------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daedalus Rising To: All Subject: Politics Date: Thu Dec 22 09:26:40 CST 1994 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: -1 The noisy minority; politics ... non-mainstream politics. Call it what you wish. This is a base to discuss politics in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: STARFOX Subject: Re: REH WEEKLY (PART TWO) Date: Sat Aug 24 03:37:11 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Starfox to All <=- St> From Peter Montague St> To: StarFox2@Juno.Com St> =======================Electronic Edition======================== St> . (Post part two) . St> . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #507 . St> With some work, the result might be a law to St> get corporate and other private money out of our elections. St> Democracy in this country would be advanced in a major way, as St> would environmental protection. The candidate I am promoting for President, Ralph Nader, is a positive choice for voters who wish to break the unfair power of corporations and to protect the environment. Mr. Nader has been a national leader on such issues for 30 years. He is the Green Party candidate. He has stated that democracy works. He wants to remove the barriers which currently exist in the United States so that we can exercise exercise democracy. Corporate welfare and laws which unfairly protect corporations from accountability and consequences are on his hit list. I support Ralph Nader with all my heart and all my intellect. Please consider voting for him. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: STARFIRE Subject: Re: REH WEEKLY (PART TWO) Date: Sat Aug 24 03:37:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Starfire to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> consequences are on his hit list. I support Ralph Nader with all my hear DD> and all my intellect. Please consider voting for him. St> I really wouldn't matter if we all did because we don't live in a St> democracy, we live in a republic and the electoral college is all that St> matters. Interestingly, I am one of ten electors in the electoral college system here in Minnesota for Ralph Nader. It was shockingly easy to become an elector! In fact, when I signed up, I didn't know where the electoral college meets-- and I still don't! All this power in the hands of an ignorant like me ... perhaps folks should be alarmed. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: The military machine Date: Sat Aug 24 03:37:14 CDT 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Daring Diane J. <=- -=> Quoting Daring Diane J. : DR> DDJ> I believe we could have a "balanced budget" if we simply DDJ> eliminated the DOD. DDJ> money to a bunch of scum (the DOD) who waste it. My tax money is DDJ> being squandered by them to destroy everything worthwhile. DR> DR> Remember, though - most of those dollars mean jobs. Good-paying jobs. DR> :) The Nazis were well paid, too, I speculate. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: REH WEEKLY (PART TWO) Date: Sat Aug 24 04:38:28 CDT 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 3 DD> Interestingly, I am one of ten electors in the electoral college system her DD> in Minnesota for Ralph Nader. It was shockingly easy to become an elector! DD> In fact, when I signed up, I didn't know where the electoral college meets- How did you go about signing up? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: My Tax Dollars Date: Sat Aug 24 12:20:11 CDT 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo : BT> What do you think of a form of voting that determines where the taxes BT> get spent? I think this would be a vast improvement to the government BT> - watch science, housing, and education soar while the military hits BT> the ground. Which would then in turn force the military to advertise BT> even more than they do now for public funding - which would lead to BT> propaganda, which would lead to counter propaganda, which would lead BT> to lots of information about the military coming out.. Now the BT> question of how to get something like that started.. The biggest problem with the idea is that our government is just too damned big for that, and most voters are woefully uninformed as to what the budget is comprised of in the first place. I doubt most college graduates with a political science would know the intricacies of all the Federal programs, so expecting a constructionj worker or police officer to is pretty incredulous. And if people don't know the details, then checking a box for "education", "military" or "science" amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation; it's meaningless crap that the politicos would just work around if they disagreed anyways. America's just too damned big to have direct democracy. If that's ever to change, it has to start at the local level and work its way up - not the other way around. ... "The dawn of the 3rd age of mankind is... jee, look at the time!" -JMS ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: DARING DIANE J. Subject: Re: The military machine Date: Sat Aug 24 12:20:12 CDT 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daring Diane J. : DDJ> I believe we could have a "balanced budget" if we simply DDJ> eliminated the DOD. DDJ> money to a bunch of scum (the DOD) who waste it. My tax money is DDJ> being squandered by them to destroy everything worthwhile. DR> DR> Remember, though - most of those dollars mean jobs. Good-paying jobs. DR> :) DDJ> The Nazis were well paid, too, I speculate. I think that's sort of a cheap shot. As much damage as some segments of the US government and military do around the world, I don't think you can fairly compare Nazi Germany with America. Nor can I blame someone for taking a job with which to support their family, even if it is a job making guns or ammo. That would be imposing my morality on them, and it's a questionable leap to damn an entire group of people just because they make weapons for a living - using them and creating them just aren't in the same ballpark, I don't think. ... Let no good deed go unpunished. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: What's in a poll? Date: Sat Aug 24 14:11:51 CDT 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Erik Hare To: minnesota politics list Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:55:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Polling I have gotten a lot of responses to my li'l tidbit on polls, so I thought I'd go on a bit regarding everything I know about polls, and those of you who know more can join in. Polls are an important part of campaigning and press coverage. I despise using them as a lead to a political story, but they are still very useful. The most useful polls aren't just the candidate preference polls, but the ones that show WHY a candidate is preferred, issue by issue and demographic group by group. They have their limits, of course; my favorite story is from Tom Daschle's first run for the Senate, where he was doing very well among Amish and American Indians -- these numbers didn't reflect in the [telephone] polls, and were very important to the outcome! Scientific polling started in 1956, with a nebulus trial in 1952. This was after the "Dewey defeats Truman" fiasco of 1948, and the press was looking for a way to predict the outcome of an election. Enter Gallup, and the rest is history. Poll, especially good polls, take a lot of resources so they were done very carefully at first. One of the things that they saw early on was the "Convention Bounce". After a party has had the better part of a week to make its case uninterrupted, it surges in the polls. The big question is how much, and can they keep it? The biggest bounce ever seen was Dukakis 88 -- he got a 17 point bounce. The smallest was Nixon 60 -- a 6 point bounce. Generally, the less well known a candidate is, the bigger the bounce but also the more temporary the bounce is. By election day, Nixon had kept his bounce but Dukakis didn't. This is why I'm calling a smallish bounce for Dole (about 8 points) and that he will keep at least half of that. But how do you keep track? Well, there are a few things to remember about polls. They usually report a "Confidence Interval", which is the plus or minus 3 points at the bottom. This is based on a 95% Confidence Level, or in otherwords, the real spread if the election were held today will be inside that plus or minus 3 19 out of 20 times. 1 poll in 20, though, is outside of that, and is just plain wrong. Things to look for in polls are that CI, or spread. A spread of more than 3 is a warning sign -- it's not necessarily a bad poll, just don't take it as gospel. And look at the number of people sampled -- there are these "overnight" or "tracking" polls of 500-600 people that are nototiously bad polls, and I tend to ignore them altogether. But with all that in mind, one thing that is catching on (though is mathematically dubious) is the "poll of polls". There are so many polls out there that you can average them and get some idea of where the true reality really is. Frankly, it's better to look for the median than the average, but what the heck. The median lead for Clinton was a 53 - 31 - 14 in a 3 way race, or a 22 point lead. I think that after the convention, the median of the polls should fall around 48 - 39 - 11, but that's just a guess. Of course, the Democrats get their say next, and Clinton could pick up a smallish bounce as well (probably less than Dole). Another poll that I've only recently become aware of is the "Generic Congressional Ballot". It asks people "who would you vote for today for Congress, a Republican or a Democrat?" This is much more accurate than you think. People really do still tend to vote party lines for Congress. In November 1994, this was +5% for the Republicans. Since each percent is 4.35 seats, that's 22 seats. Then the fudge comes -- the Republicans have a built-in electoral advantage because of the was districts are drawn, with inner cities and suburbs usually in different districts. And then there was the racial gerrymandering last go 'round, which also helped Republicans. Estimates ran that they had a 10 seat advantage (2.3%, not much really), which means that their +22 in the polls was really a +32. They wound up with +33, so with a bit of fudge it's accurate. Right now, it's been trending most of the summer +4% Democrats. This is very volitile, and if you had asked me 2 weeks ago I'd have said +2.5%. But it's back to +4% D for a median again. And the Supreme Court has nuked the worst of the racial gerrymandering, so the experts say the Republican advantage is down to about 6 seats now (1.4%, trivial). So, the math is: 4 * 4.35 = 17, 17 - 6 = 11 seat advantage Democrats. No, I wouldn't bet the farm on this -- it's a long way to November. Senate polling is done state by state, and that is a very tough thing to call. Right now, for example, William Weld is leading John Kerry in Massachussets. That could change. The very design of the Senate by our Founding Father makes it unlikely that the Democrats will take it back this time, and that goes double if Kerry doesn't pick up steam quickly. But these state polls are difficult to do well, so we really don't know. Erik Hare (hare@freenet.msp.mn.us) http://freenet.msp.mn.us/people/hare/ 47 Irvine Park, Saint Paul Minnesota 55102 612.737.4170(W) 612.227.7876(H) --\ The opinions expressed above are solely those of Erik Hare and no one /-- --/ else, either living or dead, probably *ever* shared them. So there. \-- From: Erik Hare To: minnesota politics list Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:18:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: I can't believe ... Sure, I drone on about polling and I can't even do math. I accidentally gave Dole a 16 point bounce because I'm clearly not getting enough sleep ... :-) What I meant to say was as a median of all the polls: Clinton Dole Perot Pre-Convention 53 31 14 Post-Convention 49 35 13 (My prediction only!) The Democratic Convention could give Clinton another 6 or so point bounce, but I really doubt it (look for a historic low!). Keep in mind that a plus or minus three means that some polls will show an 8 point gap, and some will show a 20 point gap. The 14 points or so that Dole should be down post-convention is indeed closeable, but I don't think that it will tighten that much more. Of course, I didn't think the Democrats would lose the Senate in 94 so who the heck am I? Erik Hare (hare@freenet.msp.mn.us) http://freenet.msp.mn.us/people/hare/ 47 Irvine Park, Saint Paul Minnesota 55102 612.737.4170(W) 612.227.7876(H) --\ The opinions expressed above are solely those of Erik Hare and no one /-- --/ else, either living or dead, probably *ever* shared them. So there. \-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: My Tax Dollars Date: Sun Aug 25 06:58:20 CDT 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 6 DR> BT> What do you think of a form of voting that determines where the taxes DR> BT> get spent? I think this would be a vast improvement to the governmen DR> BT> - watch science, housing, and education soar while the military hits DR> America's just too damned big to have direct democracy. If that's ever DR> to change, it has to start at the local level and work its way up - DR> not the other way around. DR> It appears that BH, like many others, believes that it would be possible for the public to make intelligent decisions about things like the dispensation of the tax money at the lower levels and then have those decisions executed at higher levels. It just isn't, partly because of the reasons you mentioned, as well as the brain-washing effect of the media. I can see the commercials now -- "Make the country safe for this little welfare boy. Provide a job for him flying an X-15 when he grows up. Vote YES on S-562, Spend Bukoos on Military." The only possible solution is for people to realize that it is their JOB, as a citizen, to help make decisions like this and provide the best possible leaders from thr beginning, by getting to know candidates, promoting the best ones, and working to amend or delete lasw that have already been passed that are bad. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARKSHINE To: All Subject: electoral college Date: Wed Aug 28 22:38:47 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: unavailable Could someone explain this arcane institution known as the electoral college? It's boggled me since I first noticed politics, the Bush-Dukakis election of 88. Eight years, nearly half my life, I've been confused. |05 . ś . ś . |05 ®(š=-Darkshine-=š)Æ |05 ł . ł . ł ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Darkshine Subject: Re: electoral college Date: Sun Sep 01 16:25:57 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 10 D> Could someone explain this arcane institution known as the electoral D> college? It's boggled me since I first noticed politics, the Bush-Dukakis D> election of 88. Eight years, nearly half my life, I've been confused. D> It would be easier if you could explain what it is that you have been confused about. It is defined by the Constitution, which is basically why it is such a huge problem for those who want to get rid of it. It is based on the idea of representation. Almost all political action is dome similarly. For example, if I had wanted to be a delegate to either of th political parties' recent National Conventions, I would have started at the precinct caus level. At that caucus, the attenders elect delegates to the next higher convention, the county convention. Then, there, delegates are elected to go to the State Convention. Finally, at the State Conventions, delegates are chosen to attend the National Conventions. At each level, the delegates make decisions that are binding on the larger groups. The electoral colleg is somewhat different, but similar. Its primary purpose was (is) to cast votes to elect a president, even though the popular vote was originally very slow and unreliable in being reported. The electors are chosen for each candidate and in each state, and depending on how the state is proportioned, the electors all meet and cast their ballots for the president. Minnesota is a winner-take all state, which means that if one candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, 100% of his electors will be sent to vote, and none of the other candidate's. This is one of the reasons why opponents don't like the electoral college, but there is rarely a difference between the president elected by the popular vote and the electors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: electoral college Date: Sun Sep 01 17:17:14 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 F> vote, and none of the other candidate's. This is one of the reasons why F> opponents don't like the electoral college, but there is rarely a difference F> between the president elected by the popular vote and the electors. Yes, it rarely does make adifference in the actual outcome - but it makes a huge difference in how the cantidates for President campaign, and thus how different portions of the country are treated. When's the last time you saw a Democrat campaign in Texas? Or a Republican campaign in Georgia? It doesn't happen, because the states are `sure things' to swing one way or the other. If there was not an electoral college, Dole and Kemp might very well be in Texas now trying to round up all the votes they could in their strongest territory - the strength there could help mollify the lack of votes in Minnesota, for example. If there wasn't an electoral college, Clinton wouldn't have made a dozen trips to California in the past few years - but because there is an electoral college, Clinton needs the state to be re-elected. If Dole got 50.00001% in California, Clinton would not have enough electoral votes to win the election. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: REH WEEKLY (PART TWO) Date: Mon Sep 02 05:21:46 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> Interestingly, I am one of ten electors in the electoral college system h DD> in Minnesota for Ralph Nader. It was shockingly easy to become an electo DD> In fact, when I signed up, I didn't know where the electoral college meet BT> How did you go about signing up? BT> *teebo A Green organizer, Ms. Holle Brian, put a posting on the Progressive Calendar about Nader being a Green candidate for President. I called her and told her I wanted to vote for Nader and to help get him on the ballot. Later, she asked if I'd agree to be an elector and I said I would. She sent me an official sentence or two saying I'd be an elector, I signed it, and my name was printed on the petition for Nader. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: electoral college Date: Mon Sep 02 12:03:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 12 DR> If there was not an electoral college, Dole and Kemp might very well be in DR> Texas now trying to round up all the votes they could in their strongest DR> territory - the strength there could help mollify the lack of votes in DR> Minnesota, for example. If there wasn't an electoral college, Clinton would DR> have made a dozen trips to California in the past few years - but because DR> there is an electoral college, Clinton needs the state to be re-elected. If DR> Dole got 50.00001% in California, Clinton would not have enough electoral That is true, and why I mentioned it. But, even if there were a straight popular vote to elect, both parties still select delegates and nominate candidates using a variety of methods, including winner-take-all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Church & State I Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:58 CST 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: unavailable Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202.466.3234 202.466.2587 fax E-mail: americansunited@au.org WWW site: http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joseph Conn October 10, 1996 Rob Boston CHURCHES, CHURCH OFFICIALS FACE FINES, OTHER PENALTIES FOR PARTISAN POLITICKING, WASHINGTON TAX EXPERTS INSIST IRS HAS 'ZERO TOLERANCE' POLICY ON ELECTIONEERING Washington, D.C. Christian Coalition voter guides could get churches and church official s into serious trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, according to an "urgent memorandum" prepared by two Washington, D.C., experts in tax-exempt law. "As Election Day approaches, the Christian Coalition and other groups m ay ask churches to distribute 'voter guides' to their members, contending that this is permissible type of voter education," observed attorneys Milton Cerny and Albert Lauber Jr. "Churches should approach distribution of such voter guides with extreme caution." The two-part memorandum released Oct. 10 was prepared at the request of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group. The documents are being distributed this week to religious leaders nationwide through the Internet as well as traditional communications resources. Said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn, "Many churches have been led into a dangerous political swamp by the Christian Coalition. This memorandum by two respected tax experts should help get pastors back on solid ground." Cerny administered tax-exempt organizations at the IRS for 28 years, including seven years as chief of the Exempt Organization Rulings Branch. Lauber is former U.S. deputy solicitor general and served for three years as tax assistant to the solicitor general. Both are now with the D.C. firm of Caplin & Drysdale. "Election activity by charities, including churches, is currently a sub ject of intense IRS interest," observed Cerny and Lauber in their memorandum. "The IRS recently said it will have 'zero tolerance' for violations, noting that the law 'prohibits all forms of participation or intervention in any political campaign,' even if the charity's involvement is 'subtle' or 'inadvertent.' Several charities recently lost their tax exemptions for making implied endorsements of political candidates....If a church distributes a partisan voter guide, it will constitute improper political activity by the church, even though someone else prepared the guide." Noting that the Christian Coalition has been sued by the Federal Electi on Commission for improper partisan political activity in 1990, 1992 and 1994, the attorneys warn that churches must carefully examine any voter education materials for bias. "The Christian Coalition contends that its voter guides are nonpartisan because they do not expressly endorse candidates and are based on candidates' responses to questionnaires," Cerny and Lauber observe. "In fact, the tax rules are not so simple. A voter guide may implicitly favor a candidate even though it does not tell people how to vote or evaluate candidates with 'plus' or 'minus' signs....If a voter guide exhibits bias in favor of or against any candidate, the IRS will treat it as electioneering activity, even if the guide disclaims any intent to make endorsements." Cerny and Lauber note that churches may lose their tax exemptions and f ace tax penalties for electioneering. Church managers may be subject to personal fines as well. The attorneys advise churches not to think that the First Amendment off ers blanket protection from IRS action. "There is no Supreme Court authority, under either the Religion Clauses or the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, that confers on churches a blanket exemption from tax-law requirements, such as the prohibition against political intervention, that apply even-handedly to churches and other charities," they write. ### Note to News Media: Copies of Cerny and Lauber's three-page "Urgent Memorandum for Churches Concerning Distribution of 'Voter Guides'" and their eight-page "Legal Requirements for Voter Guides to Qualify as Permissible Voter Education" are available from the Americans United Communications Department. Call Joe Conn or Rob Boston at (202) 466-3234. The documents may also be accessed at AU's Website at http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited/ NOTE: Recipients on Fidonet should provide an alternate Internet addres s in the event that your Fidonet gateway closes, as some have already. Reply to sumner@rochgte.fidonet.org ... "Intolerance is a beautiful thing." -Buttons at Republican convention. --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... This is just one humble opinion. Write today, collect all ten! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Church & State II Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:59 CST 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Charles Sumner Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202.466.3234 202.466.2587 fax E-mail: americansunited@au.org WWW site: http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joseph Conn November 6, 1996 Rob Boston CHRISTIAN COALITION CAMPAIGN INFLUENCE SEEMS TO HAVE PEAKED, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MANY CANDIDATES AFFILIATED WITH RELIGIOUS RIGHT LOSE Washington, D.C. The Christian Coalition's massive campaign to elect presidential candidate Robert Dole and other Republican candidates for Congress was a dramatic failure, according to an analysis by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The Christian Coalition isn't a toothless tiger, but it sure needs dental work," said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. Lynn noted that the Christian Coalition claims to have distributed 47 million voter guides intended to help Dole and Republican candidates. Yet Dole lost, and so did many of the congressional candidates most closely identified with the Religious Right. "Most American voters, including many evangelical Christians, are wakin g up tothe Christian Coalition's radical agenda and its dirty political tactics," said Lynn. "Increasingly, ties to the Religious Right are seen by voters as a serious liability." The Americans United executive noted that the Christian Coalition's own polls show that conservative Christian support for Dole and the Republican ticket dropped dramatically from 1994 to 1996. And this shift came despite the spending of millions of dollars by the Coalition to stampede voters into the GOP column. Lynn pointed to several particular races:  North Carolina: House Republican candidates David Funderburk (who att ended the Christian Coalition's 1996 national convention to show his commitment) and Fred Heineman went down to defeat. So did GOP gubernatorial candidate Robin Hays, who attended the 1995 Coalition convention.  South Carolina: Democratic U.S. Rep. John Spratt was reelected despit e being targeted by the state Christian Coalition Executive Director Roberta Combs ("He needs to go," she said at the 1995 Coalition convention, where Combs introduced Republican Larry Bigham and allowed him to speak.) South Carolina is the Coalition's strongest state affiliate.  Illinois: U.S. Senate candidate Al Salvi, a Religious Right operative , lost, despite heavy Religious Right support.  Louisiana: In the Coalition's second strongest state, Bill Clinton ca rried the state, and U.S. Senate candidate Woody Jenkins, a close ally of the Religious Right, was defeated.  Ohio: U.S. Rep. Frank Cremeans, a Coalition favorite, lost to Ted Strickland, a Methodist minister who returned to the House after losing his seat in 1994. Strickland, a Democrat, attributed his '94 defeat to lies in Coalition voter guides.  Washington: U.S. Reps. Linda Smith and Randy Tate, both Religious Rig ht operatives, lost their races for reelection. At the same time, gubernatorial candidate Ellen Craswell, a militant Religious Right activist who promised to staff her administration only with "godly" people, also lost badly. Two voucher-style ballot proposals lost by large vote margins.  California: U.S. Rep. Andrea Seastrand, an outspoken Religious Right activist, lost her bid for reelection.  Colorado: A "parental rights" initiative strongly backed by the Relig ious Right was handily defeated, despite an influx of out-of-state funding. -30- ... 570 of the Republican convention delegates were Christian Coalition. --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Specter Subject: Quotes Date: Tue Nov 26 09:17:05 CST 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: unavailable S | Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists. I would suppose that it would depend on how you define "intelligent". Personally, I can count hundreds of people that I consider highly intelligent who have no visible socialist leanings at all. S | Compassion is not a sloppy sentimental feeling for people who are | underpriveleged or sick... it is an absolutely practical belief | that, regardless of a person's background, ability or ability to | pay, he should be provided with the best that society has to offer. | | -Neil Kinnock, British politician The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone has to provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing someone to provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, slavery. Yup - it'd sure be *nice* if everyone had plenty of everything they wanted, without someone having to foot the bill. That isn't how reality works, though - in reality, if something is provided, then someone has to do the providing. Myself, I'll be content with providing myself with the things I want badly enough to expend the time, energy, and resources to obtain. In other words, yes - I'd like to have a 2 caret diamond, just 'cause they're pretty. But I don't want one badly enough to do all of the work it would take me to obtain one honestly, and obtaining one dishonestly doesn't interest me. FWIW, while I've met several intelligent people who self-identified as socialists, I've never considered the socialist agenda terribly intelligent in itself. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž And God said: E = «mvż - Zeż/r ...and there *WAS* light! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Sat Dec 23 17:06:52 CST 1995 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 17 MW> Yup - it'd sure be *nice* if everyone had plenty of everything they MW> wanted, without someone having to foot the bill. That isn't how reality MW> works, though - in reality, if something is provided, then someone has MW> to do the providing. MW> Yep, it sure would be nice if there were infinate resources availible. manna from heavan. Peace on Earth, and all that jazz. And it sure would be nice if we could all be independent and free, not having to rely on anyone else for anything. But even Grizzly Adams has to rely on someone else - he had an indian friend, a white-haired geezer and a big grizzly. I have a community of people plowing my roads, cooking my meals and ticketing the speeders. If I was not a member of this community, I would not have safe, plowed roads and delicious meals. If I was not a member of this community, I would not be able to specialize - and neither would the other members of that community. Apart, we would all have less than if we could work together. That's why people form communities all across the world, that's why countries battle to lower their trade barriers - to expand the size of the community, and to gain access to more specialized goods and services. The sticker is, by being a part of this community I have to abide by the community's rules. That limits my freedom. But guess what? I sure as hell wouldn't have much freedom living in a hollowed-out tree stump munching on frozen berries, either. I wouldn't have much freedom if I didn't have my technological toys, a roof over my head and a set of finely-stitched clothing. I give up one sort of freedom for another - and so did most of out society. That's why 19th century "hands off" liberalism evolved into 20th century "new deal" liberalism. Because those liberals recognized that the technological community necessitates compromies, to expand the incidence of freedom for everyone. MW> The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone has to MW> provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing someone to MW> provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, slavery. The unworkable part of that theory is, someone has to create the "best that society has" - someone has to create the wealth that each person holds. And guess what? In every single case, the person who holds the wealth and resources has not done so singlehandedly. Bill Gates didn't create Windows, his employees did. Ross Perot didn't mine gold with his bare hands, he filled lots and lots of government contracts. Like them, every single person is able to create their wealth only because there are others involved in the process - others keeping their streets plowed, their children educated and their food safe from disease and contaminants - others stapling the crates, writing the software and wiring the phone lines. So when that person, a person who has created nothing on his or her own, claims the fruit of that labor as their personal right and deed - then that person is insulting the work of all the others involved in the process. A slave is one who is owned by another, one who works and toils for another's benefit. Is Bill Gates somehow a slave, if asked to give up part of his wealth to the society that helped him to create it? Are you or I slave, if our society asks us to give up part of our wealth to support the schools that educated us, the police that keep us safe and the drivers who plow our roads? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Wed Nov 27 11:38:21 CST 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > Yup - it'd sure be *nice* if everyone had plenty of everything they > wanted, without someone having to foot the bill. That isn't how > reality works, though - in reality, if something is provided, then > someone has to do the providing. DR | Yep, it sure would be nice if there were infinate resources | availible. manna from heavan. Peace on Earth, and all that jazz. Sign me up! DR | And it sure would be nice if we could all be independent and free, | not having to rely on anyone else for anything. It sure is - we can. DR | But even Grizzly Adams has to rely on someone else - he had an | indian friend, a white-haired geezer and a big grizzly. I have a | community of people plowing my roads, cooking my meals and | ticketing the speeders. If I was not a member of this community, I | would not have safe, plowed roads and delicious meals. If I was not | a member of this community, I would not be able to specialize - and | neither would the other members of that community. Apart, we would | all have less than if we could work together. You seem to be confusing collectivism and specialization - an easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless. When The Little Snowplow That Did plowed the roads I drive on, it got paid - by money kicked in by everyone who uses those roads. When someone cooks me a delicious meal, they get paid - either with money in a restaraunt, or by labor exchange at home - I clean the dining room or do the dishes or cook the next meal. One is collectivism, the other isn't. A collective has been formed to maintain the roads, and it's paid for (ideally) by the people who use those roads - paying that bill is the purpose of a gasoline tax. The cook isn't part of a collective - they're either an individual who chooses to share living space with me, or a cafe owner, or an employee of that owner. You're right, in that specialization is only possible in a community - but a community isn't necessarily a group of people working together. DR | That's why people form communities all across the world, that's why | countries battle to lower their trade barriers - to expand the size | of the community, and to gain access to more specialized goods and | services. There are lots of reasons for communities to form, and the chance to specialize is only one of them, though a common and important one. But when has a country battled to *lower* their trade barriers? Most countries seem to fight to *raise* trade barriers, in order to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Those countries that want a lower trade barrier don't get any opposition from their neighbors. DR | The sticker is, by being a part of this community I have to abide | by the community's rules. That limits my freedom. But guess what? I | sure as hell wouldn't have much freedom living in a ... Sez who? In our community, it's *impossible* to abide by all of the rules - several contradict each other, and it takes an extensive education and expensive library to be able to look the rules up - I don't think anyone *knows* all of the rules. How do you follow a rule you don't know or understand? (Allow me a plug for my favorite set of rules - the IRS code. Many experts disagree on what, exactly, those rules mean. So how can anyone expect Jane Ordinary to follow those rules, if they're that vague and confusing?) DR | ... That's why 19th century "hands off" liberalism evolved into | 20th century "new deal" liberalism. Because those liberals | recognized that the technological community necessitates | compromies, to expand the incidence of freedom for everyone. How in the world does compromising one's freedom lead to an expansion of freedom for everyone? (Careful - there's a deadfall in this one.) MW > The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone > has to provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing > someone to provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, > slavery. DR | The unworkable part of that theory is, someone has to create the | "best that society has" - someone has to create the wealth that | each person holds. And guess what? In every single case, the person | who holds the wealth and resources has not done so singlehandedly. I disagree, wholeheartedly. Let's use your example: DR | Bill Gates didn't create Windows, his employees did. [...] every | single person is able to create their wealth only because there are | others involved in the process - others keeping their streets | plowed, their children educated and their food safe from disease | and contaminants - others stapling the crates, writing the software | and wiring the phone lines. I *still* hold Gates responsible for Windoze, and may he rot in a GPF forever. But I disagree - he *did* create Windows. Sure - he didn't write all (or even much) of the code. But it was his personal vision, and he chose the people who chose the people who did write the code - giving each of those people what they considered a fair exchange in return for their efforts. If they hadn't considered their payment a fair exchange, Borland was hiring, too. Once they sold their labor to Billy, it was *his* - paid for, fair and square. Bill also pays to get his streets repaired, his neighbor's kids educated, his crates stapled and his phone service. I doubt that anyone can pay to keep their food safe, unless they grow all of their own. Bill also created DOS, though he didn't write any of the code for v1.0, and paid a pittance for the code he bought. He did the work of tracking down a CP/M variant that the owner would sell cheap, and convincing IBM to use that particular code for their new machines. That work is what made him his fortune, or the beginning of it. DR | So when that person, a person who has created nothing on his or her | own, claims the fruit of that labor as their personal right and | deed - then that person is insulting the work of all the others | involved in the process. Bullshit - unless that bottle of Jolt in your 'fridge isn't really yours, it still belongs to the bottling company. I didn't create the computer components I'm using now (though I did assemble them) - but they're still mine, all mine! I don't insult the work of those who *did* produce them by claiming ownership - I only do that when I work on the Packard Bell machine, and that's entirely intentional. DR | A slave is one who is owned by another, one who works and toils for | another's benefit. Is Bill Gates somehow a slave, if asked to give | up part of his wealth to the society that helped him to create it? If asked, no. If he has no choice but to give up some of that wealth or face violence, then he *is* a slave. DR | Are you or I slave, if our society asks us to give up part of our | wealth to support the schools that educated us, the police that | keep us safe and the drivers who plow our roads? Yup. The schools didn't educate me much, and the neighbors with no kids are required to support the schools that they don't use. I'd willingly pay for protection *from* the police in my area - they don't protect me from much. When I pay a gasoline tax to pay to get the roads I use plowed, that's voluntary - and doesn't make me a slave. Yup - this *is* going to be a fun one. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž Wealth belongs to those who create it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Wed Nov 27 16:49:38 CST 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 19 MW> You seem to be confusing collectivism and specialization - an easy MW> mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless. MW> MW> When The Little Snowplow That Did plowed the roads I drive on, it got MW> paid - by money kicked in by everyone who uses those roads. When MW> someone cooks me a delicious meal, they get paid - either with money in MW> a restaraunt, or by labor exchange at home - I clean the dining room or MW> do the dishes or cook the next meal. One is collectivism, the other MW> isn't. MW> You have missed 2 facts: What happens when you live in a collective with another person who either chooses or is unable to perform what you thihnk is his share of the work? Be careful with your answer. It actually happened to me, and I know a lot about what works and what doesn't. 2. The Libertarian Party Platform includes abolishing the IRS and most taxes. With what would you pay the snowplow driver? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Thu Nov 28 05:10:19 CST 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 19 MW> You seem to be confusing collectivism and specialization - an easy MW> mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless. MW> MW> When The Little Snowplow That Did plowed the roads I drive on, it got MW> paid - by money kicked in by everyone who uses those roads. When MW> someone cooks me a delicious meal, they get paid - either with money in MW> a restaraunt, or by labor exchange at home - I clean the dining room or MW> do the dishes or cook the next meal. One is collectivism, the other MW> isn't. The devil, however, is in the details. That "delicious meal" wasn't just created in a vacuum, it was created by a cook who knew that the meat had passed through government-mandated inspections, served by a waiter who knew that he was insured (via government mandate) in case he slipped and fell and broke his collarbone, and lorded over by a manager who knew that the roads out front would be maintained by the government, and that the power would continue to flow (relatively) sure and steady from the government-regulated power company. But what is government - is it like a plow driver, being paid to clear the snow off your driveway? Or is it everyone, the people who comprise the country voting for the leadership and bureaucracy and rules that they and their neighbors will live under? If the former, then does that not still justify taxation - to pay for the government regulations and services? If the latter, then how can the manager and cook claim that they have created something on their own without the help of anyone else when they rely so strongly on the government - the people - for a sundry of guarantees which make their job safer and easier? MW> But when has a country battled to *lower* their trade barriers? Examples: European Economic Community, GATT, NAFTA, and sundry other treaties which have lowered trade barriers over the years. MW> countries seem to fight to *raise* trade barriers, in order to get a MW> bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Those countries that want a MW> lower trade barrier don't get any opposition from their neighbors. That's a whole different topic ... you might want to scan back 20-30 messages in the "economics" sub, there was a discussion on some of these issues a month or two ago. MW> Sez who? In our community, it's *impossible* to abide by all of the MW> rules - several contradict each other, and it takes an extensive MW> education and expensive library to be able to look the rules up - I MW> don't think anyone *knows* all of the rules. It's illegal for a woman to commit adultery, but not for a man. This law is on the books - but is unenforcable, as the courts would throw the case out. Though this law is exceptional in is atavistic absurdty, does it limit your freedom to know that the law exists? Yes, rules are complex. Some are stupid, some are obsolete. But if it were impossible to follow all of them, how do you explain that you and I are still here instead of rotting in a prison cell ... having broken a multitude of these "impossible" rules? MW> DR | ... That's why 19th century "hands off" liberalism evolved into MW> | 20th century "new deal" liberalism. Because those liberals MW> | recognized that the technological community necessitates MW> | compromies, to expand the incidence of freedom for everyone. MW> MW> How in the world does compromising one's freedom lead to an expansion of MW> freedom for everyone? (Careful - there's a deadfall in this one.) Let's take a simple one - laws against murdering another person. If there was no law, I would have the freedom to kill anyone I wanted. Conversely, they would have the freedom to kill me. If there was a law, I would no longer be free to kill my neighbors. But then again, I would be assured that I would live long enough and safely enough to enjoy my other freedoms longer and perhaps even more wholehearedly (no longer having to look over my shoulder 24 hours a day). How has the law diminished freedom? MW> DR | The unworkable part of that theory is, someone has to create the MW> | "best that society has" - someone has to create the wealth that MW> | each person holds. And guess what? In every single case, the person MW> | who holds the wealth and resources has not done so singlehandedly. MW> MW> I disagree, wholeheartedly. Let's use your example: MW> Sure - he didn't write all (or even much) of the code. But it was his MW> personal vision, and he chose the people who chose the people who did MW> write the code - giving each of those people what they considered a fair MW> exchange in return for their efforts. If they hadn't considered their MW> payment a fair exchange, Borland was hiring, too. Once they sold their MW> labor to Billy, it was *his* - paid for, fair and square. Bill also First off, I have a serious problem with the idea that anyone can sell their labor and have it belong to anyone else. Maybe it's just word choice, but to me it seems like a weak form of slavery - it's this same philosophy that allows employers to do drug testing, mandate exercize and diet rquirements, etc ... all to make their employees more productive during the periods when they "buy" their labor. I sell my products, what I can do - not my labor. No one has a right to own my time. But as for Bill Gates, you're simplifying this so much that you're not taking in the broader picture. Yes, his employees were involved ... but so was the government - the people - in a million different ways. Bill's employees may be in a formal contract with Microsoft, but the rest of society has not. So when Bill makes his millions, hs should not be surprised when the people who back him up to come for their share. For Bill to believe that he - and he alone - created his products is the height of arrogance (Have him do the same in the middle of the Gobi desert, and maybe he'd have a point). There's also the issue of how voluntary working really is, but that's a whole nother rant to itself. MW> DR | A slave is one who is owned by another, one who works and toils for MW> | another's benefit. Is Bill Gates somehow a slave, if asked to give MW> | up part of his wealth to the society that helped him to create it? MW> If asked, no. If he has no choice but to give up some of that wealth or MW> face violence, then he *is* a slave. And how would Bill enforce his contracts, if he sent 10,000 copies of Windows 95 to Best Buy and they refused to pay? I suspect that, to collect his money, he'd call up some government agency and ask them for assistance. Those government agents might even have to resort to force, in order to enforce the laws. MW> DR | Are you or I slave, if our society asks us to give up part of our MW> | wealth to support the schools that educated us, the police that MW> | keep us safe and the drivers who plow our roads? MW> Yup. The schools didn't educate me much, and the neighbors with no kids MW> are required to support the schools that they don't use. I'd willingly MW> pay for protection *from* the police in my area - they don't protect me MW> from much. When I pay a gasoline tax to pay to get the roads I use MW> plowed, that's voluntary - and doesn't make me a slave. I went out to eat at a new restaurant last night. I didn't like the food too much, and I still had to pay full price. The guy I was with loved the food, and paid the same price as me. If you don't owe the government - the people - for your education, do I also not owe the restaurant for their substandard fare? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Thu Nov 28 17:43:00 CST 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: 17 MW> S | Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists. MW> MW> I would suppose that it would depend on how you define "intelligent". MW> Personally, I can count hundreds of people that I consider highly MW> intelligent who have no visible socialist leanings at all. That's not the point. The point of the quote, much of which I disagree with was that the people who are socialist are usually intelligent. Not intelligent people are often socialist. Ayn Rand for instance, is very intelligent and completely anti-socialist. MW> The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone has to MW> provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing someone to MW> provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, slavery. Simply put, I disagree. Forcing someone to work for someone else is depending upon the situation - slavery. If that person had commited a crime we would consider it punishment and not slavery. The problem enters that many people horde the resources that could (should?) be available for all and in turn force the others to work for them. ( I should add that I'm notably anti-corporate, so that might affect my response somewhat) Others are forced into a situation based upon their previous life where they are not able to work for themselves in a manner that would satisfy their basic needs. Some people who are able to work for more than their needs, or any reasonable amount of luxury, might bear the burden of others who are often held down by their own luxury. The best society has to offer is not the best their is possible, e.g. a diamond ring you refer to later, but the amount that would allow them happiness. It is beneficial to remember that every society is in reality a collection of individuals. MW> Myself, I'll be content with providing myself with the things I want MW> badly enough to expend the time, energy, and resources to obtain. In MW> other words, yes - I'd like to have a 2 caret diamond, just 'cause MW> they're pretty. But I don't want one badly enough to do all of the work MW> it would take me to obtain one honestly, and obtaining one dishonestly MW> doesn't interest me. That's what socialism strives to achieve. What people are willing to work for to obtain. To be offered the chance, they need equal education, equal chance at work, equality. Socialism itself, in its best, strives to give the individual the opportunity to work for what they want, honestly. You and I would differ over what we consider honest obtaining of wealth to buy something so I won't even consider going here. That's totally subjective. MW> FWIW, while I've met several intelligent people who self-identified as MW> socialists, I've never considered the socialist agenda terribly MW> intelligent in itself. FWIW, I've met several intelligent people who consider themselves libertarians. I consider some of the socialist agenda quite intelligent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Thu Nov 28 17:44:38 CST 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 18 DR> A slave is one who is owned by another, one who works and toils for DR> another's benefit. Is Bill Gates somehow a slave, if asked to give up part DR> of his wealth to the society that helped him to create it? Are you or I sla DR> if our society asks us to give up part of our wealth to support the schools DR> that educated us, the police that keep us safe and the drivers who plow our DR> roads? This is something I forgot to mention. Thanks Daedalus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Collective Contention Date: Fri Nov 29 22:15:55 CST 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > When The Little Snowplow That Did plowed the roads I drive on, it > got paid - by money kicked in by everyone who uses those roads. > When someone cooks me a delicious meal, they get paid - either with > money in a restaraunt, or by labor exchange at home - I clean the > dining room or do the dishes or cook the next meal. One is > collectivism, the other isn't. F | You have missed 2 facts: What happens when you live in a collective | with another person who either chooses or is unable to perform what | you thihnk is his share of the work? Be careful with your answer. | It actually happened to me, and I know a lot about what works and | what doesn't. That would depend quite a bit on whether it was the person not performing what they have agreed *is* their share, or if it was a dispute about what constituted a fair share of the work. This will get pretty long, and be a side-track to the issue at hand, so I'll address this one in the next post, with a new thread name. F | 2. The Libertarian Party Platform includes abolishing the IRS and | most taxes. With what would you pay the snowplow driver? While I don't spend a whole lot of time on the Libertarian Party, the last time I looked, this was an issue that I agree with them on. Gasoline tax, road permits (license plates/tabs), and similar taxes are actually user fees - anyone who isn't driving on the roads doesn't pay those taxes. If those taxes were the sole support of road construction/ maintenence, and all of the money from those taxes were used for nothing but the roads, neither the LP or I would object to their collection - they're a fair tax. Personally, I prefer the whole thing being paid for by gasoline tax - if you only drive on the roads for about 200 miles per year, you only pay tax on the miles you drive. If you're driving a scooter, you're causing much less wear and tear on the road than if you're driving a 1.5 ton truck - but you're paying a lot less tax per mile, too. The licence plates/tabs thing greatly advantages the heavy user, at the expense of the light user - with the same car, you pay the same whether you drive 200 miles or 200,000 miles in a year. In either case, anybody who does not drive on the roads isn't paying for the roads, which fits in quite nicely with the libertarian philosophy. In the ideal I outlined above, where road taxes == road expenses, the people who are using the roads *are* paying for them, and that also fits the libertarian ideal. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž I have the heart of a little boy - in a jar on my desk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: FROGGY Subject: Collective Contention Date: Fri Nov 29 22:15:56 CST 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: unavailable In the "Quotes" thread, Froggy brought up an interesting side issue: F | You have missed 2 facts: What happens when you live in a collective | with another person who either chooses or is unable to perform what | you thihnk is his share of the work? Be careful with your answer. | It actually happened to me, and I know a lot about what works and | what doesn't. Oh, I've been there and done that, too - in fact, one of the more common bones of contention with my current partner is housework, and who does what, when. (Yes, Virginia - a marriage or live-in lovers relationship is usually a collective, if a small one.) As I said in that other thread, "what happens" would depend quite a bit on whether the collective member was simply no doing the amount of work that they'd agreed to do, or disagreeing about how much of the work would be their fair share. If there is disagreement about just what constitutes a "fair share" of the work, negotiation is in order, to find an agreement that all parties can live with. (If there is no agreement possible, the collective is not going to have the same members for very long.) There are many ways to do this that are all quite fair. If there are only two members of the collective, it's easy - one person divides the workload into two lists, and the other member decided what list they want to be responsible for. There are many other fair negotiation methods, but I won't go into those unless someone asks - I don't think that this is what Froggy was looking for my opinion on. Now, if there is a member of the collective who simply refuses to do their fair share of the work, it becomes a much uglier thing. That member must be persuaded to do their work - either by social pressure, threats of punishment, or punishment itself. If these do not work, it's up to the rest of the collective to decide whether it'd rather do without that member. This may sound harsh, but life often is - and the only alternative is for the collective to support one member at the expense of others - a patently unjust situation. This does not mean that work cannot be bartered for other considerations that are just as valuable to the collective as the work would be. Once upon a time, there was a largish household collective I was friendly with, with one member who simply did not have the time to do their share of the housework, because of career demands. This member paid more than their fair share of the bills, and this was viewed by all as a fair recompense. Another time, a partner of mine lost her job, and did all of the housework in exchange for her share of the bills, and an agreed amount of extra cash. This situation was renegotiated when she got a new job, with a period of 75% work 25% bills to enable her to get caught up on other bills before she took up her fair share of the bills and had only to do her fair share of the housework. Now, collectives may make exceptions for members who are ill, or temporarily unable to meet their responsibilities - but it's up to the other members of the collective to decide to do that, it shouldn't be expected of those members. Nobody should be responsible for carrying another's weight, unless they are willing to. This will sometimes result in a person who cannot meet their own needs having to do without, if nobody is willing to meet their needs for them. Life is not always pretty or pleasant. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž Brother, can you spare a turn at dishes? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Fri Nov 29 22:15:57 CST 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > You seem to be confusing collectivism and specialization - an easy > mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless. > > When The Little Snowplow That Did plowed the roads I drive on, it > got paid - by money kicked in by everyone who uses those roads. > When someone cooks me a delicious meal, they get paid - either with > money in a restaurant, or by labor exchange at home - I clean the > dining room or do the dishes or cook the next meal. One is > collectivism, the other isn't. DR | The devil, however, is in the details. That "delicious meal" wasn't | just created in a vacuum, it was created by a cook who knew that | the meat had passed through government-mandated inspections, The cost of which should be reflected in the cost of the meat itself, DR | served by a waiter who knew that he was insured (via government | mandate) in case he slipped and fell and broke his collarbone, This insurance is considered part of that waiter's wages, paid by the employer, DR | and lorded over by a manager who knew that the roads out front | would be maintained by the government, "Lorded over"? You must know some of the managers I used to work for. But don't try this line on the owners/managers of some of the fine businesses that have gone under while constant construction of 12/394 dwindled their customer base down below maintenence levels. In any case, those roads should be paid for by the people using them - they're not simply provided for by manna from heaven. DR | and that the power would continue to flow (relatively) sure and | steady from the government-regulated power company. This power gets paid for - and I've got a pretty good idea of how much a largish restaurant pays each month for electricity. So, what's your point - that doing business without government aid is impossible, or hopelessly difficult? Feh! You're talking to a small business owner, and the help I get from gov't is vanishingly small - I'd certainly trade all of that help I get for the hassle of calculating, collecting, and delivering sales taxes. DR | But what is government - is it like a plow driver, being paid to | clear the snow off your driveway? Or is it everyone, the people who | comprise the country voting for the leadership and bureaucracy and | rules that they and their neighbors will live under? When is the last time you had the opportunity to vote for bureaucratic decisions, or directly vote upon some proposed legislation? DR | If the former, then does that not still justify taxation - to pay | for the government regulations and services? Nothing else can possibly justify any taxation - if someone takes money from me, and gives me no service or goods in exchange, it's generally called theft. DR | If the latter, then how can the manager and cook claim that they | have created something on their own without the help of anyone else | when they rely so strongly on the government - the people - for a | sundry of guarantees which make their job safer and easier? Oddly enough, in a lifetime of work (much of which involved the creation of goods or services by my own hand) I've had very little feeling of being able to rely upon my government to make my job easier. That's been okay - I don't particularly *want* my gov't to make my job easier - I do just fine anyway. All I want gov't for is to protect my rights, and give me an arena in which to settle disputes with my neighbors. In my experience, most governmental guarantees weren't worth the paper they were written on. MW > But when has a country battled to *lower* their trade barriers? DR | Examples: European Economic Community, GATT, NAFTA, and sundry | other treaties which have lowered trade barriers over the years. I don't recall any of those treaties resulting from a war - mostly, it's been a case of "I will if you promise to, also" negotiation. MW > Sez who? In our community, it's *impossible* to abide by all of > the rules - several contradict each other, and it takes an > extensive education and expensive library to be able to look the > rules up - I don't think anyone *knows* all of the rules. DR | It's illegal for a woman to commit adultery, but not for a man. | This law is on the books - but is unenforcable, as the courts would | throw the case out. Though this law is exceptional in is atavistic | absurdty, does it limit your freedom to know that the law exists? This law, in conjunction with the whole collection of laws that attempt to legislate morality (often called the blue laws), does indeed limit my freedom. Do I consider these laws valid, rules that I must follow in order to live with honor? Hardly. DR | Yes, rules are complex. Some are stupid, some are obsolete. But if | it were impossible to follow all of them, how do you explain that | you and I are still here instead of rotting in a prison cell ... | having broken a multitude of these "impossible" rules? Easy - because nobody with that kind of power wants either of us in a cell right now. Those laws aren't really intended to fill the jails - they're excellent leverage if you want someone to do something, though. It's common enough in books and movies for the cop/good guy to tell a business owner that unless they cooperate, the inspectors will be by to make their business difficult, or simply shut it down. This is indeed a real-life threat, and not terribly uncommon. Few who hold that kind of power want people to rot in jail. Mostly, they want to use that power to get money from or power over people. MW > How in the world does compromising one's freedom lead to an > expansion of freedom for everyone? (Careful - there's a deadfall > in this one.) DR | Let's take a simple one - laws against murdering another person. Too simple. "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an easily recognized quote from the basic law of this country. DR | How has the law diminished freedom? Let's take a somewhat more complex example. Joe Smith has operated an adult bookstore on the same corner of a marginal retail district for 20 years, just barely over the legal limit of 2000 feet from a church. After much campaigning by people who are entirely too worried (imo) about other people's sex life, that law is changed to 5000 feet - and suddenly, Joe Smith has to relocate his business at his own expense, or simply go out of business. Do I need to go into detail about how this law has diminished Joe's freedom, and the freedom of his customers? |DR | The unworkable part of that theory is, someone has to create the | | "best that society has" - someone has to create the wealth that | | each person holds. And guess what? In every single case, the person | | who holds the wealth and resources has not done so singlehandedly. MW > I disagree, wholeheartedly. Let's use your example: MW > Sure - he didn't write all (or even much) of the code. But it was > his personal vision, and he chose the people who chose the people > who did write the code - giving each of those people what they > considered a fair exchange in return for their efforts. If they > hadn't considered their payment a fair exchange, Borland was > hiring, too. Once they sold their labor to Billy, it was *his* - > paid for, fair and square. Bill also DR | First off, I have a serious problem with the idea that anyone can | sell their labor and have it belong to anyone else. Maybe it's just | word choice, but to me it seems like a weak form of slavery - When I trundled my snow shovel from door to door, and offered my services to the people in my sales area, I had occasion to sell my labor. At an agreed-upon price, I'd shovel someone's sidewalk and/or driveway. They got a clear patch of concrete or asphalt, and I got money in my pocket. I didn't get any further use of those driveways - that area was *theirs*, whether they paid me to shovel it or not. Slavery is, by definition, without choice. Now, if my neighbor had held a gun on me and forced me to shovel that sidewalk by threat of violence, and then paid me $100 for my labor, it would still have been slavery - because I never had a free choice. DR | it's this same philosophy that allows employers to do drug testing, | mandate exercize and diet rquirements, etc ... all to make their | employees more productive during the periods when they "buy" their | labor. Not to me, they don't. The last management job I hired out for, I quit - because the owner suddenly decided that nobody on the work force could grow a beard. This is just one of the reasons I'm self-employed. DR | I sell my products, what I can do - not my labor. No one has a | right to own my time. Same for me, on those occasions I've done piecework. When I've hired out to someone to work a given schedule, they've bought that time, and whatever they wanted me to do (within the limits of the job I hired on for) during that time was okay with me. Nobody but our gov't (DoD) has ever hired my whole life - but I didn't stay in military service for any longer than I had to. DR | But as for Bill Gates, you're simplifying this so much that you're | not taking in the broader picture. Yes, his employees were involved | ... but so was the government - the people - in a million different | ways. Bill's employees may be in a formal contract with Microsoft, | but the rest of society has not. So when Bill makes his millions, | hs should not be surprised when the people who back him up to come | for their share. For Bill to believe that he - and he alone - | created his products is the height of arrogance (Have him do the | same in the middle of the Gobi desert, and maybe he'd have a | point). Waitaminit - how have *you* helped him make his millions? I helped, in a tangental fashion - but that's because I chose to sell MS-DOS to clients, rather than IBM's product. This was my decision, and Bill doesn't owe me anything for that. Anybody who helped Bill Gates (who I dislike, for my own reasons) did so voluntarily, and presumably got what they wanted out of that exchange. Bill doesn't have any more debt to society than I do - and if you want to say that this debt can be counted in cash, somewhere in the realm of 6 or 7 figures, then you'd best be prepared to pay the same debt yourself. Bill and I haven't gotten anything from society as a whole that you haven't received, too. |DR | A slave is one who is owned by another, one who works and toils for | | another's benefit. Is Bill Gates somehow a slave, if asked to give | | up part of his wealth to the society that helped him to create it? MW > If asked, no. If he has no choice but to give up some of that > wealth or face violence, then he *is* a slave. DR | And how would Bill enforce his contracts, if he sent 10,000 copies | of Windows 95 to Best Buy and they refused to pay? I suspect that, | to collect his money, he'd call up some government agency and ask | them for assistance. Those government agents might even have to | resort to force, in order to enforce the laws. Protection for the citizens from theft is, indeed, a valid role for government - even in libertarian philosophy. |DR | Are you or I slave, if our society asks us to give up part of our | | wealth to support the schools that educated us, the police that | | keep us safe and the drivers who plow our roads? MW > Yup. BTW, you may want to take another look at what our gov't actually spends money on - public services aren't even half of it. Did *you* want to bail out the folks who built the Target center and then failed to make enough profit at it? I sure didn't. DR | I went out to eat at a new restaurant last night. I didn't like the | food too much, and I still had to pay full price. The guy I was | with loved the food, and paid the same price as me. | | If you don't owe the government - the people - for your education, | do I also not owe the restaurant for their substandard fare? You'll have to do better than that. If the food was indeed substandard, you had the option of pointing that out to the management - which often results in reduced-price or free meals, if the restaurant is indeed at fault. In any case, you went into that restaurant and ordered that food (and promised to pay for it at the listed price) by your own choice. My education was paid for by my parents - both in tuition and in property taxes, until I went to college. Then I paid my own tuition. When I agreed to have children, I agreed to support them, including paying for their tuition - it's a responsibility I chose freely. My neighbors, who will have no children, had their own education paid for the same way mine was. Why should they be responsible for helping to pay for educating *my* kids? -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž On the other hand, I have different fingers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Sat Nov 30 00:45:41 CST 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 24 MW> F | 2. The Libertarian Party Platform includes abolishing the IRS and MW> | most taxes. With what would you pay the snowplow driver? MW> MW> for by gasoline tax - if you only drive on the roads for about 200 miles MW> per year, you only pay tax on the miles you drive. If you're driving a MW> scooter, you're causing much less wear and tear on the road than if MW> you're driving a 1.5 ton truck - but you're paying a lot less tax per MW> mile, too. The licence plates/tabs thing greatly advantages the heavy So, if you don't go to the mall, but order all your stuff to be sent in from catalogs, you are not responsiblu to help maintain roads for all the UPS trucks to pull up in front of your house? Is it all the responsibility of UPS? Can they pass the cost of doing this on to you? Do you think you would pay more or less doing it this way than maintaining the roads through a community tax. Suppose a man does not even own a car, this pays no road tax or gasoline tax. If he has a heart attack, is the ambulance not allowed to come down the road to get him? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Sat Nov 30 01:01:23 CST 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: 25 MW> F | You have missed 2 facts: What happens when you live in a collective MW> | with another person who either chooses or is unable to perform what MW> | you thihnk is his share of the work? Be careful with your answer. MW> Now, if there is a member of the collective who simply refuses to do MW> their fair share of the work, it becomes a much uglier thing. That MW> member must be persuaded to do their work - either by social pressure, MW> threats of punishment, or punishment itself. If these do not work, it's MW> up to the rest of the collective to decide whether it'd rather do MW> without that member. This may sound harsh, but life often is - and the MW> only alternative is for the collective to support one member at the MW> expense of others - a patently unjust situation. MW> So if a person is disabled with MS or mentally ill and unable to understand about the need to cooperate and do a fair share, it is the responsibility of the community to evict them? Pardon me, but I don't want to live in a world like this, and fortunately, neither do most of the American people. Unlike you and other selfish, healthy people, most Americans realize that they are lucky to be able to care for themselves and someone else and don't mind doing so, because they realize that the time may come that they too, need help. I have lived in two communal situations that both also contained a man with mental illness. The situations were 20 years apart, but very similar. Both men were diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Both had good times that they tried to cooperate and agreed to do certain house-cleaning, etc. Neither one actually came through, because they got distracted. Also, because of their illnesses, both became very negative and hostile if anyone tried to explain to them that they were not doing their share. One had a history of becoming violent and had repeatedly been hospitalized because of it. I do not think that it is a benefit to society or to the individuals to put people like this out on the street. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Specter Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:10 CST 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: unavailable |S | Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists. MW > I would suppose that it would depend on how you define > "intelligent". Personally, I can count hundreds of people that I > consider highly intelligent who have no visible socialist leanings > at all. S | That's not the point. The point of the quote, much of which I | disagree with was that the people who are socialist are usually | intelligent. Not intelligent people are often socialist. Ayn Rand | for instance, is very intelligent and completely anti-socialist. That's not how I parsed the quote. That's okay - I've known some pretty slow socialists, too - so I can disagree with it from this POV as well. MW > The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone > has to provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing > someone to provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, > slavery. S | Simply put, I disagree. Forcing someone to work for someone else is | depending upon the situation - slavery. If that person had | commited a crime we would consider it punishment and not slavery. As punishment, it's still slavery, though perhaps justified slavery. S | The problem enters that many people horde the resources that could | (should?) be available for all and in turn force the others to work | for them. ( I should add that I'm notably anti-corporate, so that | might affect my response somewhat) "Force others to work for them"? The prime example of this that I've seen is the welfare system, supported by taxes - if I don't work for the folks who are not making a living in another way (for whatever reason), I can get tossed into jail - so I'm forced to work for them. Now, if (for example) IDS wanted to force me to work for *them*, it's be a giggle - they just don't have enough leverage to force anyone to do anything for them. They could wave enough money and benefits under my nose to sorely tempt me - but it'd still be my choice. S | Others are forced into a situation based upon their previous life | where they are not able to work for themselves in a manner that | would satisfy their basic needs. Some people who are able to work | for more than their needs, or any reasonable amount of luxury, | might bear the burden of others who are often held down by their own | luxury. The best society has to offer is not the best their is | possible, e.g. a diamond ring you refer to later, but the amount | that would allow them happiness. It is beneficial to remember that | every society is in reality a collection of individuals. Hoo bhoy! Yes, people who can provide for themselves easily may indeed wish to help others less fortunate - the United Way is just one example of how that may be done without violating anyone's consent, or forcing anyone to do anything that they don't wish to. The current welfare system, in which everyone who can support themselves (often at a marginal level) is required by threat of violence to support those who don't support themselves, *does* violate consent - and thus constitutes slavery. You're right - every society is a collection of individuals, and there's no reason to believe that there are no individuals who consider a minimal selection of jewelery - say, at least 3 different diamond sets for different occasions - to be the bare minimum to allow them happiness. Who decides? MW > Myself, I'll be content with providing myself with the things I > want badly enough to expend the time, energy, and resources to > obtain. In other words, yes - I'd like to have a 2 caret diamond, > just 'cause they're pretty. But I don't want one badly enough to > do all of the work it would take me to obtain one honestly, and > obtaining one dishonestly doesn't interest me. S | That's what socialism strives to achieve. What people are willing | to work for to obtain. To be offered the chance, they need equal | education, equal chance at work, equality. Socialism itself, in | its best, strives to give the individual the opportunity to work for | what they want, honestly. We have apparently had different experiences of socialism - and I've spent some hours in discussion with a woman who has led a central socialist group here in the Twin Cities for longer than I've been alive, so I'm not exactly unexposed to socialist philosophy and agenda. S | You and I would differ over what we consider honest obtaining of | wealth to buy something so I won't even consider going here. That's | totally subjective. This will make an interesting topic of discussion elsewhen, if you don't want to get into it now. I don't agree that it's totally subjective. MW > FWIW, while I've met several intelligent people who self-identified > as socialists, I've never considered the socialist agenda terribly > intelligent in itself. S | FWIW, I've met several intelligent people who consider themselves | libertarians. I consider some of the socialist agenda quite | intelligent. This *will* make some interesting debate - while you seem quite intelligent yourself (necessary for *my* satisfaction in discussion), it'll take quite a bit of convincing before we're going to agree on this topic. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž Socialism works for bees and ants, anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Sun Dec 01 11:43:54 CST 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: unavailable |F | 2. The Libertarian Party Platform includes abolishing the IRS and | | most taxes. With what would you pay the snowplow driver? MW > for by gasoline tax - if you only drive on the roads for about 200 > miles per year, you only pay tax on the miles you drive. If you're > driving a scooter, you're causing much less wear and tear on the > road than if you're driving a 1.5 ton truck - but you're paying a > lot less tax per mile, too. The licence plates/tabs thing greatly F | So, if you don't go to the mall, but order all your stuff to be sent | in from catalogs, you are not responsiblu to help maintain roads for | all the UPS trucks to pull up in front of your house? I wouldn't see why - the UPS doesn't feel responsible for helping to maintain my lawn, house, or other things *they* don't use. F | Is it all the responsibility of UPS? Them, and anyone else who use the roads. F | Can they pass the cost of doing this on to you? They already do, I'm sure - that's that "Shipping and Handling" fee that is often charged for mail order purchases. F | Do you think you would pay more or less doing it this way than | maintaining the roads through a community tax. Me, personally? Probably more with the honest user fee - I drive quite a bit more than the average. That's okay with me, though - I'd rather pay for what I use than ask my non-driving neighbors to pay for me. F | Suppose a man does not even own a car, this pays no road tax or | gasoline tax. If he has a heart attack, is the ambulance not | allowed to come down the road to get him? One would assume that the ambulance company pays the tax for *them* to use the roads. A portion of this cost, of course, is passed on to the end user of their service - there's usually a mileage fee tacked onto an ambulance bill, already. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž If you don't use, you shouldn't have to pay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Sun Dec 01 11:43:55 CST 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: unavailable |F | You have missed 2 facts: What happens when you live in a collective | | with another person who either chooses or is unable to perform what | | you thihnk is his share of the work? Be careful with your answer. MW > Now, if there is a member of the collective who simply refuses to > do their fair share of the work, it becomes a much uglier thing. > That member must be persuaded to do their work - either by social > pressure, threats of punishment, or punishment itself. If these do > not work, it's up to the rest of the collective to decide whether > it'd rather do without that member. This may sound harsh, but life > often is - and the only alternative is for the collective to > support one member at the expense of others - a patently unjust > situation. F | So if a person is disabled with MS or mentally ill and unable to | understand about the need to cooperate and do a fair share, it is | the responsibility of the community to evict them? No more than it's the community's responsibility to support them. (When did that card get palmed, anyway? I thought we were talking about collectives, not communities.) F | Pardon me, but I don't want to live in a world like this, and | fortunately, neither do most of the American people. Unlike you and | other selfish, healthy people, most Americans realize that they are | lucky to be able to care for themselves and someone else and don't | mind doing so, because they realize that the time may come that they | too, need help. My, you aren't very good at reading me at all, are you? I, too, have been in the position of supporting someone who could not support themselves at the time - I followed my own moral code, and I don't know anyone who considered me selfish. I've also been in the position of needing that support, when my clinical depression was at its worst. I got the support I needed from people who knew me, voluntarily - I did not need to take money from people who'd had no choice in the matter. I agree - it *is* fortunate that most American people are willing to help out those in need. This is just one reason that I disagree with *forcing* them to do so whether they wish to or not - it's far better to allow those who wish to help to do so, and let those who don't want to help go on their way unmolested. Let's not anyone get me wrong, here - I was raised on welfare, by a single parent with 5 kids who worked 2 jobs and still needed to take AFDC to make ends meet. AFDC is a needful program - but it should be put into the hands of United Way or another voluntary charity, rather than be paid for by holding a gun on our neighbors. There are a lot of very charitable people in our country. There is a lot of welfare abuse in our country. UW gets abused too, but not nearly as much as welfare does. Are you all aware of the fact that for every dollar the gov't pumps into welfare programs, less than 25 cents actually gets into the hands/stomachs of the needy? Almost 78% (the last figures I saw) of that money goes into "administrative costs". Any charity with that poor a track record is seen as defrauding the public - but our government can do that poorly with impunity. If we simply *must* take tax dollars for charity from the unwilling, let's at least turn the money over to an organization that can put it to effective use, rather than employ hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and social workers, not to mention printers and paper mills. Personally, I believe that if the gov't welfare system were shut down, and the workload were passed onto private charities, the needy would get more help, and those who abuse the current system would have a much harder time abusing the charities. F | I have lived in two communal situations that both also contained a | man with mental illness. [...] I do not think that it is a benefit | to society or to the individuals to put people like this out on the | street. Nor do I think it would be a benefit. I don't, however, think it's a good thing to make those who don't care pay - it cheapens those who are in need, and those who would participate willingly. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž Would you rather have willing charity or steal? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Sun Dec 01 16:00:34 CST 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: 31 MW> anyone who considered me selfish. I've also been in the position of MW> needing that support, when my clinical depression was at its worst. I MW> got the support I needed from people who knew me, voluntarily - I did MW> not need to take money from people who'd had no choice in the matter. MW> MW> I agree - it *is* fortunate that most American people are willing to MW> help out those in need. This is just one reason that I disagree with MW> *forcing* them to do so whether they wish to or not - it's far better to You were fortunate that there were people around to help you. There are not people for everyone, and this is why we try to set up situations where people can get the help they need even when there are not people in their lives. MW> allow those who wish to help to do so, and let those who don't want to MW> help go on their way unmolested. MW> . . . and allow the people they were too selfish to help to die. MW> Let's not anyone get me wrong, here - I was raised on welfare, by a MW> single parent with 5 kids who worked 2 jobs and still needed to take MW> AFDC to make ends meet. AFDC is a needful program - but it should be MW> put into the hands of United Way or another voluntary charity, rather MW> than be paid for by holding a gun on our neighbors. MW> Before AFDC was made a government program, there was no such help for families. Many childern starved or were murdered because the adults couldn't take care of them. The lucky ones were split from their families and raised as individuals without brothers or sisters. I think a government-sponsored program is better, although I do agree that it needs improvement. MW> If we simply *must* take tax dollars for charity from the unwilling, MW> let's at least turn the money over to an organization that can put it to MW> effective use, rather than employ hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats MW> and social workers, not to mention printers and paper mills. MW> One of the biggest problems with AFDC today is that they no longer use real Social Workers. Instead, financial workers have just more than a high school diploma and no training or experience in identifying and helping solve social problems. If each family were assigned a social worker to assist with parenting skills, job hunting, child care, etc, money would be much better spent. MW> Nor do I think it would be a benefit. I don't, however, think it's a MW> good thing to make those who don't care pay - it cheapens those who are MW> in need, and those who would participate willingly. MW> Whether or not they care is not what matters in this case. What matters is that they chip in to help support the society they live in, and keep those programs going in case they, themselves, meed them some day. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Sun Dec 01 17:34:47 CST 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 29 MW> That's not how I parsed the quote. That's okay - I've known some pretty MW> slow socialists, too - so I can disagree with it from this POV as well. Sorry then. I don't any socialists personally except myself so I don't really have any experience. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Sun Dec 01 17:50:55 CST 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 29 MW> S | Simply put, I disagree. Forcing someone to work for someone else is MW> | depending upon the situation - slavery. If that person had MW> | commited a crime we would consider it punishment and not slavery. MW> MW> As punishment, it's still slavery, though perhaps justified slavery. I can see where you're saying. I think I'm going to have to capitulate on that one. MW> "Force others to work for them"? The prime example of this that I've MW> seen is the welfare system, supported by taxes - if I don't work for the MW> folks who are not making a living in another way (for whatever reason), MW> I can get tossed into jail - so I'm forced to work for them. Now, if MW> (for example) IDS wanted to force me to work for *them*, it's be a MW> giggle - they just don't have enough leverage to force anyone to do MW> anything for them. They could wave enough money and benefits under my MW> nose to sorely tempt me - but it'd still be my choice. Personally, if you didn't want to be a part of a system that taxed you like that I wouldn't ask you to be taxed. That's just me though. I think people should be allowed to choose the society they live under. I always think of smaller near communal groups people can choose to live in as my ideal. Anyway, I feel that the corporate system, simply by its size makes it necessary for most workers to work within a corportation simply to find one way of making a living. I think many people are forced by desperation to seek employment at a corporation, while they are not forced to seek an individual corporation by any person, the human need to eat does force them to. I can't remember where I'm going, I'll stop this part now. MW> Hoo bhoy! Yes, people who can provide for themselves easily may indeed MW> wish to help others less fortunate - the United Way is just one example MW> of how that may be done without violating anyone's consent, or forcing MW> anyone to do anything that they don't wish to. The current welfare MW> system, in which everyone who can support themselves (often at a MW> marginal level) is required by threat of violence to support those who MW> don't support themselves, *does* violate consent - and thus constitutes MW> slavery. Personally, as a socialist I don't like the welfare system entirely. But I don't think people will give to charities enough to help the amount of poverty out in the market. Democratically the representatives of the people choose the government as the method of helping the impoverished. Of course that forces that upon the minority of people who disagree, but then again I don't think dissenters should be forced to pay. And also from what I've seen many of the people who don't support themselves do so because they are unable to find work rather than they are unwilling to. Therefor I derive that the society should aid those it will not offer the chance to work. MW> You're right - every society is a collection of individuals, and there's MW> no reason to believe that there are no individuals who consider a MW> minimal selection of jewelery - say, at least 3 different diamond sets MW> for different occasions - to be the bare minimum to allow them MW> happiness. Who decides? Representatives in our society. In a direct democracy the majority of people would compromise on one level. MW> We have apparently had different experiences of socialism - and I've MW> spent some hours in discussion with a woman who has led a central MW> socialist group here in the Twin Cities for longer than I've been alive, MW> so I'm not exactly unexposed to socialist philosophy and agenda. Ahh. I disagree with most (perhaps all) party socialists as to what socialist goals should entail. I'd already assumed you had a good working knowledge of socialism as is desired by most. MW> This *will* make some interesting debate - while you seem quite MW> intelligent yourself (necessary for *my* satisfaction in discussion), MW> it'll take quite a bit of convincing before we're going to agree on this MW> topic. Thank you. I'd say the same of you. I somehow doubt we will agree but the argument itself is wonderful for the mind. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Mon Dec 02 16:01:13 CST 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > I've also been in the position of needing that support, when my > clinical depression was at its worst. I got the support I needed > from people who knew me, voluntarily - I did not need to take money > from people who'd had no choice in the matter. > > I agree - it *is* fortunate that most American people are willing > to help out those in need. This is just one reason that I disagree > with *forcing* them to do so whether they wish to or not - it's far > better to F | You were fortunate that there were people around to help you. There | are not people for everyone, and this is why we try to set up | situations where people can get the help they need even when there | are not people in their lives. The United Way does a pretty good job of that. I was fortunate enough to not need to use their services, but I knew that they were available to me, if needed. I've supported the UW both before and since. MW > allow those who wish to help to do so, and let those who don't want > to help go on their way unmolested. F | . . . and allow the people they were too selfish to help to die. The UW does a better job than *that*, Froggy. I see the implication here that those people who "were too selfish" are somehow avoiding their responsibility - are you really meaning to say that those with money are responsible for the support and wellbeing of those without money? Is it really my *job* to make sure that nobody in my neighborhood goes hungry? MW > Let's not anyone get me wrong, here - I was raised on welfare, by a > single parent with 5 kids who worked 2 jobs and still needed to > take AFDC to make ends meet. AFDC is a needful program - but it > should be put into the hands of United Way or another voluntary > charity, rather than be paid for by holding a gun on our neighbors. F | Before AFDC was made a government program, there was no such help | for families. Charity - both secular and religious - has been happening for much longer than our country has been a country. Historically, it's mostly been done on a local-community basis, where you had a good chance to know the people who benefited by your charity - and a good chance to look at the people who you were refusing help to. In areas where there *was* enough to go around, it worked pretty well. In areas where there wasn't enough to go around, all the charity in the world wouldn't make there be enough to go around. F | Many childern starved or were murdered because the adults couldn't | take care of them. The lucky ones were split from their families | and raised as individuals without brothers or sisters. Do you have historical referents for this? "Many children starved or were murdered" is pretty strong stuff, emotionally - and while there were times in the early days of the Industrial Revolution in which children had an awful time of it, this seems a bit strong for the facts. F | I think a government-sponsored program is better, although I do | agree that it needs improvement. Why a gov't-sponsored program? What can the gov't do that a private charity can't, other than take money from unwilling donors? Do you really consider it moral to rob Peter to feed Paul? F | One of the biggest problems with AFDC today is that they no longer | use real Social Workers. Instead, financial workers have just more | than a high school diploma and no training or experience in | identifying and helping solve social problems. If each family were | assigned a social worker to assist with parenting skills, job | hunting, child care, etc, money would be much better spent. In other words, the welfare system would work *much* better if it employed even more people, at higher salaries. I don't particularly think so. This assistance is already available to anyone who looks for it. The majority of people that *I've* known on welfare don't want that level of interference in their lives - and certainly wouldn't want to further drown the welfare system in red tape. MW > Nor do I think it would be a benefit. I don't, however, think it's > a good thing to make those who don't care pay - it cheapens those > who are in need, and those who would participate willingly. F | Whether or not they care is not what matters in this case. What | matters is that they chip in to help support the society they live | in, and keep those programs going in case they, themselves, meed | them some day. What I hear you saying is that it doesn't *matter* if they support the program, or want to put their money into it. It matters that *you* think it's important, and they should thus be required to put their money into it, whether they like it or not. How very democratic of you. -==- "It rankles me when somebody tries to force somebody to do something." - John Wayne --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Specter Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Mon Dec 02 16:01:15 CST 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: unavailable |S | Simply put, I disagree. Forcing someone to work for someone else is | | depending upon the situation - slavery. If that person had | | commited a crime we would consider it punishment and not slavery. MW > As punishment, it's still slavery, though perhaps justified slavery. S | I can see where you're saying. I think I'm going to have to | capitulate on that one. Thanks, but "I see your point, and I now agree" isn't capitulation. It works fine for me, though. MW > "Force others to work for them"? The prime example of this that > I've seen is the welfare system, supported by taxes - if I don't > work for the folks who are not making a living in another way (for > whatever reason), I can get tossed into jail - so I'm forced to > work for them. Now, if (for example) IDS wanted to force me to > work for *them*, it's be a giggle - they just don't have enough > leverage to force anyone to do anything for them. They could wave > enough money and benefits under my nose to sorely tempt me - but > it'd still be my choice. S | Personally, if you didn't want to be a part of a system that taxed | you like that I wouldn't ask you to be taxed. That's just me | though. I think people should be allowed to choose the society they | live under. People can always decide to live the way they wish, though few seem to realize that. To choose what society you live with, however, is tougher - you're restricted to a menu of what's already out there, unless you want to start your own. S | I always think of smaller near communal groups people can choose to | live in as my ideal. Anyway, I feel that the corporate system, | simply by its size makes it necessary for most workers to work | within a corportation simply to find one way of making a living. I | think many people are forced by desperation to seek employment at a | corporation, while they are not forced to seek an individual | corporation by any person, the human need to eat does force them to. There are *lots* of employment choices that don't involve large corporations. Actually, the corporate work environment has many advantages, and draws a large percentage of the workers - but that shouldn't be taken as proof that corporate life is all that's available, because that just ain't so. Of course, the better-educated and more highly skilled you are, the more options are open to you - but there are plenty of non-corporate options at every point of the scale. MW > Hoo bhoy! Yes, people who can provide for themselves easily may > indeed wish to help others less fortunate - the United Way is just > one example of how that may be done without violating anyone's > consent, or forcing anyone to do anything that they don't wish to. > The current welfare system, in which everyone who can support > themselves (often at a marginal level) is required by threat of > violence to support those who don't support themselves, *does* > violate consent - and thus constitutes slavery. S | Personally, as a socialist I don't like the welfare system entirely. | But I don't think people will give to charities enough to help the | amount of poverty out in the market. So, if they won't give voluntarily, we should take from them by force? S | Democratically the representatives of the people choose the | government as the method of helping the impoverished. Of course | that forces that upon the minority of people who disagree, but then | again I don't think dissenters should be forced to pay. Which brings us back to voluntary charity. You can't have it both ways. That "democratically" you mentioned kind of violated the letter and intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (though it's an unpopular "selfish" view to express). Without the safeguards guaranteed in those documents, democracy rapidly becomes 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. S | And also from what I've seen many of the people who don't support | themselves do so because they are unable to find work rather than | they are unwilling to. Therefor I derive that the society should | aid those it will not offer the chance to work. I don't recall any guarantees that every citizen would have work available of the type they like to do, at a wage they're happy with. Nobody could guarantee that. However, there *are* jobs available - in fact, several large corporations have made their job applications so simple that a bare minimum of literacy is all that's required to fill them out. Of course, while kids want to be firefighters, teachers, or ballerinas, damn few of them want to grow up to work the counter at MacDonald's, it's still a viable option. I've done it (well, I only lasted about 45 min. at MacD's, but I've worked factory, moving furniture, pearl diver, just about any kind of scut work you can think of, to keep my belly full), and used it as an eventual springboard to where I am now - running two businesses on a part-time basis, and making just about as much money as I want to. (No, I couldn't stack up the overtime and hit a 6-figure income next year - but then again, I don't really want to work that hard or that way.) This is *still* the land of opportunity. The problem is that so many people have spent so much time watching any problem imaginable being solved in 30 minutes (minus commercial breaks) that they don't see the opportunities that they have. Nobody ever promised that it'd be easy, or quick - just that it could be done. MW > You're right - every society is a collection of individuals, and > there's no reason to believe that there are no individuals who > consider a minimal selection of jewelery - say, at least 3 > different diamond sets for different occasions - to be the bare > minimum to allow them happiness. Who decides? S | Representatives in our society. In a direct democracy the majority | of people would compromise on one level. I've got a better way - let everyone decide for themselves, and meet their own needs. Those who, because of accident, illness, or injury cannot meet their own needs can be taken care of by the people who wish to take care of them. This doesn't force anyone into a mold that they don't want, or violate anyone's free choice. MW > We have apparently had different experiences of socialism - and > I've spent some hours in discussion with a woman who has led a > central socialist group here in the Twin Cities for longer than > I've been alive, so I'm not exactly unexposed to socialist > philosophy and agenda. S | Ahh. I disagree with most (perhaps all) party socialists as to | what socialist goals should entail. I'd already assumed you had a | good working knowledge of socialism as is desired by most. Am I to understand that you're socialist by philosophy, rather than a stalwart of the Socialist Worker's Party? This wouldn't surprise me much - though many will be misled when you tell them you're a socialist. You may wish to make that clearer sooner with people in the future - I think it'll save you a lot of misunderstanding. MW > This *will* make some interesting debate - while you seem quite > intelligent yourself (necessary for *my* satisfaction in > discussion), it'll take quite a bit of convincing before we're > going to agree on this topic. S | Thank you. I'd say the same of you. I somehow doubt we will agree | but the argument itself is wonderful for the mind. Mental calesthetics - yup. I'm not so sure anymore that we won't find some broad areas of agreement, though. You seem to be a bit unsettled on just exactly what you believe in and stand for - which beats the hell out of those who are quite certain about what they believe in without having any idea of *why* they believe in it. If I'm not entirely off base here, may I suggest a discussion of elemental points, to see just where you stand on them? If nothing else, it'll give me a clearer picture of you - but it may also give a clearer picture of you to yourself, and firm up in your own mind what you believe, and more importantly, *why* you believe it. Doing this here will make for a much wider spectrum of attitudes than would be available in most places, and give everyone something to bitch about, besides. Another message base would probably be more appropriate, though. -==- --- ž JABBER v1.2 ž A seminar on Time Travel will be held 2 weeks ago ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Quotes Date: Mon Dec 02 16:25:50 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 36 MW> MW > As punishment, it's still slavery, though perhaps justified slavery. MW> MW> S | I can see where you're saying. I think I'm going to have to MW> | capitulate on that one. MW> MW> Thanks, but "I see your point, and I now agree" isn't capitulation. It MW> works fine for me, though. I know. I wasn't necessarily agreeing, just saying that though I disagree instinctively, I can't find anything else to say in favor of my position. I'll try to respond to more of this message tomorrow. I have to go now so, until later. Specter- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:10 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Midnight Writer : MW> In either case, anybody who does not drive on the roads isn't paying MW> for the roads, which fits in quite nicely with the libertarian MW> philosophy. In the ideal I outlined above, where road taxes == road MW> expenses, the people who are using the roads *are* paying for them, and MW> that also fits the libertarian ideal. Just curious about this, two quick questions ... 1) Can you name a region or nation where this has been tried, successfully? 2) In this scenario, who would decide where the roads would be built and how the road tax money would be allocated? Would the road money be spent proportional to where the most gas tax money is collected at the pump, for example? ... Yield to temptation; It may not pass your way again. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Re: Rancid Meat Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:11 CST 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Midnight Writer : [severe snippage] MW> The cost of which should be reflected in the cost of the meat itself, ... MW> This insurance is considered part of that waiter's wages, paid by the MW> employer, ... MW> In any case, those roads should be paid for by the people using them - MW> they're not simply provided for by manna from heaven. ... MW> This power gets paid for - and I've got a pretty good idea of how much MW> a largish restaurant pays each month for electricity. You know, I tried something similar several years ago. I tried to create the ideal society, an ideal government where people would pay for what they use. The gas tax would pay for roads, etc, etc, etc. But when you do all that, you end up with a more complex mess than when you started. By the time you try to peg the cost of meat inspectors and enact a surcharge on meat, take the cost of government mandates on worker's comp insurance and charge each business accordingly, take the gas tax and pay for all road repairs with it, etc, you end up with a horrendous mess. Your answer is probably to reduce complexity. Well, unfortunately for that line of thinking, most people want meat inspections. They want mandatory worker's comp insurance. They want steady flowing power and safe roads. And so do I. And we vote to keep it that way. In all of this, you also seem to be neglecting one more layer of complexity ... who pays for the laws to be made that mandate the business expenses and taxes, collect them, and allocate them to the appropriate agencies? Are these also to be divied up among the various expenses (ie: meat inspectors' levies pay for meat inspector regulators), and if so isn't this just a wee bit confusing? (Hell, it's even hard to explain). MW> So, what's your point - that doing business without government aid is MW> impossible, or hopelessly difficult? Yep. MW> Feh! You're talking to a small MW> business owner, and the help I get from gov't is vanishingly small - MW> I'd certainly trade all of that help I get for the hassle of MW> calculating, collecting, and delivering sales taxes. Fine, great. As soon as we can find an actual working libertarian society, maybe you can move your business there and see how well it does. Don't take this personally, but I'd be betting against you :-) MW> When is the last time you had the opportunity to vote for bureaucratic MW> decisions, or directly vote upon some proposed legislation? Since I've never lived in a direct democracy ... never. As soon as someone can come up with a way to let 250 million people vote intelligently on zoning laws and defense contract allocations, maybe we can switch over. Until then, we just have to live with what we've got. MW> DR | If the former, then does that not still justify taxation - to pay MW> | for the government regulations and services? MW> Nothing else can possibly justify any taxation - if someone takes MW> money from me, and gives me no service or goods in exchange, it's MW> generally called theft. You libertarians just never seem to stop with this "theft" line, do you? Sheesh ... more on that in a bit. MW > How in the world does compromising one's freedom lead to an > expansion of freedom for everyone? (Careful - there's a deadfall > in this one.) MW> DR | Let's take a simple one - laws against murdering another person. MW> Too simple. "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an MW> easily recognized quote from the basic law of this country. MW> MW> DR | How has the law diminished freedom? It may be simple, but the same principle applies. Please answer the question, how has the law against murder diminished your freedom? MW> Let's take a somewhat more complex example. Joe Smith has operated an MW> adult bookstore on the same corner of a marginal retail district for MW> 20 years, just barely over the legal limit of 2000 feet from a church. MW> After much campaigning by people who are entirely too worried (imo) MW> about other people's sex life, that law is changed to 5000 feet - and MW> suddenly, Joe Smith has to relocate his business at his own expense, MW> or simply go out of business. MW> Do I need to go into detail about how this law has diminished Joe's MW> freedom, and the freedom of his customers? A *somewhat* more complex example? The day I understand zoning laws is the day I paint my head purple and join the monestary. But let's play a game of make-believe here. What if Joe was selling child pornography? In that case, the government could shut him down with no concern for how far away he was from a church. They'd just stop him, no matter where he was. Yes, that takes away his freedom. But I don't think you're going to get very far with the argument that the government shouldn't be able to regulate and stop the sale of child pornography. In that case, society feels that the fredom of children to remain free from sexual exploitation is a more important freedom than the ability to sell naked pictures of them. In the case of plain-vanilla porography, society is not quite so monolithic ... so pornograhy is only somewhat regulated. There's no one answer for why porn is so taboo, some might want to protect the women ... others might just want to impose their morality on others. But for whatever reason, society has taken the freedom away from others. Have we gone too far, in the case of porn? Perhaps. it's an easy line to cross, this limitation of freedom. But does that make the philosophy itself invalid? Nope. MW> DR | First off, I have a serious problem with the idea that anyone can MW> | sell their labor and have it belong to anyone else. Maybe it's MW> just | word choice, but to me it seems like a weak form of slavery - MW> When I trundled my snow shovel from door to door, and offered my MW> services to the people in my sales area, I had occasion to sell my MW> labor. At an agreed-upon price, I'd shovel someone's sidewalk and/or MW> driveway. They got a clear patch of concrete or asphalt, and I got MW> money in my pocket. I didn't get any further use of those driveways - MW> that area was *theirs*, whether they paid me to shovel it or not. I would argue that you did not sell your labor or time, but instead what you could do. You aren't selling yourself, but instead your "product". MW> For Bill to believe that he - and he MW> alone - | created his products is the height of arrogance (Have him MW> do the | same in the middle of the Gobi desert, and maybe he'd have MW> a | point). MW> Waitaminit - how have *you* helped him make his millions? The same way anyone else has, by paying the taxes and voting for the people who run the country. That country, in turn, makes it possible for Bill to sell his product and make his money. I could go into more detail, but I certainly hope I don't have to explain how patent protection, contract enforcement, trade negotiations, government subsidies to the computer industry, etc, etc, etc helped create the climate in which Bill Gates made his money. You may or may not see them as legitimate functions of government, but they're there nonetheless and have to be paid for. MW> DR | And how would Bill enforce his contracts, if he sent 10,000 MW> copies | of Windows 95 to Best Buy and they refused to pay? I MW> suspect that, | to collect his money, he'd call up some government MW> agency and ask | them for assistance. Those government agents might MW> even have to | resort to force, in order to enforce the laws. MW> Protection for the citizens from theft is, indeed, a valid role for MW> government - even in libertarian philosophy. And to me, collecting taxes to pay for governemnt services is also a valid role for government. That's a matter or personal disagreement, settled at the ballot box. But how are the two enforced? If you owe taxes, force might be used to make you pay it. If you break a contract, force might be used to make you honor it. What's the difference, besides that one form of contract is more overt than the other? This is, in my mind, the most repugnant liberarian claim - that taxes are theft, because they're enforced by force ... but yet, it's OK to use force when it's done for the right reason (as defined by the libertarians). MW> BTW, you may want to take another look at what our gov't actually MW> spends money on - public services aren't even half of it. Did *you* MW> want to bail out the folks who built the Target center and then failed MW> to make enough profit at it? I sure didn't. Nationally, entitlements are the biggest draw, followed by the military (a kind of public service most libertairns approve of). Statewide and locally, education is by far the biggest draw. The Target Center may be bullshit, but it's not where most of your money's going to. MW> My education was paid for by my parents - both in tuition and in MW> property taxes, until I went to college. Then I paid my own tuition. MW> When I agreed to have children, I agreed to support them, including MW> paying for their tuition - it's a responsibility I chose freely. My MW> neighbors, who will have no children, had their own education paid for MW> the same way mine was. Why should they be responsible for helping to MW> pay for educating *my* kids? (incredulous stare) I can't believe that a self-proclaimed businessman would be asking me the value of educated kids. What are you expecting to hire, a troupe of androids? :-) Education is valuable in so many ways, I don't know if I can do it justice. Educated people tend to be more productive and help expand the economy, are less likely to commit crimes, are more reliable workers and even tend to vote more intelligently. If you don't see the value in paying for this, you're certainly in the minority in this country. ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Tue Dec 03 06:48:57 CST 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 35 MW> F | You were fortunate that there were people around to help you. There MW> | are not people for everyone, and this is why we try to set up MW> | situations where people can get the help they need even when there MW> | are not people in their lives. MW> MW> The United Way does a pretty good job of that. I was fortunate enough MW> to not need to use their services, but I knew that they were available MW> to me, if needed. I've supported the UW both before and since. MW> That is another area where we differ. I have known MANY examples where the United Way does not or cannot help. The problem is too big for one voluntary organization to handle. I have experienced that first hand. Apparently you have not. MW> F | . . . and allow the people they were too selfish to help to die. MW> MW> The UW does a better job than *that*, Froggy. I see the implication No they don't. They do very fine work in specific areas, but nothing in very critical ones. MW> here that those people who "were too selfish" are somehow avoiding their MW> responsibility - are you really meaning to say that those with money are MW> responsible for the support and wellbeing of those without money? Is it I think that it makes sense to put money in tha bank in case you need it later; it makes sense to save the best seeds to plant later, and it makes sense to keep a social and financial support system strong for EVERYONE who may need it later, including yourself. MW> responsible for the support and wellbeing of those without money? Is it MW> really my *job* to make sure that nobody in my neighborhood goes hungry? MW> I guess that depends on your religious/moral attitudes and your pragmatic sense. I would rather teach a kid to read and help him find a job than see him drunk and unemployed on the street every day. MW> F | Before AFDC was made a government program, there was no such help MW> | for families. MW> MW> Charity - both secular and religious - has been happening for much MW> longer than our country has been a country. Historically, it's mostly MW> been done on a local-community basis, where you had a good chance to MW> know the people who benefited by your charity - and a good chance to And in this environment, many people suffered and failed. MW> *was* enough to go around, it worked pretty well. In areas where there MW> wasn't enough to go around, all the charity in the world wouldn't make MW> there be enough to go around. MW> Our country is the wealthiest on earth, and has the most resources on earth. Americans constitute 20% of the world population and consume 80% of its resources. Yet there are thousands of Americans either hungry or actually starving. The point is that we HAVE enough to go around, but it is being consumed by a selfish few and denied to others. MW> F | Many childern starved or were murdered because the adults couldn't MW> | take care of them. The lucky ones were split from their families MW> | and raised as individuals without brothers or sisters. MW> MW> Do you have historical referents for this? "Many children starved or MW> were murdered" is pretty strong stuff, emotionally - and while there MW> were times in the early days of the Industrial Revolution in which MW> children had an awful time of it, this seems a bit strong for the facts. MW> To more fully understand the facts, talk to someone whohas lived through the Great Depression, like my parents did. This was not a result of the Industrial Revolution, but of the false and selfish monetary system where a person's value was not measured by his contribution to society, but by the number of zeroes on his bank account. This was a false standard then and failed, leaving most of society devastated. What is going on today is very similar. Granted that there are built-in controls to prevent bank failures, etc., and attempts to prevent another Depression, but the FSLIC failed and Congress was asked to bail them out again, wasn't it? There are too many jobs today where people get paid large amounts of money to shuffle papers around and not doing productive work. You might contact some of the people who are posting on the Internet Websites looking for lost family members. They will tell you stories about how their families were broken up when Dad lost his job and they haven't seen their brothers and sisters for 50 years. Facts. When I was a teenager, I also worked as a volunteer tutoring kids inan orphanage. I became acquainted with some older children who had been surrendered by their parents because they had no jobs and could not pay for food or medical care. There may as well have been no welfare there, because of the culture, people refused to accept it. Therefore, I have seen personally what a society with no welfare support is like. I don't want to go there again, and neither would you if you saw it. It is damned ugly. For written documentation, look for a book called *Testerday's People.* I do not remember the name of the author, only that he was a Methodist minister who was assigned to work in this area and was overwhelmed with the need. If you looked back at vital statistics and census data since 1940, you would see that there has been a steady increase in lifespans and in the birth rates. That is why they call those of us who were born between 1945 -1955 "Boomers." Besides the war and increase in industrial productivity, this was also influences by the adoption of Social Security, Medicare, and AFDC. More young children (including you) lived to adulthood, and more seniors lived longer. These statistics are already being changed by budget cuts, and yes, they are emotional, and yes, they are WELL documented. MW> Why a gov't-sponsored program? What can the gov't do that a private MW> charity can't, other than take money from unwilling donors? Do you MW> really consider it moral to rob Peter to feed Paul? MW> Yes. If Peter has 2 steaks per day and Paul has no meat at all, and both are willing to contribute as much as they can to the society they both live in. The government is better able to guarantee this than private agencies are. MW> F | One of the biggest problems with AFDC today is that they no longer MW> | use real Social Workers. Instead, financial workers have just more MW> In other words, the welfare system would work *much* better if it MW> employed even more people, at higher salaries. MW> MW> I don't particularly think so. MW> I do. Before caseworkers were replaced by grunts, the welfare system did work much better. The goal of the caseworker should be to identify why their clients are having difficulties with employment and try to solve them. By doing so, the number of caseworkers would eventually be reduced. MW> This assistance is already available to anyone who looks for it. The MW> majority of people that *I've* known on welfare don't want that level of MW> interference in their lives - and certainly wouldn't want to further MW> drown the welfare system in red tape. MW> No it isn't. I know many people who have looked for help and there isn't any. One example I know about is a disabled person who could work and earn a subsistence income with a little housekeeping help and other minor things, but it is not available. United Way doesn't offer it either. Most honest welfare recipients will not mind an effort to help them in constructive ways. They do resent the things that are being done now, which are punitive and ineffective. If they do not want honest help, they are free to do without welfare and go it on their own. My concern is that as things are now, they do not have the choice. They are being told to either prevail on their own without assistance, or go it on their own. Period. MW> What I hear you saying is that it doesn't *matter* if they support the MW> program, or want to put their money into it. It matters that *you* MW> think it's important, and they should thus be required to put their MW> money into it, whether they like it or not. MW> MW> How very democratic of you. No, it matters that the MAJORITY of American citizens think that people who prosper from the society they live in should also contribute to it. That is the main reason why Clinton won the last election and the Republican "Contract on America" agenda lost. Yes. That is very democratic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Quotes Date: Tue Dec 03 11:42:25 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable MW>S | Compassion is not a sloppy sentimental feeling for people who are > | underpriveleged or sick... it is an absolutely practical belief > | that, regardless of a person's background, ability or ability to > | pay, he should be provided with the best that society has to offer. > | > | -Neil Kinnock, British politician MW>The unworkable part of this (intelligent?) quote is that someone has to >provide all of those "best that society has" - and forcing someone to >provide that to another is, in the simplest sense, slavery. Another problem is, there is not enough of the "best" to give everybody the "best". In some cases there is not enough period, even ignoring the best. Then how is society to decide how the goods or services should be divided up? --- ž OLX 1.53 ž When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Collective Contention Date: Wed Dec 04 16:22:26 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 40 MW> responsible for the support and wellbeing of those without money? Is it MW> really my *job* to make sure that nobody in my neighborhood goes hungry? MW> F> I guess that depends on your religious/moral attitudes and your F> pragmatic sense. I would rather teach a kid to read and help him find a job F> than see him drunk and unemployed on the street every day. Or stabbing you in the back and robbing you, because he has no money. On the other hand he would have found a productive job he was good at, namely killing and stealing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Fusion Date: Thu Dec 05 02:18:44 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: unavailable http://AllPolitics.com/news/9612/03/fusion.schneider/ > [AllPolitics - News] > > Supreme Court To Hear > Multi-Party Nominations Case > > By Bill Schneider/CNN > WASHINGTON (Dec. 3) -- Can something > called "fusion" save American politics? No, not > confusion. We already have enough of that. And not > a transfusion, though some new blood would > certainly help. Just "fusion." > > Fusion is the subject of a case being argued > before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. What does > it mean, and what difference could it make? > > Fusion allows a candidate to be nominated by more > than one political party. Ten states allow fusion > now: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, > Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, South > Dakota, Utah and Vermont. > > On the New York ballot this year, Bill Clinton was > the candidate of both the Democratic Party and the > Liberal Party. Add Clinton's Democratic and > Liberal votes together and you get Clinton's total > in New York, about 3.5 million votes. > > Bob Dole appeared on three ballot lines in New > York. Add Dole's votes on the Republican, > Conservative and Freedom Party lines to get Dole's > total of almost 1.9 million votes in New York. > > The case before the Supreme Court this week was > brought by the so-called New Party, a liberal > third party which is suing the state of Minnesota > for the right to do what third parties in New York > can do -- nominate a candidate who is already a > major party nominee -- and have its votes count > for that candidate. > > Fusion helps third parties grow because of the > bandwagon effect. If a Minnesota Democrat is > endorsed by the New Party and gets elected, the > New Party can claim a share in the victory. The > New Party's votes were not wasted. In fact, > sometimes a third party will provide a candidate > with his or her margin of victory. > > Supporters of fusion argue that it allows voters > to vote their values without throwing away their > vote. That may encourage higher turnout and help > combat voter cynicism. You can vote for a > candidate with a chance to win and, at the same > time, vote for a party you really believe in. > > Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader all like > the idea because they're all dissatisfied with the > two-party system. And so are most voters, > according to polls. > > Why encourage third parties? John Hagelin of the > Natural Law Party argues that many of the crucial > changes that have occurred in American society > have come from third parties, including a woman's > right to vote, abolition of slavery, the minimum > wage and the push for a balanced budget. > > Fusion gives third parties leverage over the major > parties. Minnesota's New Party can say to the > Democrats, "If you don't nominate a liberal, we > won't endorse your candidate. We'll nominate our > own candidate and take votes away from the > Democrat." > > Of course, third parties can do that now. But > fusion gives them more bargaining power. It gives > third parties something positive to offer, a > ballot line, not just something negative -- a > competing candidate. > > Fusion could strengthen fringe parties on the left > and right. And they could pressure Democrats and > Republicans to become more extreme. > > But don't forget, we also have a third party in > the center. That's the Reform Party, which is now > a presence in all 50 states. Fusion would give the > Reform Party a new breath of life after its > disappointing performance in this year's election. > > In theory, the Reform Party could swing its vote > behind whichever presidential candidate stood for > reform, without the burden of having to nominate > Ross Perot. > > "Let's assume that everybody is all excited about > one of the presidential candidates for the two > parties," Perot said recently. "They could decide > not to have a candidate and just all stick > together as a giant, unified bloc vote, and vote > for that candidate." > > That's exactly how fusion works. > > To some people, fusion looks like blackmail. It > allows third parties to extract concessions from > candidates and pull them to the left or to the > right. But fusion also can serve the cause of > reform. Third parties can extract commitments from > candidates to support reforms, like campaign > finance reform or entitlement reform. > > What happens under fusion depends on how strong > third parties are on the left, on the right and in > the center. There's nothing wrong with that. > That's exactly how democracy is supposed to work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: The Brady challenge Date: Mon Dec 09 01:59:41 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: unavailable You might have heard that the Brady Bill (the law that mandates waiting periods and background checks on potential gun buyers) was challenged, and that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. But did you know what grounds it was challenged under? You might assume that it's being challenged on 2nd amdnment grounds ... that the Supreme Court is going to decide whether the government has a right to take your guns away. But if you did assume that, you'd be wrong. It's being challenged on 10th amendment grounds ... in other words, the question isn't whether the government can mess with "gun owner's rights". The question is, can they mandate that local law enforcement agencies preform background checks? So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady Bill being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd amendment grounds? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Mon Dec 09 03:15:04 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 44 DR> isn't whether the government can mess with "gun owner's rights". The questi DR> is, can they mandate that local law enforcement agencies preform background DR> checks? DR> DR> So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady Bill DR> being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd amendment ground I think because they have not made too much ground on the Second Amendment. However, the NRA has lined up these 2 sheriffs who are sympathetic to the Tenth Amendment argument, because they are already operating with many unfunded mandates. One of the arguments is that when the Brady Bill was passed, the congress promised to install the nationwide computer retrieval system to search for police records, etc., and provide ATF and FBI personnel to do the searches. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Mon Dec 09 13:17:32 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 45 DR> So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady Bill DR> being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd amendment ground F> F> I think because they have not made too much ground on the Second F> Amendment. Which is exactly the point ... the 2nd amendment adgument won't hold up in court. :-) F> unfunded mandates. One of the arguments is that when the Brady Bill was F> passed, the congress promised to install the nationwide computer retrieval F> system to search for police records, etc., and provide ATF and FBI personnel F> to do the searches. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, the Feds should pass along cash to do the work. Local police departments have enough work to do without doing background checks, and if the Feds want them to do it so be it ... but they should help hire he people to do the work. On the other hand, I'm not very sympathetic to the unfunded mandate argument when people demand money to keep people from pulluting, etc .. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Tue Dec 10 01:13:46 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 46 DR> I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, the Feds should pass along cash DR> to do the work. Local police departments have enough work to do without DR> doing background checks, and if the Feds want them to do it so be it ... DR> but they should help hire he people to do the work. DR> I am too, but don't you think it should be looked at in a cost/benefit basis? I am willing to bet that police service areas that do background checks and keep guns out of the hands of people who ALREADY have histories of mental illness, threats, or as is now being discussed in the press, misdemeanor family violence can also show a reduction in violent crime rates. Therefore there should be a net decrease in the costs of investigation, prosecution and detainment of violent criminals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Tue Dec 10 12:42:37 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 47 DR> I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, the Feds should pass along cash DR> to do the work. Local police departments have enough work to do without DR> doing background checks, and if the Feds want them to do it so be it ... DR> but they should help hire he people to do the work. F> I am too, but don't you think it should be looked at in a F> cost/benefit basis? Nope, but if the Feds pass a law they should enforce it - or pass along the money to enforce it. F> I am willing to bet that police service areas that do F> background checks and keep guns out of the hands of people who ALREADY have F> histories of mental illness, threats, or as is now being discussed in the F> press, misdemeanor family violence can also show a reduction in violent crim F> rates. Therefore there should be a net decrease in the costs of F> investigation, prosecution and detainment of violent criminals. In a circular way, perhaps it would save money. But because it's such a roundabout way to reimburse a local police department, it defeats the spirit of the principle stated above ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: All Subject: continuing discussion of re:nixon? Date: Sun Dec 22 13:07:21 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: unavailable I disagree that Reagan and Bush were equally dangerous, for one simple reason: Physics teaches us that a fundamental property of the universe is inertia, the tendency of things to remain in any given state. Unless acted upon by outside forces, objects in motion tend to remain in motion, while objects at rest tend to remain at rest. Chemistry teaches another fundamental property: entropy. Strictly, entropy is the tendency for closed systems to lose energy over time in the form of heat. In more general terms, it is that systems eventually run down and come to a stop. Bush, in attempting to do something, was fighting against both the inertia which seeks to keep things as they are, and the entropy which seeks to degrade existing systems. Reagan, on the other hand, was perfectly comfortable to let inertia and entropy be the guiding forces in the development of American government in the 1980's. In that he was operating in concert with these powerful natural forces rather than against them, Reagan was far more likely to succeed, and thus he was far more dangerous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: continuing discussion of re:nixon? Date: Sun Dec 22 15:49:16 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 49 DT> Bush, in attempting to do something, was fighting against both the inertia DT> which seeks to keep things as they are, and the entropy which seeks to DT> degrade existing systems. DT> DT> Reagan, on the other hand, was perfectly comfortable to let inertia and DT> entropy be the guiding forces in the development of American government in DT> 1980's. In that he was operating in concert with these powerful natural DT> forces rather than against them, Reagan was far more likely to succeed, and DT> thus he was far more dangerous. The logical faccacy is the belief that Reagan was just letting things drift. Others around him were busy at work causing things to deteriorate even faster than the natural laws would allow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Froggy Subject: Re: continuing discussion of re:nixon? Date: Mon Dec 23 17:46:30 CST 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: 50 DT> Reagan, on the other hand, was perfectly comfortable to let inertia and DT> entropy be the guiding forces in the development of American government in DT> 1980's. In that he was operating in concert with these powerful natural DT> forces rather than against them, Reagan was far more likely to succeed, and DT> thus he was far more dangerous. F> F> The logical faccacy is the belief that Reagan was just letting thin F> drift. Others around him were busy at work causing things to deteriorate ev F> faster than the natural laws would allow. So the people Reagan trusted to run the government were, in fact, assisting the destructive forces of entropy and inertia? That just makes him even more dangerous in my eyes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUCIUS SULLA To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Mon Jan 20 16:19:29 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: 44 DR> So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady Bill DR> being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd amendment ground Because fighting for what is right because it is right doesn't work with an activist court. What is right has to be fought on double-speak terms that can't be refuted by some nonsense about how "times change, so rights go out the window" type shit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: LUCIUS SULLA Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Wed Jan 22 03:42:03 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Lucius Sulla : DR> So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady Bil DR> being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd amendment grou LS> Because fighting for what is right because it is right doesn't work LS> with an activist court. I don't know which court you've been watching, but it seems to me that the one we have now is interested in avoiding judicial activism at all costs. Many of their decisions lately seem based more on keeping the status-quo and avoiding controversy than ideology or legal merit, such as their decision to uphold Roe v. Wade while allowing indivdual states to chip away at those same rights. LS> What is right has to be fought on double-speak LS> terms that can't be refuted by some nonsense about how "times change, LS> so rights go out the window" type shit. So in other words, it's all right to use deception and lie as long as it's for a good cause? Besides, I don't know who's arguing that the "right to bear arms" has gone out the window, since it was never really there to begin with. ... Let no good deed go unpunished. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUCIUS SULLA To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Wed Jan 22 04:54:42 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: 53 DR> Many of their decisions lately seem based more on keeping the DR> status-quo and avoiding controversy than ideology or legal merit, such DR> as their decision to uphold Roe v. Wade while allowing individual states DR> to chip away at those same rights. I'm not going to accuse our U.S. Supreme Court of being overly consist in all cases. I never said I was pro-life and anti-abortion, for a variety of reasons I'll save right now, but isn't something like abortion SUPPOSED to be a states rights issue? Roe vs. Wade is very bad law and it's making the abortion conservatives seem like they have a good point. Not to mention all the contradictory laws that have come out since then. For example, how can a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman be guilty of double-manslaughter (or vehicular homicide, or whatever) if the Supreme Court with Roe vs. Wade has stated that an unborn fetus isn't a human being? Meanwhile, back at the issue, we did once have the "right to keep and bear arms" that was accepted as a constitutional right (at the federal level, anyway) up until the Thompson submachine gun was outlawed in [circa] 1934. I know there were some minor exceptions, like Wyatt Urp didn't allow guns in Dodge City, but that's hardly federal. DR> So in other words, it's all right to use deception and lie as long as DR> it's for a good cause? It sure seems like that's how it's working. DR> So, to any of you 2nd amendment types out there ... why is the Brady DR> Bill being challenged under 10th amendment grounds, and not 2nd DR> amendment grounds You make a good point in that this Supreme Court is largely concerned with maintaining the status quo rather than interpreting the Constitution. Let me refresh your memory, just in case. Article X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Unfunded mandates are easier to attack than repeal of gun rights, for obvious reasons, but they're going to have to be very careful, because the precedent of proving that the federal government has overstepped its bounds since the New Deal and perhaps even since the War of Northern Aggression in 1865 on the pretense of slavery, but really it was Lincoln not wanting to grant states the right to leave the Union once they joined. THAT would really mess with the status quo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: LUCIUS SULLA Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Wed Jan 22 12:13:16 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Lucius Sulla : LS> I'm not going to accuse our U.S. Supreme Court of being overly consist LS> in all cases. I never said I was pro-life and anti-abortion, for a LS> variety of reasons I'll save right now, but isn't something like LS> abortion SUPPOSED to be a states rights issue? No, most definately not. The Bill of Rights is selectively applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and that includes free speech as much as it does the right to privacy on which Roe v. Wade is based. It is the Supreme Court decides which rights are so fundamental that they must be rights enjoyed by all citizens of the country - and if they did not, it would be pretty damned chaotic. I mean really, do you think it would be feasible or desirable to have each state decide on their own what sort of liberties their citizens should enjoy ... even to the level of freedom of speech, requirements of warrant, or search and seizure? LS> Not to mention all the contradictory laws that have come out since LS> then. For example, how can a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman LS> be guilty of double-manslaughter (or vehicular homicide, or whatever) LS> if the Supreme Court with Roe vs. Wade has stated that an unborn fetus LS> isn't a human being? Not having studied the case law, all I can do is make a guess ... since Roe v. Wade is based on the right to privacy that it has something to do with that right not being violated in the case of the mother being killed - as it's difficult to be skittish when you're dead. LS> Meanwhile, back at the issue, we did once have the "right to keep and LS> bear arms" that was accepted as a constitutional right (at the federal LS> level, anyway) up until the Thompson submachine gun was outlawed in LS> [circa] 1934. I know there were some minor exceptions, like Wyatt Urp LS> didn't allow guns in Dodge City, but that's hardly federal. Again, I haven't studied the specific cases, but it's quite apparent that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a fairly illusory one, illustrated by the way the NRA and other pro-loosely interpreted 2nd amendment groups lobby Congress - and not the court - when they want to change the gun laws. As far as I know, this was never really an issue for the courts until the early 20th century, when the bill of rights began to be applied to the rest of the states through the 14th amendment. Here's a hypothetical for you: if Minnesota passed a law banning all guns, on what constitutional grounds would you object to that law? I'm actually very curious to hear what you have to say about this one ... LS> Article X LS> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor LS> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States LS> respectively, or to the people. Yep, quite familiar with that one. But as I've stated twice already, the 14th amendment changed all of this. In a way, the 10th and 14th amendments are contradictory ... on top of the rest of the ambiguity of the constitution, the courts have been highly reluctant to interpret what the powers of the other two branches of the government are. LS> the War of Northern Aggression The war of northern aggression? Yikes! LS> in 1865 on the pretense of slavery, but really it LS> was Lincoln not wanting to grant states the right to leave the Union LS> once they joined. THAT would really mess with the status quo After a fractuous civil war, is it any surprise that the Federal Government wanted to define its authority in a less ambigious manner? The 14th amendment may not fit into your ideas of government, but it was passed legally within the framework of our constitution - as the decisions made by the court today, based on that same 14th amdendment, are also legal. ... Fuck! ... damn, there goes another $250,000. Thanks, Senator Exon! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Lucius Sulla Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 00:40:06 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: 54 LS> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor LS> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or LS> the people. LS> LS> cases. I never said I was pro-life and anti-abortion, for a variety of reas LS> I'll save right now, but isn't something like abortion SUPPOSED to be a sta LS> rights issue? Roe vs. Wade is very bad law and it's making the abortion No it isn't. The legal theory that the court wrestled with when they were discussing Roe V Wade was one of individual rights. Does the fetus have a civil right to invade and parasitize another citizen, regardless of gender? Does the citizen, the woman, in this case, have a right to resist this invasion? They decided that yes, the woman has a right to resist, and no, the fetus does not have a right to invade. Any more than I have a right to move into your house without your permission, turn up the heat, use the phone, and eat all of your food. It is a constitutional issue, and no state has the right to abridge this right and pass laws that allow me to move in on you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 00:50:10 CST 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: 55 DR> LS> then. For example, how can a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman DR> LS> be guilty of double-manslaughter (or vehicular homicide, or whatever) DR> LS> if the Supreme Court with Roe vs. Wade has stated that an unborn fetu DR> LS> isn't a human being? DR> DR> Not having studied the case law, all I can do is make a guess ... DR> since Roe v. Wade is based on the right to privacy that it has something DR> to do with that right not being violated in the case of the mother I think that most of these cases are knee-jerks originated by the same "pro-life" people who bomb clinics. Their primary goal is to get all laws in this country to reflect and operate in the world as they want it. I also have not done a thorough case study of all of these, but I do know that there have been several cases where there was a failure to convict based on the death of the fetus. There have also been cases where DAs have refused to prosecute on the death of the fetus because they fear that doing so may cause the conviction to be overturned later. I have heard of only one actual conviction on this, and I have not heard where it is in appeal, and whether it was supported or overturned at higher levels. Presumably, if it reaches the Supremes, they will make the same decision that they did with Roe V Wade -- that killing a fetus is not murder, because murder is killing a person, and a fetus is not a person. People attain citizenship and personhood at birth, not before. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 09:31:14 CST 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 57 F> I think that most of these cases are knee-jerks originated by the F> same "pro-life" people who bomb clinics. Their primary goal is to get all Talk about stupid. Lets be against killing and BOMB a building? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 10:15:50 CST 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: 58 S> Talk about stupid. Lets be against killing and BOMB a building? That's what I think, too. But many of them are in favor of capital punishment and several doctors have been shot. They are clearly not all in favor of LIFE. They seem to support SOME kinds of life, as they see it, and want everyone else to follow suit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 10:18:49 CST 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> be overturned later. I have heard of only one actual conviction on Fr> this, and I have not heard where it is in appeal, and whether it was Fr> supported or overturned at higher levels. Presumably, if it reaches Fr> the Supremes, they will make the same decision that they did with Roe Fr> V Wade -- that killing a fetus is not murder, because murder is Fr> killing a person, and a fetus is not a person. People attain Fr> citizenship and personhood at birth, not before. Interesting. So basically, it's still highly contentious (legally) whether killing a pregant woman is more of a crime than killing a non-pregnant woman? Do you know if Minnesota has a law on the books in regard to this at all ...? ... Let no good deed go unpunished. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Thu Jan 23 15:42:11 CST 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: 59 S> Talk about stupid. Lets be against killing and BOMB a building? F> F> That's what I think, too. But many of them are in favor of capital F> punishment and several doctors have been shot. They are clearly not all in F> favor of LIFE. They seem to support SOME kinds of life, as they see it, and F> want everyone else to follow suit. Yeah, the contradiction is pretty dumb. There is one orginization out there, I can't remeber the name, but they oppose both the death penalty and abortion. I'm sure someone here knows the name of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Fri Jan 24 01:54:19 CST 1997 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: 60 DR> Interesting. So basically, it's still highly contentious (legally) DR> whether killing a pregant woman is more of a crime than killing a DR> non-pregnant woman? DR> DR> Do you know if Minnesota has a law on the books in regard to this at DR> all ...? DR> There is no contention. Legally, when you kill a pregnant or a non-pregnant woman, you are are still killing ONE person. As far as I know, all of Minnesota's laws are directed this way. In order to convict someone of a double murder, you wouuld have to indict and convict on 2 charges of murder, but the 2nd one would not stand because "murder" applies only to "persons," not to dogs, pigs, or fetuses. There are a few legislators who would love to change this, but they and their loyal followers do not have much support for it. For one thing, I, as a woman feel that I was as important as a person when I was not pregnant as when I was. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Fri Jan 24 01:56:03 CST 1997 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: 61 F> That's what I think, too. But many of them are in favor of capital F> punishment and several doctors have been shot. They are clearly not all in F> favor of LIFE. They seem to support SOME kinds of life, as they see it, and F> want everyone else to follow suit. S> S> Yeah, the contradiction is pretty dumb. There is one orginization out there S> I can't remeber the name, but they oppose both the death penalty and abortio S> I'm sure someone here knows the name of it. There are a number. One is the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Some others are The Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUCIUS SULLA To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Fri Jan 24 06:56:01 CST 1997 Message number: 64 Reply to message number: 55 DR> Again, I haven't studied the specific cases, but it's quite apparent that DR> the "right to keep and bear arms" is a fairly illusory one, illustrated by DR> the way the NRA and other pro-loosely interpreted 2nd amendment DR> groups lobby Congress - Once again, here I go... this bores me more than it does you. (No comments on that, please) Article II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of a secure state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm not sure how you can say that the NRA is loosely interpreting the 2nd amendment. Making gun-control laws especially ones as insane as the Brady Bill IS loosely interpreting the Constitution. As I've stated before, the term "well-regulated" meant, in an 18th Century dictionary, "well-disciplined" (and the re-defining of the word over time is NOT part of what makes a Living Document) it did NOT mean subject to central control. We still need to keep our interpretations of the Constitution in alignment with original intent. A living document means it can be changed, not ignored when it's convenient to do so. Original intent, in the case of the U.S. Bill of Rights is one of freedom. DR> Here's a hypothetical for you: if Minnesota passed a law banning all DR> guns, on what constitutional grounds would you object to that law? DR> I'm actually very curious to hear what you have to say about this one ... You never answered my question on how do you think Article II of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. I think it's only fair you answer mine first. This is not to say I'm avoiding you, this one I could easily handle on a drunken binge. DR> But as I've stated twice already, the 14th amendment changed all of DR> this. In a way, the 10th and 14th amendments are contradictory . What do you mean, "in a way"? Your right about that. I looked it up yesterday and saw the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and it does seem to be rather badly drafted. States rights was a debate that Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson debated and everybody knew it would lead to war. This is something that should have been handled back in 1778 rather than allowed to fester until 1864. Patrick Henry, John DeWitt and other Anti-Federalist patriots who debated against Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the rest of the Federalist patriots had some outstanding points in wanting to keep the powers of the central government small. It took a long time for things to show just how right they were. For example, up until early this century, politicians ran for Federal offices as a stepping stone to run for State offices. Now look at us. The Fed is our nanny and we go to it as a first resort rather than as a last resort. It's been my experience with southerners (I was stationed in North Carolina in my days as a paid killer) that their military traditions make them WANT to go to war and gather glory rather than debate things more peacefully. I have long believed that if the southern states had just chosen to filibuster in congress, the Union would have let them go and even give them money to just stop the damn filibuster. They DID have right (again let me emphasize I'm not talking about the immorality of slavery here) on their side, but their mistake was in believing that right makes right, but the Union proved the eternal truth once again, and reconstruction was a high price to pay. I also agree with you that abortion should be a Federal issue. When we decide when a child is a human being, that is to say, when we decide when life really begins and when the fetus, or child has rights it is legal issue for the federal government. Sidetracking a little here... As I've said before, my distrust of government is so deep that I would rather allow parents to have carte blanche over their children than trust the government what is right and wrong for a family to raise a child. Too many innocent lives and reputations have been ruined by erring on the side of the child, not to mention leading the child to give false testimony for me to believe these child advocacy groups are to be trusted to do the right thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Fri Jan 24 14:21:21 CST 1997 Message number: 65 Reply to message number: 63 F> There are a number. One is the Religious Society of Friends F> (Quakers). Some others are The Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and F> others. True. I was thinking of a non-religious political orginization, but those will do as well. I just always feel the need to put into any discussion of abortion that there are those of us who aren't following the contradiction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Lucius Sulla Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Sat Jan 25 06:48:49 CST 1997 Message number: 66 Reply to message number: 64 DR> Again, I haven't studied the specific cases, but it's quite appar DR> the "right to keep and bear arms" is a fairly illusory one, illust DR> the way the NRA and other pro-loosely interpreted 2nd amendment DR> groups lobby Congress - > Article II > A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of a secure > the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed > I'm not sure how you can say that the NRA is loosely interpreting th > amendment. Simple, they argue that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and not state militias ... that's a very liberal interpretation of the second amendment. The court has ruled that the second amendment appiles only to the "well-regulated militias" in the first part of the amendment ... the same militias referred to in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ... the same militias which have become, in effect, today's National Guard. In 1939, the Supreme Court stated this overtly in US vs. Miller. In it, the court let stand a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of sawed-off shotguns and rejected the idea that the shotguns had, "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," Since then, the courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms is a state's right, not an individual's right. Simply put, the NRA is loosely interpreting the second amendment because they continue to insist that it applies to individuals. DR> Here's a hypothetical for you: if Minnesota passed a law banning DR> guns, on what constitutional grounds would you object to that la DR> I'm actually very curious to hear what you have to say about this > You never answered my question on how do you think Article II of the > Bill of Rights should be interpreted. I think it's only fair you > answer mine first. This is not to say I'm avoiding you, this one I > could easily handle on a drunken binge. Hope I just answered it to your satisfaction above ... DR> But as I've stated twice already, the 14th amendment changed all DR> this. In a way, the 10th and 14th amendments are contradictory . > What do you mean, "in a way"? Because much of the Constitution is written very generically, it is difficult to state anything with perfect certitude. Only the court's interpretatioins of the constitution are specific, the constitution itself is actually quite vague and open to interpretation. > Your right about that. I looked it up yesterday > and saw the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and it does seem > to be rather badly drafted. States rights was a debate that Aaron Bu > and Thomas Jefferson debated and everybody knew it would lead to war > This is something that should have been handled back in 1778 rather > than allowed to fester until 1864. It's just not something that *can* be "handled" ... it's not that simple. You can no more solve the distribution of power between the states and Federal government then you can solve the power games between the young and old, suburbanites and inner city folk, or oil barons and environmentalists. It's an age-old problem of competing interests that could only be solved by breaking up the union or giving the Federal government absolute power over the states. Until that happens, there will always be conflicts. Today, becauase of the 14th andendment, the demands of industrial society and a changed political climate, we have a more powerful Federal government. We also have more powerful state governments. Whether it's right or wrong is opinion, but the fact remains that it is constitutional and legal. > They DID have right (again let me emphasize I'm not talking about th > immorality of slavery here) on their side, but their mistake was in > believing that right makes right, but the Union proved the eternal > truth once again, and reconstruction was a high price to pay. The main truth involved here is that history is written by the victors. But as for morality ... was it morally right for the Union to seek to preserve itself? Maybe not. I don't think it was moral for us to go to war with Mexico for territory either, but few people seem to get in a fuss over that little breach of ethics. It is very difficult to try and apply our morals today to people who lived in a different time, a different culture and a were raised with a different system of values. That's one of the first lessons taught in a history class, and one of the most important. That being said, perhaps the North was wrong in trying to preserve the Union by force. But as you said yourself, the South was hardly looking for a peaceful settlement either ... which is why the term "the war of northern aggression" is so deceptive, as both sides were rather belligerent and hostile towards the other. When morals and economics and politics combine, it becomes a terriblty powerful and divisive force. > I also agree with you that abortion should be a Federal issue. When > decide when a child is a human being, that is to say, when we decide > when life really begins and when the fetus, or child has rights it > is legal issue for the federal government. The question of where life begins is a very misleading one, because life doesn't begin at any point, it's always there. It's a process, a continuum. Life doesn't begin at conception or birth, it began when the first human or human ancestor walked the earth. The question for the courts is, when should the laws recognize someone as a legal person? That's not an easy question to answer, both for moral and practical reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Sat Jan 25 09:20:15 CST 1997 Message number: 67 Reply to message number: 66 DR> The court has ruled that the second amendment appiles only to the DR> "well-regulated militias" in the first part of the amendment ... the DR> same militias referred to in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution DR> ... the same militias which have become, in effect, today's National DR> Guard. DR> Well said, and accurate. I wonder how all the individuals who think thay should have unlimited rights to any and all weapons think that equates with a "well-regulated" militia. I know a man now who carries a loaded gun in his car, shoots at drivers on the roads, has threatened to kill his wife, and in no way can be considered "well-regulated." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Sat Jan 25 19:42:27 CST 1997 Message number: 68 Reply to message number: 67 F> with a "well-regulated" militia. I know a man now who carries a loaded gun F> his car, shoots at drivers on the roads, has threatened to kill his wife, an F> in no way can be considered "well-regulated." Also, one person does not a militia make. So any one person is almost certainly not a militia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Sun Jan 26 05:40:33 CST 1997 Message number: 69 Reply to message number: 68 F> with a "well-regulated" militia. I know a man now who carries a loaded gun F> his car, shoots at drivers on the roads, has threatened to kill his wife, an F> in no way can be considered "well-regulated." S> S> Also, one person does not a militia make. So any one person is almost S> certainly not a militia. Yup. You and I have figured that out. I wonder why the NRA hasn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Mon Jan 27 14:17:23 CST 1997 Message number: 70 Reply to message number: 69 F> Yup. You and I have figured that out. I wonder why the NRA hasn't Hmmm. Don't want to make generalizations... but... may I propose they're all too impressed by their fully automatic assault weapons to think it through. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Starfox Subject: Re: The Brady challenge Date: Fri Jan 31 02:57:49 CST 1997 Message number: 71 Reply to message number: 58 S> Talk about stupid. Lets be against killing and BOMB a building? Not totally, from their POV it's something of a "lesser of evils".. Something like the old "If you could kill Hitler.." scenario. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BADLANDS To: Froggy Subject: ... Date: Thu Feb 06 20:45:07 CST 1997 Message number: 72 Reply to message number: 65 F> There are a number. One is the Religious Society of Friends F> (Quakers). Some others are The Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and F> others. S> S> True. I was thinking of a non-religious political orginization, but those S> will do as well. I just always feel the need to put into any discussion of S> abortion that there are those of us who aren't following the contradiction. There's also the Feminists For Life.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: All Subject: Starr Bails Date: Tue Feb 18 02:31:03 CST 1997 Message number: 73 Reply to message number: unavailable The morning news has announced that Starr has resigned and will be leaving his post as Special Prosecutor. I wonder if the fact that he has spent almost 4 years, 30 million dollars, conducted several mock trials against both Bill and Hilary Clinton without ever getting a conviction has anything to do with it. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Thu Feb 20 16:55:49 CST 1997 Message number: 74 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> The morning news has announced that Starr has resigned and Fr> will be leaving his post as Special Prosecutor. I wonder if the fact Fr> that he has spent almost 4 years, 30 million dollars, conducted Fr> several mock trials against both Bill and Hilary Clinton without ever Fr> getting a conviction has anything to do with it. :) Gloating doesn't become you, Froggy :-) ... Success is just a matter of luck. Ask any failure. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Thu Feb 20 22:16:49 CST 1997 Message number: 75 Reply to message number: 74 DR> Fr> The morning news has announced that Starr has resigned and DR> Fr> will be leaving his post as Special Prosecutor. I wonder if the fact DR> Fr> that he has spent almost 4 years, 30 million dollars, conducted DR> Fr> several mock trials against both Bill and Hilary Clinton without ever DR> Fr> getting a conviction has anything to do with it. :) DR> DR> Gloating doesn't become you, Froggy :-) DR> Well, I don't do it too often. But I intend to shove this one right up the Republicans during the next election. God help the one of them that dares comment around me about the Dems wasting taxpayers' money. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Fri Feb 21 20:05:35 CST 1997 Message number: 76 Reply to message number: 74 DR> Gloating doesn't become you, Froggy :-) * heheh. au contraire. i think it's swell...especially when she's right :) -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Fri Feb 21 20:10:02 CST 1997 Message number: 77 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Froggy <=- -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> The morning news has announced that Starr has resigned and Fr> will be leaving his post as Special Prosecutor. I wonder if the fact Fr> that he has spent almost 4 years, 30 million dollars, conducted Fr> several mock trials against both Bill and Hilary Clinton without ever Fr> getting a conviction has anything to do with it. :) DR> Gloating doesn't become you, Froggy :-) He's back! This munch came back today and gave a press conference to announce that he will be postponing his Deanship. I suspect some hard-right conservative weenies told Mr. Star that if he quit now his political career would end. Without the support of the weenie right nobody can advance within the republican party. ... He's got Blue Wave fever and it's spreading through the message bases! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Cosima Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Sat Feb 22 00:57:46 CST 1997 Message number: 78 Reply to message number: 76 DR> Gloating doesn't become you, Froggy :-) C> * C> heheh. au contraire. i think it's swell...especially when she's right :) Yeh, but have you heard the news? Starr unbailed. Came back in. Apparently his little right-wing henchmen kicked his butt and told him that it was too obvious for him to bail now, so he is going to keep trying. Personally, I think the congress should cut off his money for this and give it to parents of disabled kids for home care. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Starr Bails Date: Sat Feb 22 00:58:58 CST 1997 Message number: 79 Reply to message number: 77 S> I suspect some hard-right conservative weenies told Mr. Star that S> if he quit now his political career would end. S> Without the support of the weenie right nobody can advance within S> the republican party. S> That is the line that I heard, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Proportional represenation Date: Mon Feb 24 16:13:22 CST 1997 Message number: 80 Reply to message number: unavailable Part 1/2 From shove001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Fri Feb 21 09:59:12 1997 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:06:09 -0600 (CST) From: David Shove To: MN-Politics Subject: Man/Woman/Proportional Representation P R O P O R T I O N A L R E P R E S E N T A T I O N The following article is long. But proportional representation is unfamiliar to most, and so is open to the misunderstanding already evidenced in earlier replies. It is the system used in many other democracies, and has been used in the past in up to 20 US cities, including New York, Cleveland, Cincinnnati, and -- Hopkins! It solves many of the problems endemic to our much less than best of all possible democratic systems. It's exciting! (to me, anyway), and offers so much more in terms of real alternatives and heightened political interest and debate and bubbling ferment, and so much more to third parties (Green, Libertarian, New Party, Grassroots, Reform, DFLmaverick, whatever) that it's absolutely irresistible! WHAT IS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND WHY DO WE NEED THIS REFORM? Douglas J. Amy [Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; member of the Center for Voting and Democracy] Americans continue to be disillusioned with politics. Cynicism about candidates and parties runs high and voter turnout is abysmally low. A number of proposals designed to revitalize American elections have been made, including term limits and campaign finance reform. But a new reform is also beginning to get some attention: replacing our present single-member district, winner-take-all election system with proportional representation (PR) elections. Political commentators writing in The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor and USA Today have recently endorsed this reform. Grassroots groups in several states are now organizing to bring proportional representation to local elections. Leaders of most alternative parties, including the Libertarians, the Greens, and the New Party, are also pushing for a change to PR. And many in the voting rights community, including Lani Guinier, have concluded that proportional representation would be the best way to give minority voters fair representation. So why all this sudden interest in proportional representation? What exactly is PR, how does it work, and what are its advantages over our present system? Describing how it works is simple. Proportional representation systems come in several varieties, but they all share two basic characteristics. First, they use multi-member districts. Instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, PR uses much larger districts that elect several members at once, say five or ten. Second, which candidates win the seats in these multi-member districts is determined by the proportion of votes a party receives. If we have a ten-member PR district in which the Democratic candidates win 50% of the vote, they would receive five of those ten seats. With 30% of the vote, the Republicans would get three seats. And if a third party received the other 20% of the votes, it would get the remaining two seats. At first glance, this voting process might seem a bit strange to many Americans. We are used to our single-member district system, in which we elect one candidate in each legislative district, with the winner being the candidate with the most votes. But while we view this winner-take-all system as "normal," in reality our approach to elections is increasingly at odds with the rest of the world. The vast majority of Western democracies see American-style elections as outmoded and unfair and have rejected them in favor of proportional representation. Most of Western Europe uses PR and, with the exception of Ukraine and Belarus, all the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have chosen PR over our form of elections. The United States, Canada, and Great Britain are the only Western democracies that continue to cling to winner-take-all arrangements. The Problem with Single-Member District Elections The single-member district election system has been on the wane worldwide because it has a number of serious drawbacks. It routinely denies representation to large numbers of voters, produces legislatures that fail to accurately reflect the views of the public, discriminates against third parties, and discourages voter turnout. All of these problems can be traced to a fundamental flaw in our system: only those who vote for the winning candidate get any representation. Everyone else -- who may make up 49% of the electorate in a district -- gets no representation. We are all familiar with this problem. If you are a Democrat in a predominately Republican district, or a Republican in a Democratic one, or an African-American in a white district, then you are shut out by our current election system. You might cast your vote, but it will be wasted on a candidate that can not win. In the 1994 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, more than 26 million Americans wasted their votes on losing candidates, and so came away from the voting booth with no representation. Under single-member district rules we may have the right to vote, but we don't have the equally important right to be represented. To make matters worse, this denial of representation on the district level often produces distortions in representation in Congress and our state and local legislatures. Parties often receive far more (or far fewer) seats than they deserve. For example, in the 1994 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrats won 42 percent of votes in Iowa, but none of the state's five seats in the House. In Washington State, the Democrats won almost 50 percent of the vote, but received only 22 percent of the House seats. Americans have become used to this kind of political injustice, but citizens in most other democracies are not willing to put up with it. Proportional representation has been widely adopted because it avoids an outcome in which some people win representation and the rest are left out. Under proportional representation rules, no significant groups are denied representation. Even political minorities, who may constitute only 10-20 per cent of the voters, are able to win some seats in these multi-member districts. In PR systems, nearly everyone's vote counts, with 80-90 per cent of the voters actually electing someone, compared to 50-60 per cent in most U.S. elections. Under PR, we can also be sure that our legislatures will accurately reflect the voting strength of the various parties. If a party receives 40 per cent of the vote, it will get 40 per cent of the seats, not 20 percent or 60 percent as can happen now with our system. MORE CHOICES FOR VOTERS The unfairness of winner-take-all elections and the advantages of proportional representation are particularly obvious when we consider the situation of third parties in the U.S. Voters are increasingly dissatisfied with the offerings of the two-major parties and recent surveys indicate that over 60 per cent of Americans would now like to see other parties emerge to challenge the Democrats and Republicans. Voters are showing increasing interest in alternatives such as Ross Perot's Reform party, the Libertarian party, the Greens, the New Party, and the Rainbow Coalition. But under our current rules, none of these parties stands a realistic chance of electing their candidates. Winner-take-all elections require candidates to receive a majority or plurality of the vote to win, and minor party candidates can rarely overcome that formidable barrier. This plurality barrier explains why even though we have had over a thousand minor parties started in the U.S. during the last two hundred years, virtually all have died out relatively quickly. Adopting PR would finally allow for free and fair competition between all political parties. Supporters of minor parties are forced to either waste their vote on a candidate who cannot win; vote for the lesser-of-two-evils among the major party candidates; or not vote at all. In short, single-member district elections are rigged against minor parties and serve to unfairly protect the major parties from competition. This problem would end under proportional representation, which is designed to ensure that all political groups, including minor party supporters, get their fair share of representation. Minor parties would need only 10 or 20 per cent of the vote to elect a candidate. Under PR, many minor parties would quickly become viable and we would have a truly competitive multi-party system. This would give American voters what they say they want: a much greater variety of choices at the polls. Offering voters more choices would also encourage higher levels of voting. People would have more reason to vote because they could more easily find a candidate or party they could support enthusiastically. Voters would also know that their vote would not be wasted, but would count to elect the candidate of their choice. Because of such inducements, voters in PR countries typically turnout at rates of 80-90 per cent, compared to 50 per cent or less in the U.S. A multi-party system would also ensure that our city, state, and federal legislatures represented the variety of political perspectives that exist in the electorate. Our society is becoming more politically heterogeneous, and yet our legislatures are made up of the same old Republican and Democratic politicians. Some of our widespread political malaise might disappear if we had policy-making bodies that reflected the diverse perspectives in the electorate. More representative legislatures would foster more exciting and wide-ranging political debate and inject new ideas into decision making. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: proportional represenation Date: Mon Feb 24 16:14:17 CST 1997 Message number: 81 Reply to message number: unavailable SOLVING OUR VOTING RIGHTS PROBLEMS Another major advantage of proportional representation is in the area of voting rights. Lani Guinier and others have argued that PR would be the best solution to the continuing problem of how to ensure fair representation for racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. Currently, supporters of voting rights are facing a difficult dilemma. The Supreme Court recently cast doubt on the constitutionality of creating special minority-dominated districts. These districts have been the main avenue by which minorities have increased their representation in Congress over the past few decades. But if we abandon this approach, how do we avoid going back to the old white-dominated districts, in which minority candidates have little or no chance of being elected? The way out of this situation is to realize that it exists only if we must use winner-take-all districts, where how the district lines are drawn determines whether whites or minorities will be represented in a particular district. The solution is to abandon single-member districts and use proportional representation. Then it wouldn't matter if minorities were submerged in majority white districts, they could still elect their own representatives. Assume, for example, that whites made up 80 percent of the voters in a five-seat PR district and blacks made up the remaining 20 percent. Even if everyone voted along racial lines, the African Americans would still be able to elect one representative. Proportional representation would ensure fair representation for both whites and minorities, and do so without creating special districts. Other Advantages of PR Proportional representation also carries other significant political advantages. Under PR, women would have a much fairer chance of being elected. The underrepresentation of women in our city, state, and federal legislatures is an ongoing problem in our political system. For instance, despite recent gains for women, they occupy a mere 11 per cent of the seats in the U.S. Congress. PR countries typically have much higher rates of female elected officials in their national legislatures -- 41 per cent in Sweden, and 39 per cent in Finland, for example. This dramatic different is primarily due to women being nominated in much higher numbers as part of the party slates of candidates used in PR systems. Parties cannot leave women off their slates for fear of being accused of sexism. Thus more women are nominated and more are elected. Slates also allow parties to establish gender quotas for nominations. Some European parties require that at least 40% of nominations go to women. The adoption of PR in the U.S. would be one of the most effective ways to quickly increase the number of women in elected office. Another advantage of proportional representation is that it would greatly reduce or eliminate the problem of partisan gerrymandering -- one of the scourges of the single-member district system. Currently, district lines are usually drawn to create district majorities that favor certain parties or incumbents -- a cynical exercise designed to cheat some parties out of their fair share of seats. However, as mentioned earlier, how district lines are drawn in PR systems usually has no significant impact on representation. In the large multi-member districts used in PR, it doesn't matter whether a party is a majority or a minority -- all parties receive their fair share of seats. So, under PR rules, the drawing of districts lines would no longer be a way of determining who gets represented or which party controls the legislature. PR HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD But can we be sure that proportional representation would really result in all of these positive changes? The actual impacts of new political innovations are notoriously difficult to predict. However, PR is not a new and untried idea; it has a long track record in other Western democracies. Political scientists studying these countries have found that virtually all of them have enjoyed high voter turnout rates, vigorous multi-party competition, fair representation for political, ethnic and racial minorities, and practically no gerrymandering. And no serious movement exists in any of these countries to trade in PR for American-style elections. Proportional representation's record in other countries also serves to dispel the myth that adopting such a system would result in legislatures racked by conflict and plagued by deadlock. Most legislatures in countries using proportional representation are ruled by a coalition of parties, and some fear that these coalitions are liable to be unstable and to lead to weak and unproductive government. In reality, however, almost all PR countries have enjoyed stable coalition governments. In Scandinavia, for instance, some of these multi-party coalitions have lasted for decades. And these large coalitions have commonly passed legislation far more efficiently than our Congress does. A few countries, notably Italy and Israel, have had trouble with unstable coalitions. But both of these countries have used extreme forms of proportional representation. Israel, for example, allows any party that gets more than about 1 per cent of the vote to win seats in their parliament. At times this low threshold has resulted in over a dozen parties in the Knesset, which has complicated the task of governing. However, most other PR countries use more moderate forms of PR that have a higher threshold and fewer parties. Germany has a five per cent threshold that results in a workable legislature of 3-5 parties. This moderate PR is what proponents are advocating for the U.S. IMPLEMENTING PR IN THE UNITED STATES Here in the U.S., proportional representation would be easiest to acquire on the local level, where modifying a city charter is usually all that is necessary. Citizens in several cities -- including Seattle and Eugene, Oregon -- recently have gathered signatures for referenda that would bring proportional representation to their city council elections. A similar referendum in Cincinnati in 1991 was nearly passed with 45% of the vote. Proportional representation also is feasible for Congressional elections. The Center for Voting and Democracy in Washington, D.C. has developed plans for Georgia and North Carolina that demonstrate how easy it would be to create multi-member PR districts for U.S. House elections. Importantly, such plans would not require a constitutional amendment. All that would be needed is to repeal a 1967 federal law requiring single-member district elections for the House, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney recently introduced a bill to do just that. In fact, with the approval of the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act, some states already are using PR in local elections, and minorities are using this system to elect their fair share of representatives. The debate over proportional representation is just beginning in this country; but it is an idea who time has come. If we want our elections to be fairer and more democratic, and if we want voting to become a more powerful and meaningful political act, then we should take a long and careful look at this reform. A shorter version of this article first appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 12, 1996. ---end of article-- The author of the above, Douglas Amy, is also author of a very persuasive book on PR called "Real Choices/New Voices" 1993 pub Columbia University Press. This book was used in a recent PR study circle sponsored by the Mpls Green Party and the Progressive Community of MN. The leader was Tony Solgaard, DFLer and long-time PR advocate. We found the study circle to be very interesting and activating; we want to see it applied to Mpls/StPaul city councils, and school and park and library boards. We will soon announce planning meetings to this end. The probable title of our action group is CPR 2000 -- Citizens for Proportional Representation by 2000. Tony is willing to lead another (max 12 members) if there is sufficent interest. Others may wish to hear more about the action group CPR 2000. (reply to shove001@maroon.tc.umn.edu). ------------------------- To unsubscribe from mn-politics send a message to majordomo@mr.net The content of the message should read: unsubscribe mn-politics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: Expanding hemp legislation Date: Tue Feb 25 16:16:21 CST 1997 Message number: 82 Reply to message number: unavailable http://www.calyx.com/~olsen/NORML/WEEKLY/97-02-06.html NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS 1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW [Image] SUITE 1010 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 T 202-483-5500 =95 F 202-483-0057 =95 E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM Internet http://www.norml.org . . . a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition. February 6, 1997 Record Number Of State Legislatures To Decide On Industrial Hemp In 1997 February 6, 1997, Washington, D.C.: At least ten state legislatures will decide on measures pertaining to the cultivation of industrial hemp in 1997, the largest number since hemp was made illegal by the federal government in 1937 under the Marihuana Tax Act. "Domestic sales of imported hemp products raked in approximately $25 million dollars in sales in 1994 alone and the American Farm Bureau now calls hemp 'one of the most promising crops in half a century,'" said NORML's Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. "The explosion of industrial hemp legislation at the state level is a direct result of growing awareness among legislators and the public that this is a viable crop for American farmers." Presently, legislators have introduced industrial hemp legislation in at least six states: Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Virginia. While some of these measures simply mandate state-run committees to study the economic benefits of, and barriers to, production of industrial hemp, other more progressive bills allow for test plots of hemp to be cultivated for research purposes. "The state of Hawaii needs to act now and plant test plots of industrial cannabis hemp so that it -- and not its competitors -- will be in the position to establish important business ties with the manufacturers of hemp-based fiber, pulp, paper, oil, paints, sealants, fuel and food," states legislation introduced in Hawaii by Rep. Cynthia Thielen (R-Kailau Kameohe), one of three state bills introduced to allow for domestic cultivation. According to former Colorado Senator and hemp advocate Lloyd Casey, representatives and senators in at least six additional states "range from 75 percent to 95 percent" sure that they will also introduce industrial hemp legislation in 1997. These states are: Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. "Industrial hemp provides a window of opportunity for U.S. agriculture producers to take advantage of a highly profitable fiber crop [with] many uses ...," wrote Bob Winter in the June 17, 1996 edition of Farm Bureau News -- the weekly newspaper of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "International trade agreements (e.g., GATT and NAFTA) recognize the designation of 0.3 percent ... THC as the distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana. [Yet,] current U.S. law[s] do not differentiate between hemp and marijuana. Thanks to these laws, ... U.S. farmers are prohibited from growing a highly profitable crop without government subsidy." Often described as marijuana's misunderstood cousin, industrial hemp is from the same plant species (Cannabis sativa) that produces marijuana. Unlike marijuana, however, industrial hemp has only minute amounts of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient that gives marijuana its euphoric and medicinal properties. Currently most of Europe and Asia grow hemp for industrial purposes. Both Australia and Canada engage in hemp cultivation for research purposes. For more information, please contact Laura Kriho of the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project (CO-HIP) @ (303) 784-5632 or Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500. Lloyd Casey may be contacted via e-mail at: ahavoter@aol.com. For updates on state hemp legislation, please check out NORML's website @: http://www.norml.org or e-mail CO-HIP at: cohip@welcomehome.org. Copies of NORML's position paper: Can America Afford Not To Grow This Plant? are available upon request. State Senator Proposes Cultivating Marijuana For Medical Research February 3, 1997, Sacramento, CA: Senator John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) recently released language seeking to codify Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative passed by California voters in November. The measure, known as the "Proposition 215 Implementation Act of 1997," will authorize major clinical research regarding medical marijuana as well as address distribution options and make minor clarifying amendments to Proposition 215. The language will be introduced to the state legislature later this month. "On November 6, ... 56% of [the California electorate] voted to protect the most basic right of Americans: to be free from inappropriate control by government." said Vasconcellos. "Now the work begins to ensure the people of California's policy is translated into the most effective practical terms for the Californians it's intended to benefit." The bill requires the University of California to establish a Medical Marijuana Research Center and appropriates $2 million per year for three years to fund its operations. The bill also creates a task force to study options for distribution of medical marijuana and report back to the Legislature with recommendations. "If the federal government is unwillingly to conduct real research to benefit sick and dying people, then California will," Vasconcellos said. Finally, the measure makes three simple clarifications of Proposition 215: * Specifies that the physician who recommends the use of medical marijuana be licensed by the state of California; * Provides standard protective procedures for the application of Proposition 215 to unemancipated minors; * Ensures defendants are allowed to claim the medical marijuana defense in a pre-trial hearing as well as in any subsequent hearing. The language released yesterday will be introduced as a Senate bill by February 28. "This [language] carries forward the will of the voters and deserves bi-partisan support, said Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical Rights. "California can take the lead in beginning new Phase III human studies of marijuana to speed the drug approval process." For more information, please contact either Sen. John Vasconcellos' office @ (916) 445-9740 or Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights @ (310) 394-2952. For more information on medical marijuana or for a copy of NORML's position paper: Making The Case For Medical Marijuana, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500. NORML Testifies In Support Of Marijuana Decriminalization Bill In New Hampshire February 6, 1997, Concord, New Hampshire: NORML Legal Committee Co-chair, Michael Cutler, Esq. of Boston, Massachusetts, testified before the New Hampshire subcommittee on Justice and Public Safety on January 29 in favor of legislation reducing the penalty for possession of less than one and one-half ounces of marijuana from a class A misdemeanor to a "violation." He was joined by the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Tim Robertson (D/R-Cheshire), and a representative from the local American Civil Liberties Organization (ACLU). Cutler discussed the failure of prohibition to deter adult and adolescent marijuana use and access. He submitted numerous state research studies demonstrating that decriminalization has had virtually no effect on either marijuana use or on related attitudes about marijuana use among American young people in states that enacted such measures over 20 years ago. Cutler noted that at least two of the representatives attending expressed support for the measure and speculated that New Hampshire's governor may be sympathetic toward the bill. Under current state law, possession of marijuana is punishable by a one-year sentence and/or $1,000 fine. Under Rep. Robertson's proposal (H.B. 118-FN), individuals possessing small amounts of marijuana would receive a ticket and a small fine. For more information, please contact Rep. Robertson @ (603) 271-3529 or Attorney Michael Cutler @ (617) 439-4990. -END- MORE THAN 10 MILLION MARIJUANA ARRESTS SINCE 1965 . . . ANOTHER EVERY 54 SECONDS! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Interesting Note Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:46 CST 1997 Message number: 83 Reply to message number: unavailable Pat Robertsons 700 Club ran a story on Vince Foster Wednesday. After it was over Pat Robertson stated if Star closes the investigation, without answering certain conspiracy questions, he (Star) will be finished in Washington and unable to get any job in D.C. Puppets on strings. Nothing but puppets on strings? ... AIDS and Global Warming don't scare me: Pat Robertson does! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: RR's agenda Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:52 CST 1997 Message number: 84 Reply to message number: unavailable ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From: sumner@rochgte.fidonet.org (Charles Sumner) To: ChState@ecunet.org Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:07:48 Subject: [chstate] Church-State Issues 1 SOME CURRENT ISSUES AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT WILL AFFECT CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION VOUCHERS - Legislative proposals that would divert millions of dollars from public treasuries into parochial schools are frequently introduced in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures. Currently, the most popular form of such "parochiaid" is vouchers. With a voucher program, religious and other private schools receive a certain amount of public tax dollars per student they accept through the program. Vouchers violate the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because they provide public funding for religious education. Often promoted as pilot programs for low-income children, voucher programs are sometimes called private school choice, "Opportunity Scholarships," or "Low Income Educational Scholarships." Several members of the Board of Regents are currently trying to float a voucher proposal in New York State. You can help stop the voucher movement by keeping yourself informed about the issue and by contacting your congressional and state representatives with your opposition to these unconstitutional proposals. FACT SHEET AVAILABLE. PARENTAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION -The Religious Right has mounted a new stealth campaign they are calling "parental rights" that could destroy public education and break down the wall between church and state. If enacted, this legislation could give individual parents an absolute veto over curriculum and programs, and invite litigation for forms of "parental choice." Although a PRL ballot initiative was soundly defeated in Colorado in November once the public understood the proposal, this misleading legislation has been introduced into 28 state legislatures as well as into Congress. A national coalition of over 80 organizations from Americans United for Separation of Church and State to the American Academy of Pediatrics has been formed to fight the federal bill. You can help stop this movement by educating your congressional representatives and telling them to oppose the "Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act," and by looking out for this legislation in your state. TALKING POINTS AVAILABLE* "CHARITABLE CHOICE" LEGISLATION - Legislation which allows "pervasively sectarian" institutions, including houses of worship, to receive federal funding to administer public health and social services on behalf of the government was first introduced by Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO). Sometimes called "Charitable Choice," this legislation has already been included in the recently enacted Welfare Reform Act, and applies to all AFDC programs. There are also attempts to add "Charitable Choice" to other bills such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Reauthorization Act, the Older Americans Act, and a community renewal bill. Senator Ashcroft plans to include the proposal in every public health and social service bill in Congress. Similar language has also been included in state welfare legislation in Maryland and Michigan. You can help halt the movement of this unconstitutional threat by learning more about its implications and informing your congressional and state representatives of your opposition to it. TALKING POINTS AVAILABLE* CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS - One of the top priorities of the Religious Right is to amend the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in order to destroy the founding principle of separation of church and state. In the 1995-1996 Congress, constitutional amendments were introduced by Represenatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Ernest Istook (R-OK), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and House Minority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) that would allow government to fund religious institutions and would authorize coercive practices such as officially sanctioned school prayer and government recognition of religion. Any amendment represents a dangerous assault to the religious liberty enjoyed in this country. Contact your congressional representatives to voice your opposition to any amendment to the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. TALKING POINTS AVAILABLE* COERCIVE SCHOOL PRAYER - Each year in state legislatures, measures are introduced that would authorize various forms of coercive prayer within public schools. These proposals are independent from the Constitutional Amendments and authorize activities that range from coercive prayer during the school day to prayer during graduation or extracurricular activities. Children would be forced to participate in the government-imposed religious activity or be subjected to alienation and harassment from fellow students and school administrators if they choose to abstain. School prayer also infringes on the rights of parents to determine the religious upbringing of the children, as government bureaucrats would determine the time, place, and method of worship for all our children. It is important to be informed of current legislation and activities regarding "school prayer" and understand the devastating implications for religious freedom it would cause. BROCHURE AVAILABLE. "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY RENEWAL ACT" - In the spring of 1996, the "American Community Renewal Act of 1996" was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. J.C. Watts (R-OK) and James Talent (R-MO). Two of the bill's sections clearly violate the principle of separation of church and state by mandating school vouchers and by requiring beneficiaries of substance abuse programs to engage in religious worship. This legislation is expected to be the first priority in the new Congress. Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to oppose this bill because of its unconstitutional provisions. TALKING POINTS AVAILABLE* "CREATION SCIENCE" - Attempts to censor evolutionary and origin theories, including the "big bang" theory, and to introduce biblical creation theology, sometimes known as "creation science" into school science curriculums, are occurring in classrooms across the country. Proponents of "creation science" have used tactics such as adding disclaimers to science textbooks, including creationist textbooks such as OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, having textbooks printed without chapters dealing with the "big bang" theory, or gluing together sections of textbooks that deal with evolution and origins. The Supreme Court has ruled that school and teachers cannot teach creationism as a scientific theory. Find out your school district's policy on teaching evolution and other theories on the origin of human species, including "creation science," and the procedure for changing curriculums. SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT AVAILABLE. "AMERICAN HERITAGE ACT" - A new assault on the separation of church and state by religious right extremists manifests itself in legislation entitled the "American Heritage Act." This legislation authorizes teachers to use "historic documents" that include religious writings to prove America's Christian foundations. It is cleverly disguised to display and promote religious information and materials in public schools. Language has been introduced in state legislatures around the country and passed with modifications in the state of Illinois in the 1996 session. Sometimes the legislation includes the Congressional Record, which can contain anything. Inform yourself about this issue and then check AU's most recent State- by-State legislative update to see if it has already reached your state legislature. TALKING POINTS AVAILABLE* * Talking Points are one- and two-page papers prepared by Americans United that succinctly characterize an issue and its implications and present counterpoints that can be used when corresponding with legislators, writing letters to the editor, etc. Rochester Chapter Americans United or the national office can supply you with copies of Talking Points and other materials. Rochester Chapter Americans United 3553 West Ridge Road - Rochester, NY 14626-3452 716-225-7271 Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-3234 For continuing discussion see the Fidonet computer conference called Church&State. http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited/ http://www.frontiernet.net/~ldecours/au sumner@rochgte.fidonet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered truth. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: facts from fiction Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:53 CST 1997 Message number: 85 Reply to message number: unavailable Ä Area: CHURCH&STATE ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From: Charles Sumner Read: Yes Replied: No Subj: Religion in Public School ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Religious Expression in Public Schools Separating Fact from Fiction Many questions remain unanswered about the degree of religious expression permissible in the public schools. Due in large part to misinformation circulated by the Religious Right, many people have the wrong impression about the law governing issues such as student Bible clubs, distribution of religious literature, invocations and benedictions in graduation ceremonies, and the ability of religious organizations to use public school facilities. This pamphlet seeks to clarify typical questions about religion and public schools. Q> Are student religious groups permitted to meet on school grounds? A> Generally, yes. Depending upon the school's policy of allowing noncurriculum student clubs to meet on public school property, student religious groups may be provided the same degree of access to a school's facilities. The Equal Access Act (EAA) was passed by Congress in 1984 in order to prevent discrimination against student groups in public secondary schools which have created "open forums" for student expression. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the EAA in Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). Essentially the Court stated that if a secondary school allows other noncurriculum student clubs to meet, it must afford a religious club the same access. Q> What restrictions may be placed on such student religious clubs? A> First and foremost, student religious clubs may not be school sponsored or related to the curriculum. The clubs must be completely student-initiated, and student-run; school personnel may not direct or participate in the religious clubs in any manner. In addition, because the clubs are considered extra-curricular, they must meet during noninstructional time, usually before or after the school day. Finally, while the clubs may invite outside speakers - such as youth ministers - no outside person may attend regularly or attend the student clubs. In essence, the clubs are to provide opportunity for voluntary student religious expression, not to serve as staging areas for proselytizing by local churches. Q> What about other religious organizations using public school facilities? A> Outside religious groups are barred from public schools during school hours. This includes prohibiting groups such as the Gideons from distributing Bibles during the school day. School districts are also not required to open their school facilities after hours to outside groups. However, if a public school system does allow secular groups to use it's facilities after instructional hours it may be required to afford similar access to religious groups. In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113. S.Ct. 2141 (1993), the Court held that a school district could not deny an evangelical church access to a school's facilities after school hours because it had allowed similar use by other secular organizations. However, the Lamb's Chapel decision was limited to weekend and evening access only and not to outside use during the school day. Allowing religious groups to meet immediately following the school day still raises Establishment Clause concerns because of a likelihood of associating the groups with school programs. The wisest course is to restrict access by all outside groups to times well after the end of the instructional day. Q> Can public school students bring their Bibles to school or pray at school? A> Yes. As part of their freedom of speech, students may bring their Bibles or pray at school so long as it does not interrupt or interfere with the rights of other students and the educational function of the school. Students may read the Bible and engage in informal religious discussion with classmates during lunch period or other free times during the school day. The Supreme Court has never prohibited individual student religious expression in the public schools. Q> Can the Bible or other sacred texts be used in a public school class? A> Yes, so long as the religious material is presented from an objective, nonproselytizing perspective and is part of a regular academic course. On more than one occasion the Supreme Court has affirmed the propriety of students learning about religious history and traditions. However, courts have repeatedly struck down attempts as indoctrination presented through the guise of courses in Biblical literature or comparative religion. Q> Can students distribute religious material or proselytize their fellow classmates? A> Notions of student free speech include the ability to share one's religious faith. However, school authorities may limit the distribution of religious material or proselytizing within the school so long as the school's restrictions are neutral (not directed at prohibiting religious expression) and are related to reasonable time, place, and manner considerations. Valid considerations include preventing student harassment and crowding and the accumulation of litter in the hallways. In addition, schools that do not have open campuses (but impose neutral restrictions on unauthorized student gatherings) may not be required to allow organized religious gatherings outside the confines of the EAA, such as prayer rallies around flagpoles. Q> Is it true that only clergy-led invocations and benedictions during public school graduations are forbidden under the Constitution? A> No. In Lee v. Weisman, 112 C. Ct. 2649 (1992), the Court held that prayers at official public school graduation ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause. One part of the holding rested on the fact that the school had selected a member of the clergy and determined the content of the prayer. However, the Court also held the prayers unconstitutional because students feel compelled to attend their graduation ceremony and would be pressured to participate in the prayer or conform their conduct in accordance of the prayer. Because graduations are always school- sponsored and directed events, any prayer led by a student or clergy would be considered to have official governmental sanction and would be unconstitutional. Q> But didn't the Supreme Court recently hold that student-led prayers at graduation ceremonies are constitutional? A> No! One lower federal court in Texas has made such a ruling (Jones v. Clear Creek Ind. Sch. Dist.) but the Supreme Court has yet to consider this particular issue. Many doubt the constitutionality of this approach because the graduation ceremony is still a school-sponsored event, and the element of coercion discussed in Lee v. Weisman remains regardless of the identity of the speaker. Moreover, the prospect of students voting on prayer raises the specter of religious majority rule, a concept counter to notions of religious liberty. Because of the constitutional problems inherent in Jones, most federal courts have declined to follow that decision. Q> Are private baccalaureate services constitutional? A> Usually, If students, churches, or community groups wish to have a baccalaureate service they may do so without violating the First Amendment so long as the service is not sponsored by the school. Although the school may not endorse the baccalaureate it may announce the time and place of the service with information concerning other graduation events. --- This information is not intended to serve as legal advice for any particular situation. Readers are always encouraged to contact an attorney when specific legal questions arise. For more detailed information concerning religion in the public schools and other church-state issues, please contact our office. --- (available in pamphlet form) Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place, Washington, DC 20036-2505; 202-466-3234. For information or membership in the Rochester area, reply to: Rochester Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State 3553 West Ridge Road, Rochester, NY 14626-3452 (716) 334-2989, 247-5587 sumner@rochgte.fidonet.org OR 1:2613/240 -!- GEcho 1.11+ ! Origin: The Flaming Chalice, Rochester, NY (1:2613/240) ... A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.-Heinlei ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Fri Mar 07 01:58:38 CST 1997 Message number: 86 Reply to message number: 83 S> Pat Robertsons 700 Club ran a story on Vince Foster Wednesday. S> After it was over Pat Robertson stated if Star closes the investigation, S> without answering certain conspiracy questions, he (Star) will be S> finished in Washington and unable to get any job in D.C. S> S> Puppets on strings. Nothing but puppets on strings? S> Pat Robertson should think carefully before he declares that someone else is washed up in Washington. It has been a long time since anyone offended both political parties AND ordinary citizens as much as Pat Robertson has. Starr is already pretty well washed up. He has been beating his head on the wall, spending taxpayers' money, and making Apocryphal declarations for several years without finding any bad evidence at all. Now he has finally latched onto the DNC fundraising fiasco and is running with that. The only problem is that if he actually proves anything, he needs to be careful, because the Republicans will get mired up in it too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Sandman Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Fri Mar 07 06:57:42 CST 1997 Message number: 87 Reply to message number: 83 S> Pat Robertsons 700 Club ran a story on Vince Foster Wednesday. S> After it was over Pat Robertson stated if Star closes the investigation, S> without answering certain conspiracy questions, he (Star) will be S> finished in Washington and unable to get any job in D.C. Mister Starr, you refuse to answer my question! Did you, or did you not, see a black helicopter cicling over the White House the night Hillary had her daughter Chelsea brought into the coven? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Fri Mar 07 07:01:52 CST 1997 Message number: 88 Reply to message number: 86 F> several years without finding any bad evidence at all. Now he has finally F> latched onto the DNC fundraising fiasco and is running with that. The only F> problem is that if he actually proves anything, he needs to be careful, F> because the Republicans will get mired up in it too. That might be his salvation, though. In the Senate, Fred Thompson wants to conduct an investigation into the fundraising practices of *both* parties and ride it into the White House. The Republicans want to stop him, which is why they want a special procecutor, who will hammer on Clinton and take only a cursory look into the Republican fundraising. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Fri Mar 07 08:11:07 CST 1997 Message number: 89 Reply to message number: 88 DR> That might be his salvation, though. In the Senate, Fred Thompson wants to DR> conduct an investigation into the fundraising practices of *both* parties a DR> ride it into the White House. The Republicans want to stop him, which is wh DR> they want a special procecutor, who will hammer on Clinton and take only a DR> cursory look into the Republican fundraising. Maybe, but have you seen that carnival game whretr you whap on little heads with a mallet and another hear pops up? Who knows what party the heads will belong to? Ahem. If Starr tries this, there will probably be some "volunteer" investigators appear. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Wed Mar 12 20:47:06 CST 1997 Message number: 90 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Sandman <=- Fr> The only problem is that Fr> if he actually proves anything, he needs to be careful, because the Fr> Republicans will get mired up in it too. The feeding frenzy is underway. So far Clinton and Gore are being pounded. Newt tosses out some BS about the Dems fund raising being worse than Watergate and the next day he gets bit for doing the same "selling of access" that the dems are accused of. Dan "kooky" Burton is gearing up for his attacks on Clinton and gets shark biten from his attendence of a golf tourney put on by groups that have policies before his committee. Republicans don't think that their shit stinks, but all shit stinks. ... --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E-- ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Political Spectrum Date: Wed Mar 12 20:47:09 CST 1997 Message number: 91 Reply to message number: unavailable On another bbs I used this tagline in a post that had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, the NAZI, or the political spectrum. ... "What's to the right of Rush?" "Sieg Heil!" Well I got a response from an "economic" conservative that the NAZI are classified on the left of the political spectrum because of economics (they seize property and land when nationalizing the economy). Later arguments went along the "size & scope of government" line determining position on the political spectrum. This "economic" conservative final conclusion was: 1. The left: supports large intrusive government that allow no economic freedom and few rights for citizens. 2. The right: supports smaller limited government that provides for both economic freedom & individual freedoms to the point of anarchy. I find it common that "economic" conservatives blind themselves when it comes to the social aspects of the "conservative" movement. They whine about taxes and regulation, but when it comes to the restrictive desires of "social" conservatives the "ecomonic conservative" will either "go along" with some weak justification or will ignore the issues entirely. Ok, Back to my original intent. From every bit of information that I have ever come across the NAZI are classified on the Right of the political spectrum. This placement is not based upon economics or politics alone. This placement is based on the whole of the movement. Everything counts: political structure, history, intent, governoring methods, economics, and goals. How should we determine the position (left or right) of government/movements/ect along the political spectrum? Economics? Politics? The size of government? ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Interesting Note Date: Thu Mar 13 00:55:00 CST 1997 Message number: 92 Reply to message number: 90 S> Fr> if he actually proves anything, he needs to be careful, because the S> Fr> Republicans will get mired up in it too. S> S> The feeding frenzy is underway. S> S> Republicans don't think that their shit stinks, but all shit S> stinks. I suppose you have also noticed by now that Congress has approved the appointment of a special prosecutor for the money thing. But the Repubs lost. They wanted it to look into only issues that were "illegal", and the net is wider than that. It will also include fundraising that is unseemly. There are a lot of Repubs whose fundraising efforts were just within the letter of the law who are probably changing their shorts a lot now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Political Spectrum Date: Thu Mar 13 01:07:40 CST 1997 Message number: 93 Reply to message number: 91 S> This "economic" conservative final conclusion was: S> 1. The left: supports large intrusive government that allow no economic S> freedom and few rights for citizens. S> 2. The right: supports smaller limited government that provides for both S> economic freedom & individual freedoms to the point of S> anarchy. S> If the NAZI methodology is critically looked at, it has aspects of both #1 and #2. Yes, there was more economic latitude for citizens -- provided that you were the right kind of citizen. But this was not established by the NAZIs. This freedom also existed before the rise of Hitler. It is just that the economy was so poor that very few could see it or use it. I would like to see how this guy supports the idea that intrusive government is a characteristic of the left. Look what is happening here -- an effort to make the Constitution oppressive by a balanced budget amendment; further nosiness in people's bedrooms, including actions against gays and another attempt to ban abortions; encroachments of the religious RIGHT about school funding, prayer in schools, etc. Reasonable people would say that these are examples of government being more oppressive, not more free. And they are ideas of the right, not the left. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Sandman Subject: Re: Political Spectrum Date: Sat Mar 15 05:48:49 CST 1997 Message number: 94 Reply to message number: 91 S> From every bit of information that I have ever come across the NAZI are S> classified on the Right of the political spectrum. Nazis are certainly not liberals, as they oppose republican and democratic ideals - they are, instead, authoritarian. I believe it was Georege Will who accused Pat Buchanan of "flirting with fascism". Nazism is the most visible form of fascism, and Buchanan is pretty far to the right. Fascists glorify the state, and diminish the individual. There are no individual rights, only a collective soul and spirit. The nation is the glory and life of the people. (The Nazis added one more component to this - extreme anti-semitism). Though authoritarian, the Nazis did not nationalize industry. You can watch Schindler's List and see how the market worked: as long as you were a loyal Aryan, you could make your profits in relative comfort. Nazism was actually pretty free-market oriented, at least compared to other authoritarian systems. By contrast, fascist Italy was more "synicalist", meaning that they had some sort of odd fusion of labor, government and business. And fascist Japan was dominated by Zaibatsus, which were basically huge nationalistic corporations. S> How should we determine the position (left or right) of S> government/movements/ect along the political spectrum? I'd tend to rank political ideologies by the freedom they allow their people, by the amount of democracy they allow. By those standards, Stalin-era Russia wasn't much more leftist than Louis XIV-era France ... both were very authoritarian. The more democratic a state is, the more leftist it is. Economics, though intimately related to this, are not the same thing - you can have a democratic socialist society (Norway), or a authoritarian free-market society (Singapore). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Political Spectrum Date: Sun Mar 23 18:10:22 CST 1997 Message number: 95 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Sandman <=- DR> Fascists glorify the state, and diminish the individual. There are no DR> individual rights, only a collective soul and spirit. The nation is DR> the glory and life of the people. (The Nazis added one more component DR> to this - extreme anti-semitism). The right have claimed that it is the left that promotes state worship with public programs like welfare, education, regulations (environmental & saftey), healthcare, social security, and workplace policies like min wage. And the case could be made that liberals do view government as a solution to many problems, but I see declaring it state worship as going too far. Conservatives use this to bash liberals, but conservatives have their own version of so called state worship. The flag issue points to "state worship". Conservatives want a flag protection constitutional amendment. A symbol is being worshipped. Of course abortion and other personal freedoms that conservatives desire to restrict point to a similar "belief" in government as the liberal have. The entire concept of a "Christian Nation" founded by God to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ is the newest and possibly the ultimate form of state worship. ... Jesus Lives! (That's 'cause vampires never die) ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Political Spectrum Date: Sun Mar 23 23:59:20 CST 1997 Message number: 96 Reply to message number: 95 S> The flag issue points to "state worship". Conservatives want a S> flag protection constitutional amendment. A symbol is being S> worshipped. In fact, I have heard people comparing burning the flag to cross-burning. In some ways it is, especially in the gut emotions that are created in people who think their sacred cow is being violated. S> The entire concept of a "Christian Nation" founded by God to spread S> the gospel of Jesus Christ is the newest and possibly the ultimate S> form of state worship. S> That is an interesting variation. I wonder how they justify that with Jesus' commands to carry his word out into all the world to all the people of the world. He even eliminated the Jews, which, of course, was where it first arose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Amendment Date: Thu May 01 12:48:46 CDT 1997 Message number: 97 Reply to message number: unavailable ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Rep. Istook (R, Oklahoma) has authored the following proposed amendment to the US Constitution: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God: The right to pray or acknowledge religious belief, heritage or tradition on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not compel joining in prayer, initiate or compose school prayers, discriminate against or deny a benefit on account of religion." What effect will placing this into the Constitution have in the realm of U.S politics? Abuses? Good things? ... Defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign & elected! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Why I support vouchers Date: Fri May 16 05:53:08 CDT 1997 Message number: 98 Reply to message number: unavailable Why I support vouchers Let's face it - our society is falling apart around us. Perverts, criminals and sociopaths own the streets, while honest citizens cower in fear, too afraid to leave their homes. Try as they might, our police are powerless to stop this madness. As we continue to throw resources and money at the problem, it only gets worse. Our system of public policing has failed us. It's time to try something new and better, before our fair city goes the way of Detroit and Los Angeles. We need to break up the police-union monopoly on public protection and introduce some competition into the system. Many Minnesotans have already taken matters into their own hands, hiring private security firms to protect their homes and loved ones. But because of the prohibitive cost, this option has been available only to the wealthy. We need to make this kind of protection available to all Minnesotans by introducing a series of protection vouchers, with which working families can purchase home security systems, hand-held weapons, and hire private security firms to protect their home and family. Some obstructionists might argue that this plan will pull resources away from public policing, or that the private firms will somehow "cherry-pick" their clients, leaving the public police to deal with the worst criminals and neighborhoods. These frivolous claims have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with fear - a fear of change. The police unions and their supporters are afraid that a little competition might overturn their public protection applecart. We need to send a message to the criminals who prowl our streets, and to the police unions who get in the way of real progress. We need to let them know that we're serious, and introduce some real competition into the system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Why I support vouchers Date: Sun May 18 20:11:45 CDT 1997 Message number: 99 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to All <=- DR> Why I support vouchers DR> DR> Let's face it - our society is falling apart around us. Perverts, DR> criminals and sociopaths own the streets, while honest citizens cower DR> in fear, too afraid to leave their homes. DR> Our system of public policing has failed us. It's time to try DR> something new and better, before our fair city goes the way of DR> Detroit and Los Angeles. We need to break up the police-union DR> monopoly on public protection and introduce some competition into the DR> system. This is not far from what some conservatives are proposing. For example during the Volunteer Sumit a con by the name of David From made statements first attacking all public schools as failing and then commented further on the entire failure of all things in the public sector. He specifically claimed that children are not even safe on playgrounds. To me this was an attack on the public police departments. Hmmm... a private police force working for private individuals policing citizens? Not bad for those with wealth. The poor could even make a buck or two by becoming the private police members. ... Never leave an enemy behind or he will rise up and fly at your throat ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Sandman Subject: Re: Why I support vouchers Date: Mon May 19 18:28:17 CDT 1997 Message number: 100 Reply to message number: 99 S> From made statements first attacking all public schools as failing S> and then commented further on the entire failure of all things in S> the public sector. He specifically claimed that children are not S> even safe on playgrounds. He's right, they're not safe on the playgrounds. 'Cause the schools are now sponsored by Channel One(TM), the swingset made of Legos(C) and the lunch provided by Frito-Lay(TM). The kids aren't going to die from guns, but greasy commercialism. S> Hmmm... a private police force working for private individuals S> policing citizens? There's still a place for the public cops though. We need someone to jail and capture the really dangerous criminals. The private security forces would concentrate on the thieves and burgulars.