HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu

In article <1bmr0aINN22r@uwm.edu> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>Fortunately I do not suffer from the fatal conceit of the socialists.
>For me love and socialist governments are totally incompatible.  I do
>not believe in forcing people to give up their property.  What I favor
>is PURE anarchy.  A socialist goverment is NOT pure anarchy.  What I
>propose is VOLUNTARY non-propertarianism.  Thus while totalitarianism
>is a problem for any brand of forced non-propertarianism, it isn't a
>problem for what I support.  Your totalitarianism point may apply to many
>socialists, but as far as what I am talking about it is a non-point.

Marx never equated socialism with anarchy.  Much less "PURE" anarchy.

What is your program for getting voluntary compliance with non-propertarianism.
I'm interested to hear, since I have never come across an anarchist with
a viable program for anyone but him/herself.

<By definition, some would say.>

Say, for example, that you propose some flavor of non-propertarian social
organization.  As the devil's advocate, I refuse.  I will keep all my
toys, I will laugh as the children starve and I will drive a gold-plated
Cadillac while blowing my nose on perfumed silk disposable tissues.  Now,
unless you are going to kill me (not exactly voluntary then is it) what
are you going to do?

Leading by example only goes so far.  At a certain point I think you have
to sit down and define your _enemies_.

... then you have to do something with them.


Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |             New submissions welcome 

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
From: ctrexp5@caa.mrs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re:what is the @ cookbook
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:02:06 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Morris

Don't buy it.  If you want to find out that nitroglycerin will blow up, that'
s about all you'll find.  Sure, how to kill people 6000 different ways, but- 
who needs to spend $21 for that, huh?  

Natepalm
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: robwil@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Wilson)
Subject: Re: What is @ cookbook?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:50:09 GMT

In <1992Oct13.204431.8535@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:


>In the classifieds in many ivory tower magazines like the Nation and the
>Progressive is an advert for one "Anarchist Cookbook" which has captured my
>curiosity (but not 30 clams worth of it) has anyone seen the "Anarchist
>Cookbook" and is it aptly named and is it "kitchen tested"?????????????


>Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

>Keep the Aspidistra Flying!

The Anarchist Cookbook is distributed by right-wing groups to find out the
names and addresses of the unsuspecting radicals who order it.  What they
do after they find you, I don't know (probably just stick you in some
database).  Also, attempting to make any of the explosives in this book
will result in you blowing yourself up.  This isn't an accident.
From: pauls@icecreambar.css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 16 Oct 1992 21:33:24 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
Reply-To: pauls@umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu

Neuromancer  writes
| How can you define your enemies?  Lets see... Smoking is bad
| for the smoker and for me.  Smokers are my enemies.  I will hate
| all smokers.  Oops my grandpa smokes.  I don't hate him.  Ummm...
| propertarians are bad.  Propertarians are my enemies.  I will hate
| all propertarians.  Oops I own property.  For Pete's sake, everyone
| I know does or is at least one thing I don't agree with.  Just take
| a look at how well I get along with the folks on here.  I am one form
| of anarchist or other, but I seem to disagree with just about everyone
| on here (from the left and the right) on important issues.

Well that's a good way _not_ to do it.  Your spurious examples only show a  
lack of priorities.  Why would I give a fart one way or another about  
smokers?  Smokers, as a group, do not drop bombs on people.  They do not  
force poor people to work at subsistence wages, or take away their land.

The distinctly first-worldist nature of your philosophy is precisely what  
makes it so bankrupt for the majority of people on this planet.  Your  
prescription for (in)action, if implemented by the oppressed, would only  
end up with them being dead.  So while the alienated and pampered first  
world youth can jack off about how easy it is to love everyone, no amount  
of loving their oppressors will free the third world.  If a philosophy for  
liberation fails for over 80% of the humans on this planet, you can cancel  
my subscription to it.
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:40:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.214721.8109@lever.com>, ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.144535.18903@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|> >	But can you refuse to pay taxes when you don't like the job they are
|> >doing?  One can cancel a security company contract if they fail to perform their
|> >job properly.  
|> >	There will be checks and balance through the free market.  Consumer
|> >Reports and other consumer watch groups, the media, and word of mouth would tell 
|> >people which security companies are the most efficient and least corrupt.  People
|> >would stop subsribing to ones that were bad.  There is, of course, some room for
|> >corruption but with any problem with anarchy, one must compare it to the present
|> 
|> If a private security company was being hired by greedy landlord to burn down
|> his building to collect insurance I wouldn't think that the market would be as
|> a direct an action as I would prefer. If a neighbors' house was burned down
|> I wouldn't consider it a private affair between the landlord and them either.
|> Out of basic solidarity and because I could be next I wouldn't allow that to
|> stand.
|> There are lots of other means of meadiating society other than the market. I
|> wouldn't mind being in a society with market feedback, but I will be part of
|> a for profit society only if coerced. I don't know what to say about those
|> who want to live in such a society other than that they should live apart and
|> not leach on those who want to cooperate. There will always be people who
|> want to gamble or exploit others, they have to be kept apart from the
|> productive members of society.

	In an anarchy, there will be people who will choose to live outside the
market system in their own communities.  They can set up their own arrangement
for protection of their lives and property.  That is their business.  Personally,
I believe that participating in the market system will be more popular and that
if security firms do as good a job as I think they will, they will win over most
people.  
	Anyway, an insurance company can refuse to pay if they found out that the
arson was sponsored by the landlord.  The landlord could always do the arson
himself so I do not see why you need a security company to do that.  And can't
landlords do those type of illegal activities today.  If people were injured 
in the fire, then they could seek redress under an anarchical legal system so
that the landlord would have to beware.  I don't understand your point.

					Daniel LaGattuta
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:20:55 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Oct5.212029.5114@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>I find it strange that you are so personally threatened by the idea
>that people might actually want to buy MS-DOS that you would even
>dream of threatening to kill people to stop it.

I was replying to a post someone made earlier that said people that
make useful products should become rich because of their product.
The Bill Gates story is a story about a person who did not create a
product, but became a billionaire using someone else's creation.

The people that wrote MS-DOS got a little bit, possibly the equivalent
of a whole year's salary, while Gates got a hundred thousand times as
much money.  You might think that is fair, but I do not.

It is my impression that this is how capitalism works.  Someone has a
good idea, some business man buys the idea without letting the creator
know how valuable it really is, and then the businessman gets rich and
gets all of the credit for the product.  This is hardly a system that
rewards people who have good ideas or make good products; it is a 
system that rewards dishonest businessmen.

Whether or not capitalism is the best system, I would only consider
the MS-DOS story a success of capitalism if the actual creators of
MS-DOS became billionaires, with Gates getting a sizeable finder's-fee.
From: mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: What is @ cookbook?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.204431.8535@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>
>In the classifieds in many ivory tower magazines like the Nation and the
>Progressive is an advert for one "Anarchist Cookbook" which has captured my
>curiosity (but not 30 clams worth of it) has anyone seen the "Anarchist
>Cookbook" and is it aptly named and is it "kitchen tested"?????????????

	I've heard that it's as laden with booby traps as anything.
There, a little more clutter on what is sure to attract a cross-over
debate into alt.pyrotechnics, alt.snotty.credential.brandishing and
alt.more.radical.than.thou.

	*hrf*

	-Mike

-- 
Michael Hall    mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"If you're not revolting against work, you're working
against revolt." - Bob Black

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:21:19 GMT

In article <Bvq2y6.4Lx@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	Agreed.  Especially since left-anarchists have difficulty answering
>even the simple questions on how conflicts would be resolved between people
>without government.  It seems that history has already answered with the

Wrong you just don't like the answer. Decisions would be made collectively.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:18:03 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct4143450@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.040346.21580@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

>But even if you could, one thing that left-anarchists don't seem to
>recognize is: people are willing to kill for luxuries.  In the inner
>city, people aren't being shot over loaves of bread -- they're being
>shot for their Reeboks...

Well that only happens after generations of neglect and hatred. Certainly
Reeboks probly empty only 20 minutes of labor value at the most. Hardly worth
the risk of killing someone over.

>automating both manufacturing and clerical work, but I think it will
>take a capitalist economy to develop and implement the necessary
>technology.

A planned libertarian society could do as well. Read "The Economics of
Workers Councils and a Self-Managed Society" by Castoriadous.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.162232.12670@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:

>Does anybody know of any major historical thinker who had a sense of humor?
>As far as I know, they all seem to be intensely goal-oriented sourballs.

Actually, according to Paul Johnson in _Intellectuals_, Karl Marx was
quite good at telling jokes.  (We can probably just skip the
inevitable comparisons to the other humorists of that name.)  Also, it
can be argued that Jesus calling Peter a rock right after he sank like
a stone in his attempt to walk on water was intentional humor, as well
as an obvious pun on Peter's name.  I suspect that the problem is less
in the original thinkers than the fact that any movement which forms
around a thinker will tend to attract humorless, fanatical types who
will be offended at the idea that any part of their hero's gospel was
intended less than seriously.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: william@syacus.acus.oz.au (William Mason)
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:54:31 GMT

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>Does anybody know of any major historical thinker who had a sense of humor?
>As far as I know, they all seem to be intensely goal-oriented sourballs.

Well a challenge(?) !  Seems like you've spread a wide net Kurt.  I suspect,
somthing more politically/socially oriented was intended -- here's an
answer from a broad interpretation.

    George Bernard Shaw                Lao T'su
    Ramsey McDonnald                   Elizabeth I
    Ulysses S. Grant                   St Francis
    Abraham Lincon                     Buddah
    Mark Twain (S. Clements)           King David
    Oscar Wilde                        Heracltus (sp?)
    Albert Einstien                    Sun Tzu
    Neils Bohr                         Gandhi

Some things are so sublime, the only way to deal with them is to laugh

    ... (which one of the above said that ?)
-- 

________ "Where there are shadows, There will be light, ..." Texas. ________
 _--_|\    William Mason                 ACSnet:    william@syacus.acus.OZ
/ ACUS \   Aust Ctr UNISYS S/w           Internet:  william@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Cartels and the like
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:16:38 GMT

I was just thinking that the "tragedy of the commons" applies in a lot
of cases:

	environmental laws
	price-fixing cartels
	labor unions

In each case, a group of people agree to each perform some act, an act
which is harmful to the person who performs it, but beneficial to
everybody else.  Unfortunately, the benefit (cleaner environment,
higher price, higher wages) can be obtained by people who *aren't* in
the agreement, thus making it hard to keep the agreement working.

Now the point of noticing this similarity is: If price-fixing cartels
are inherently unstable, then it is likely that
environmental-protection agrements are also.  And labor unions as
well.  On the other hand, if stable, durable environmental-protection
agreements can be made in a pure libertarian system, it is likely that
stable price-fixing cartels can be established as well.

Dale
From: mjw@viper.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth)
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:38:33 GMT

In article <1b23omINN37n@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
|> 
|> > If people in a right anarchy had the pacificm that left anarchists
|> > require in their society, then how can left anarchists criticize right
|> > anarchy.  It would work according to their own requirements of human
|> > nature. 
|> 
|> As long as you have property, you will never have peace.  As long
|> as you have people who value themselves by how much they own, rather
|> than how much they love, you will have property.
|> 
|> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


This statement is patently absurd.  There are many ways to measure one's value.
In fact, there are many areas in which someone can have value.  These things may
be completely unrelated.  Certainly, people who can only measure their value by
how much they own have a warped value system, but attempting to base socitiety
on some sort of new age feel good concept is mind numbingly pathetic.  What the
hell does "love" in this context mean anyway?  And what about it prohibits
ownership of property?  

Mike
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Definition of property
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:25:48 GMT

If one wanted to set up an anarchy that had any concept of private
property, how do you set the rules on what is ownable?  Property
sounds so simple until you have figure out exactly what is ownable.
Consider all the fights going on about software: patents, copyrights,
copyrights on "look and feel".  Who sorts out that mess?  Who issues
patents???

Even more amusingly is the fact that one of the most common pieces of
property in human history has been declared un-ownable in so many
places that we forget that it is an innovation.  I'm referring to
people.  Not only has slavery been forbidden, but even indentured
servitude (a job that you are obligated to hold for a specific term of
years).  The consequence of that are non-trivial, even in modern
society: If indentured servitude was available, one could purchase
advanced training very easily by simply agreeing to work for an
employer for a certain time to pay him back.  As it is, we have to use
government-guaranteed education loans that aren't erasable by
bankruptcy.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:08:17 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
> 
> Does anybody know of any major historical thinker who had a sense of humor?
> As far as I know, they all seem to be intensely goal-oriented sourballs.
I think it is really just an artifact of the tradition of scholarly
thinking.  If you go back to the Greeks, for example, they had a
tradition of story-telling to get points across.  Some of the classic
Greek stuff is a mixture of comedy and tradegy.  When you get up to
18th or 19th century thinkers rebelling against the industrial
revolution, or whatever, they felt they had to give serious arguments.
Many great thinkers wrote side-splitters, but you just don't get
exposed to it that much.  Jewish intellectual tradition especially
has a humor side (although not exactly Hee-Haw).  I'm sure some
intellectuals revelled in their misery (I somehow can't picture Marx
at an Octoberfest), and maybe that sometimes is necessary for some
types of genius.  I liked the Callahan cartoon that had the pissed
off lady saying "This is a FEMINIST bookstore!  We don't HAVE a
humor section!"  There must be a grain of truth in the stereotype of
the overly serious fanatic.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.co-ops,aus.general
From: william@syacus.acus.oz.au (William Mason)
Subject: qu: infomation on L.E.T.S.  ?
Summary: Request for info on a LETS system for trading goods & services
Keywords: co-op barter trade
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:16:32 GMT


I greet you all.

On the national network, night before last, I happened to tune into 
a discussion of a system for local trading called LETS.  Apparently,
originating out of Cannada and spreading around the globe (at least
in the west ?).  

The little I did catch, interested greatly and seemed to have practical
merit.  From this post, I'm hoping to learn more about the LETS system
and maybe collect people's experiences, if any with it.  How about it ?
Anyone have anything to share with us.  The following is my best 
understanding from the radio show.

    Local Employment Trading System (LETS)
    -     -          -       -

   Was begun as a way to swap/barter in communitie(s) where the 'outside'
   money (i.e. "legal tender") was not coming in.  The community was 
   functional, yet the main employer, etc. might have gone out of business
   due to extra-community circumstances.

   People could still do stuff, handyman, music teacher, doctor, etc.
   People still wanted all those things done.
   Yet there was not simple way to (a) match needs & supply, (b) maintaining
   equity for the exchange.

   The LETS idea was to amass points for 'favours' and people could
   'pay' each other in points.  In short a form of local money.

   The key to the system is seemingly some sort of bulletin board 
   and database, to ease the administration.

For those who know more, I hope I've done the concept justice.  And that
you'll find time to share your knowledge with the net.


In appreciation of your attention (and time).
-- 

________ "Where there are shadows, There will be light, ..." Texas. ________
 _--_|\    William Mason                 ACSnet:    william@syacus.acus.OZ
/ ACUS \   Aust Ctr UNISYS S/w           Internet:  william@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 11 Oct 1992 17:10:37 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>"All You Need is Love" is a fine Beatles tune but an unsound idea
>for social organization.

Bingo!  Give the man a cigar!   So you have to choose, love or
social oppression... oops organization.   Maybe one day we'll be
bright enough to choose the former.

"You say you want a revolution..."   
 
Glenn                      glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ossplm@euas39c57.news (Per Lundholm)
Subject: Re: Deep South Anti-Columbus Anarchist Gathering
Organization: /home/euas28/u2/users/ossplm/.organization
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.162628.16080@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:

>	   Columbus was not an anarchist but Columbus did some good that an
>   anarchist can appreciate.  The Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztec and
>   Incan Empires which were also imperialistic.  He also opened up the New World to
>   colonization so that people could escape from tyrannical societies in the Old
>   World.  
>
>					   Daniel A. LaGattuta

... and the Maya people was hard to beat because their decentralized
structure. Shame that *they* didn't win.

--
Per Lundholm


Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy