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:28:05 GMT

In article <1k3ubqINN1ri@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
    >There is no moral basis for anything if you wish, to play
    >moral relativity. My position is such that, an individual and
    >a group weigh what is best for all concerned. What is best
    >can be very fundamental- best wages to live on, health
    >coverage, treating all customers with respect, etc.
    >
    >You may not agree with the above statements, since you play
    >the role of moral absolutist when it comes to individual
    >rights, and there extrapolation to private property. There is
    >no basis (moral) to give anyone civil or individual rights.
    >We have developed these doctrines, becuase they give all of
    >us fair overall treatment. You scratch my back and I will
    >scratch yours.

Well, to be kind about it, I would say only that "Coram Populo" is a typical
victim of our "modern" edukational system, and hence, essentially can not
reason.

It is rare indeed that I actually laugh out loud, but to read that "There is
no basis (moral) to give anyone civil or individual rights." immediately
followed by a sentence providing just such a basis is, well, hilarious.

However, these postings ARE a serious problem, and, IMO, likely THE problem
with the USA today.

Loosely called ACM, or anti-conceptual mentality, the ACM person is
incapable of treating the world as a unified whole. Instead, his/her
"rational process" consists of slogans, images, sound and video bites,
and a whole horde of imagery, devoid of any connetional rational underpinning.

I see this over and over on the net -- a slogan here, name calling there,
and an inability (or, perversely, a refusal) to treat the concepts
"presented" in an ACM post *as* a concept.

To the ACM, the weather, jobs, a roulette wheel, a book are all the same --
abstract mental concepts that are unconnected.

To the ACM, a job or a book is like a storm -- it just happens.

When for example, an ACM cries for "tax dollars to create jobs", questions
like "WHO provides those jobs", "WHERE do the tax dollars come from (and how
many jobs does THAT destroy)" are mysterious and unconnected. The ACM
has doen hos/her "part", they have cried out for jobs -- but rational
discourse as to the implication of "tasxing for jobs" is beyond them.

I used to think these people were perverse -- now I believe that they are
sincere (mostly) and simply can not deal with connected concepts.

In any case, the above example is classic. It would be nice to debate with
"Coram Populo", but, damn it, he can't think his way out of a paper bag.

Nice enthusiam, but, gee whiz, his posts are an embarrasment.




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the "Social Contract"
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:48:52 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>Hey George, did you sign your "Social Contract"? Nope, me neither. Hey,
>how about you Tony? Did you? yeah, I've never seen this "Social Contract"
>ion any kind of writing either, much less signed one.

Nope, you didn't sign any piece of paper, nor did you explicitly agree
to any form of contract.  And yet you continue to use roads, electricity,
and water that the government provides you.  It is strange that those
very people who most often repudiate the analogy of the social contract
do so while using the very advantages that their society gives them.

>What actually happens of course is that some set of people gain enough
>control of the means of coercion to force another set or sets of people
>to hand over their property at gunpoint for the first set to dispose of.

And while you make fun of the analogy of Social Contract by asking for
a piece of paper, allow me to ask for a picture of the gun pointing at
you.  :-)

Mark Runyan
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Children's Rights
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:47:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <PA142548.867.727974356@utkvm1.utk.edu>,
PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>>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 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?
>>
>>One of the roles of the government is to protect the helpless.
>>and few would argue that children are not in this group.
>
>This is precisely the problem I have with this particular plank in the
>Libertarian Party Platform.
>
>I am willing to support the principle that the calendar age of an individual
>is an arbitrary way to determine their majority.  I will further support an
>effort to discourage further laws based on age.  I will even support an
>effort to review all age based statutes and repeal those that are
>ineffective or unnecessary.  But until a clear, objective, and reasonably
>easy to apply gague of maturity can be developed, I cannot see supporting
>the abolition of all laws based on age.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
>bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I have always advocated that if a child of any age wishes to be able
to do something that it is perfectly legal for any one who is "of
age" to do, that he or she should be able to do so if he or she can
convince a judge (or better yet a three member panel of arbitrators
where the child picks one, the people opposiong the child's action
choose another and those two together choose the third) that that
child understands the consequences of the action they wish to take
and is willing and able to bear full responsiubility for any
possible ensuing consequences.

/June
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8295 ca.politics:10656 talk.politics.misc:69708
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:13:03 GMT

In article <ega3XB3w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
    >stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
    >>It would be interesting to get responses from people that are
    >>not clouded by ideas such as socialism, facist, communist
    >>etc. This is at best, a proces of simply labelling and
    >>therefore dismissing other's ideas, becuase if it smells of
    >>any ideas then it must be.
    >>
    >So, what are you trying to say?

Basically, he's trying to have you ignore all the present day implementations
of his "ideas" (socialism, fascism, communism) because, of course, his ideas
lead to mass murder and horrendous violations of rights.

I.e., he's afraid of a label that fits.




-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The socialist/fascist claptrap item #1: the 'Social Contract'
Date: 29 Jan 93 04:51:46 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
|> How can you claim that continuing to use services for which you pay
|> q usage fee (or taxes) and over which the government claims a
|> monopoly on providing the service implys any acceptance of the
|> social contract?  If a private company controlled all the jobs and
|> services in a town, and outlawed anyone else from coming in to
|> compete with them, would you say that people who work for the
|> company have accepted the right of the company to use such tactics?

And by whose authority did that private company take all of the above
actions?  In theory, the government was given the authority to do these
things by the people.

A better comparison would be the phone system at our company.  If I want
to have a phone in my office it must be one of two different models and
it must tie in to our central phone system.  That reduces my options in
many ways and if I wanted a different model of phone to meet my individual
tastes or if I wanted to avoid the centralized phone system, I would
be out of luck.  Sounds like a monopoly to me.  But it is a voluntary
monopoly.  My company (or more precisely a task force appointed by the
head management of my company) chose this particular phone system and
decided that this system would be the only system available to the
employees because a common centralized phone system provides some very
good communication services that increase the overall productivity of
its work force.  Individually I may not have had a completely compelling
voice in affecting that decision, but I do have some input via making
suggestions to the task force or relaying my telephone needs to my
management chain.

Similarly, the monopoly of the utilities was not instilled by the
utility companies themselves for personal gains, but by the government
working on behalf of the citizens who voted for it.  It may be a
mistake to assume that competition is undesireable in the area of
public services, but I also think it would be a misrepresentation
to state that the monopolistic services supplied by the government
are coercively imposed on the citizens.  In some sense the citizens
chose (either by vote or by representative or by political apathy)
to relinquish control over those services to that government agency.

			...jim
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8391 ca.politics:10735
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: I want an Ollie North Stamp (WAS Re: Is this wrong, or what?)
Date: 29 Jan 93 01:13:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1k6pn9INN4sa@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
# I want an Ollie North stamp- and true hero and patriot to our country.
# Never did drugs... I guess.  Always an upstanding citizen, doing the
# right thing for his country.
# 
# Should the stamp be when he was a kid? Or maybe as Col. North saluting.
# 
# Becuase everything that Ollie did was moral... wasn't it?

Hell, it wasn't even pragmatically smart, much less moral.

"What's the difference between the National Security Council and
a day-care center?  Adult supervision."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8272 ca.politics:10634 talk.politics.misc:69272
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:45:40 GMT
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
|> > Perhaps because there is a signficant portion of our society that
|> > would discriminate against homosexuals in employment and housing.
|> > That portion may not be the majority, but it is enough to do
|> > some serious damage.  And even if the portion is small, the fear
|> > of the possibility of discrimination complicates the lives of more
|> > people than that small portion can directly influence.
|> 
|> The fear of the *possibility*?  That fear won't go away, whether
|> the law exists or not.  That fear will ALWAYS be present, because
|> there will be people careful enough, and clever enough, to 
|> discriminate against homosexuals, without making it obvious.  And
|> what will you do then?  Exactly what was done when the same problem
|> appeared in government contractors in the 1960s -- quotas.  How else
|> can you solve that sort of problem?

If you reread my posting I was not addressing the issue of whether or
not anti-discrimination laws were a viable method for stopping arbitrary
discrimination.  I was addressing the issue of why homosexuals felt
that they were in danger of discrimination.  The question was (or
I posted that I was interpreting it as) "If everyone is supposedly so
comfortable with homosexuals (that the majority would not mind sharing
restrooms with them), then why are you worried about discrimination?"
I was simply showing that seeking to take action to end an injustice
does not imply that the majority support or engage in that injustice.
It simply implies that the injustice exists.

|> > Also, I think it is important that even if the majority of
|> > the population was afraid of having homosexuals present in
|> > various compromising situations, I still don't respect their
|> > viewpoint.  I may acknowledge it if sufficient evidence is
|> > presented, but in my mind they are just stewing in their own
|> > ignorant fears.
|> 
|> In short, if someone doesn't agree with you, force your morals
|> on to them.

Nothing in that paragraph advocates forcing morals on anyone else.
I am simply stating my opinion that their viewpoint is not based
in logic.  Feel free to disagree if you wish.

				...jim
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:49:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.174013.24519@eos.arc.nasa.gov> kburgess@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Ken Burgess  RCS) writes:
>Where can I hear Rush Limbaugh on local radio or TV.
>


Rush is on KSFO, AM 680 from 9.00 to noon,
and 2.00-2.30 AM on TV 5, every weekday
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: ba.politics