HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:51:01 GMT

  >  I know a lot of them [libertarians].

  Number, please....

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.223759.14797@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.211327.29535@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin  
>Collins) writes:
>> 
>>  It is a relative term. But let me give an example: A Mexican labourer
>> works 8-12 hours a day/50c an hour  and lives in a slum. His corporate  
>overlord
>> may earn millions a year in an air-conditioned office and never touch
>> the production process in his entire lifetime.
>> Most people think that reflects disproportionate wages (not on this
>> newsgroup perhaps, but most people in the real world.)
>>        
>
>I would contend that the Mexican "overlord" is exactly that, a feudal lord that  
>has been placed there with the consent and support of the ruling party.  His  
>postion and the peasants have to do with the socialist government that has been  
>ruling Mexico for decades, not with capitalism.  You seem to be assuming  
>because someone runs a business they are automatically capitalists. Since most  
>of the major Mexican businesses are run by the goverment or rigidly controlled  
>through the bureaucracy and corruption, your use of Mexico for an example only  
>counters your arguments rather than supports them.  


So now the Mexican government is socialistic too. What next? 
(No, I was referring to the American corporate stooge that
invested his money in Mexico. But you seem to assume that anyone connected
to government is a socialist. So please explain your claim that those people
who run businesses are not somehow capitalists. Officially those who
own/invest capital, not those who "run" businesses, are the capitalists.)

Frank.

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13654 soc.motss:32819 talk.politics.misc:36337 alt.individualism:4696
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Government Control Of Private Thoughts and Actions
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:49:07 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

T. Archer) writes:
Kathy Beatty) writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> >I do favor the government
|> >protecting individuals (like me) from other "enlightened" individuals and groups
|> >thereof - like the KKK, the LAPD, Aryan Nation, Coloradans for Family Values, 
|> >Oregon Citizens Alliance, on and on ad nauseum. 
|> 
|> Why do you call these groups "enlightened?"  Groups can't be enlightened, 
|> and the individuals in them are certainly not, by my lights, enlightened.

Boy it's hard to make sarcasm noticable to all.  The next democratic and
republican platforms should be ammended to show support to add sarcasm
marks to the english language.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:19:54 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> What?  Libertarianism is the belief that while there are people who
>|> are good, there are also people who are bad, and they are going to do
>|> bad things.  And the trickier and nastier they are, the more likely
>|> they're going to gravitate to the government as a source of power.
>|> And even the only slightly bad people are still going to do bad
>|> things.  Non-rational things.   The whole idea is to limit the damage
>|> these people can do, when their best tool is the government.
>|> 
>So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?

No, crime isn't acceptable when it's done by a private individual _or_
a government.  That's one of the big distinctions, in fact.  Statists
usually give government the right to do something that would be
considered a crime if it was committed by a group of people.

-- 
You've been leading a dog's life.  Stay off the furniture.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Message Titles
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:57:34 GMT

Geeze, people.  Is it THAT hard to change the message title to something 
meaningful?
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:25:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: genie.1992Jul21.052510.5743
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
}A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
}that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
}of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  
}
}
}--
}Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
}                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson

Of course.  All sorts of vicious, stupid, nonsensical things like this should
be permissible, no matter how absurd.  Refusal to deal doesn't violate anyone's
inividual rights; only violations of individual rights are prohibitable.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: "A Democratic Party That Isn't" (Op-Ed)
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:46:14 GMT

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>To what, indeed? The New Covenant is our New Deal, a gift to the American 
>people from the Eastern Establishment. They know exactly what they're 
>doing.   

Was it really necessary to copy a 160+ line posting so you could add three
lines of commentary?

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:24:59 GMT

rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
: In article <1992Jul23.010100.13640@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >However, there are bars that you can go to - right? If not, then you and
: >your friends could open another bar - where you would not have a problem.
: 
: "Money talks."  Propertarian Party politics in action.

Throughout the history of humanity, it has been true that money, or its
equivalent, "talks". Sometimes it has little to do with property, like when
a person is just trying to get enough to feed themselves and/or their family
a little better. 

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:24:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc


In <1992Jul21.033657.27846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Paul Ciszek states:

|A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
|that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
|of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  

This begs some interesting questions:

What about dual use manufacturers?

Is a knife maker involved with making weapons?

Suppose the rep. claimed that knife making was okay; his wondorous
software package was permissable for their use.

Is a manufacturer of target pistols, designed for Olympic competitions,
a manufacturer of "weapons?"

After all, Romanian Champion pistol shooters shot it out with Romanian
loyalists during the last overflow of the Communist government.

Or, is a person involved with assembling a Colt "Sporter" 5.56mm rifle
considered to be a non-weapons maker, as compared to some person
involved with the manufacture of an M16A2 rifle?

What about aircraft engines?

Machine tools?

Is a manufacturer of explosives engaged in weapons production, or
civilian excavation material?

Does this mean that the firm's software package couldn't be sold to
the a government?

Or, would primitive cultures that relied on private manufacture of
primitive weapons like bow and arrows be also locked out from
purchasing this software?
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: emcelroy@igc.org (Eugene McElroy)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Butts Now Backs Daniels
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:00:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500256:000:2443
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!emcelroy    Jul 20 10:00:00 1992


From: Eugene McElroy <emcelroy>
Subject: Butts Now Backs Daniels

              BUTTS BACKS AN EDUCATOR FOR PRESIDENT
                          by Ian Fisher
             from the New York Times. July 20, 1992
                            *********

     The Rev. Calvin O. Butts 3rd, the pastor of the Abyssinian
Baptist Church in Harlem who came under fire from black leaders
for his support for Ross Perot, said yesterday that he new was
endorsing another independent candidate, Ron D. Daniels, an
educator who Mr. Butts said could not win the presidency.
     While he continued to attack the Democrats record with
blacks, he said the "practical choice" for President, with Mr.
Perot out of the race, was Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.
     "The two best reasons for voting for Bill Clinton and Al
Gore are George Bush and Dan Quayle," he said in an interview at
his church office. "I believe that's where the majority of the
African-American vote will have to go. Unfortunately it will be
because many people just feel that's the only place they have to
go."
     Mr. Butts comments carried a softer edge than remarks he
made on the WNBC-TV new program, "News Forum", which was taped on
Friday morning. In that interview, he said he was not likely to
endorse Mr. Clinton, even as "the lesser of two evils".
     
                     'Taken Us for Granted'
     
     "I don't believe that Bill Clinton is going to be any better
than George Bush," he said. "We all know that Bill Clinton was
raised up by the Democratic Party, an elitist part of that party,
to be the conservative Democratic answer to George Bush."
     He also said: "The Republicans have ignored the people of
African descent. The Democrats have taken us for granted."
     In his remarks yesterday, Mr. Butts said his endorsement of
Mr. Daniels, a former executive director of the Rainbow
Coalition, was consistent with his support of Mr. Perot. He said
his primary interest was in building a third, independent party
that would represent a broader range of interests that the
Democrats or Republicans.
     "The only reason, the primary reason I should say, I
supported Perot is because I believe in an independent political
movement," he said. "And I believed Perot was at least serious
about making a change."
     For the week before Mr. Perot dropped out of the race, Mr.
Butts served as co-chairman of his New York campaign.
                           **********
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:08 PDT
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: The history of the Red Army
Nf-ID: #R:1992Jul20.024354.2700@uvm.edu:-1236542197:cdp:1296500258:000:586
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Jul 21 18:08:00 1992



At least for the historical record, it is nice to see a history of
the Red Army Fraction (not Faction) that get's its name right. I
have little tolerance for their politics, but they were used as an
excuse for widespread civil liberties violations in Germany some
years ago. I once asked a UPI editor why they insisted on calling
the group the "Faction" when the correct name is "Fraction," (as
in a marxist-leninist fraction or cell). He replied that to
correct the error would be to admit that UPI had been wrong in the
first place, and anyway, nobody cared. Typical...
-Chip Berlet

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13607 talk.politics.misc:36227 alt.individualism:4654
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Message Titles
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:28:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <archer.191@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>Geeze, people.  Is it THAT hard to change the message title to something 
>meaningful?

I can't resist this straight line. 

Meaningful message titles?!?  How about some meaningful messages
(starting right after this one).

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:36:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.155656.28226@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>  Phill, could you tell us how/why do you know what the expectations
>|>or
>|>  aspirations of the Cuban people are?
>They have not risen up in the way the US would like for the past 25 odd years.

Why was this argument not used against sanctions against South Africa?
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:20:48 GMT

In article <10925@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@platypus.uofs.edu writes:
>|> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>|> a life.
>He was not being denied a life.  He was being denied a life in that town.

Ohhhh, I see.  That's MUCH clearer.  <snort>

>I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would "choose" to live in
>a place that was likely to be openly hostile to them.

I'm sure you do.

God, can you spell _clueless_?

>I also believe that the right of association works both ways.  No one should
>be able to tell me who I CAN associate with and no one should be able to tell
>me I MUST associate with anyone.

In the private arena, most everyone would agree with you.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:09:05 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
: kb> Kathy Beatty
: 
: kb> When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider
: kb> voting libertarian.
: 
:   I didn't realize people got "enlightened" with a kick to the head.
: 
Oh, I obviously phrased that wrong. How unenlightened of me. I should have said:

"When most people have gotten kicked in the head, I might consider joining the
kickers."

Silly of me not to have realized that.


Kathy
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: coan@griffin (Brian M Coan)
Subject: FMLN guerrillas = freedom fighters
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: net
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:52:55 GMT

Well, just so you right-wing freaks know this, the FMLN
guerrillas who executed the American helicopter pilot
and the other serviceman were tried and found guilty by
an FMLN tribunal because an important part of FMLN
strategy was adherence to international law.

Again, the same is certainly not true of the US government.

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:57:35 GMT

jb> Jim Burke

jb> Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced 
jb> by the masses.  Yet one young fellow in town has not converted.  Hell, he
jb> still believes in outdated concepts like civil rights. Well, to teach him
jb> a lesson all the merchants in town decide that they won't sell any of their
jb> goods to this fellow. No mechanic will fix his car.  Nobody will hire him.
jb> They don't like his politics.  Is this legal?  Well, in fact, this is legal
jb> even today.  There is nothing in the law that prevents discrimination based
jb> on political views.

  And a good thing too, lest Jews be forced to hire Nazis, blacks be forced
  to buy from KKK members, socialists forced to sell to capitalist robber 
  barons, and so on. Of course, in the world of your Burkean civil rights
  believer, it's not true that discrimination based on political belief is
  acceptable.

  BTW, you seem to think that since Libertarianism doesn't condone using the
  state to force a certain position on issue <X>, that all positions on <X> 
  are equally tolerated, and yes, even condoned. Not even close. I do not 
  tolerate racists, sexists, any bigot of any stripe, but I do not approve of
  using the state to smote these kinds of jerks. I realize that a state that
  is given such power will quite likely use it against me or my views.

jb> However, change the above story to replace political views with race.

  And thereby completely destroy any chance at an analogue.

jb> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
jb> a life.

  Then work against socialism and become a libertarian. It's up to *you* to
  decide whether or not you're going to deny someone a life, but it's *not*
  for you to decide for others. As long as enough people like you and me ex-
  ist to assure that anyone who wants to live a decent life can do so, there
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Followup-To: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.053416.535@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr), whose mind seems to have been
lost somewhere in the Renaissance, writes:

>In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>
>}I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>}belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>}happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>}in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>}mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.
>
>Yes, St. Augustine.  In case anyone doesn't know, this position in the
>philosophy man is essentially St. Augustine's.  More recently, Libertarian
>activist David Bergland called it the PANG premise, an acronym for People
>Are No Good.

Libertarian Activist?

Why should anyone need to engage in "activism" in support
Libertarianism?

I mean, it's the Right and True Way of conducting yourself, isn't it?
And people will just naturally tend in that direction if you give them
a chance, won't they?  So why do you feel this need to win over
converts to your religion?

A bunch of pseudo-arguments attempting to refute the statement "People
aren't rational" deleted.  This kid needs to buttress his Poli Sci
classes with a few Logic courses.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13411 alt.society.revolution:414
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.society.revolution
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Revolutionary Cells communique
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:42:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>The odd thing about the book is that it is almost entirely about Arab and
>Marxist groups.  Now, I know that neo-Nazi terrorist groups exist in the U.S.
>and in Europe, but these are not mentioned at all in this book.  Also, some
>of the groups have only carried out attacks on military targets, yet they
>are still classified as "terrorists".

     Neo-Nazi groups have never gone far in the US.  There have been 
attempts in that direction since the 1930s, but the number of converts
has been small.  In the late 1980s, a linkup between neo-Nazis and skinheads
seemed to be forming, but that seems to have wound down with the demise
of punk.  (At one point, a SF-based group of punks formed an anti-Nazi
group to help protect the reputation of the punk community from the Nazis.)
I doubt that there have been more than a few hundred US neo-Nazis at any
one time.  A "national convention" a few years back was reported as drawing
121 attendees.

     The Klu Klux Klan, though, is an enduring bit of Americana, now in its
second century.  It peaked in the 1920s, with over a million members.
In recent years, the Klan has produced a major political figure (David
Duke), so it can't be dismissed.  But it's not really going anywhere.

      Gus Hall is still leading the Communist Party of the United States.
Assuming anyone still cares.  SPY magazine interviewed him a few months
back.  He has a little office in New York, with pictures of him with Stalin
and other biggies of the heyday of communism. There's not much to do;
the Daily Worker became the Weekly People decades ago, then turned into
a monthly, and now is gone.  The rallies, marches, protests, and candidates
are only a memory.  The days when the CPUSA struck fear into people are
almost forgotten.  It's only a footnote to history now.

       This is what the US does to fringe political groups.  They're
tolerated, mostly ignored, and eventually, they die, although some linger
on for decades with a few true believers.  This is the strength of
an open political system.  It really does, in the long run, work.
This is the best argument against political censorship and repression.

					John Nagle
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13737 talk.politics.misc:36615 soc.culture.latin-america:2778