poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (12/03/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Mon 3 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 108 "Let liberty be proclaimed throughout the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Contents: LaRouche Jubilee Electronic Democracy Moving Discussions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 09:08:20-EST From: Larry Kolodney <UC.LKK%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: LaRouche Libel Suit Someone questioned the validity of the article I posted last week from the GUARDIAN about the LaRouche libel suit against NBC. Perhaps this quote from THE ECONOMIST (a more reputable paper?) will allay their fears: (November 24, "Mighty Pen vs. Mighty Sword", p. 27) "An even rarer occurrence is for a jury to award damages against the primary plaintiff rather than the media. Earlier this month, a jury rejected Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's $150m libel suit against NBC and ordered him, instead, to pay the network $3m in damages; this award arose from a countersuit alleging that the followers of Mr. LaRouche, who has run on several occasions as an independent candidate for president, had harassed NBC. Mr. LaRouche, who was once on the far left but is now on the far right, argued during the last campaign that Mr. Walter Mondale was a Soviet agent acting as part of a "treasonous operation" that included among others, Mr. Willy Brandt, Mr. Henry Kissinger and 'the Swiss-controlled grain cartel' " [It couldn't have happened to a better guy... --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1984 10:10:04-EST From: sde@Mitre-Bedford Subject: Jubilee, slaves >>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 15:29 EST >>From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> >>Subject: Year of Jubilee (Yuval) >> >>The laws of Yuval are D-orisa, (from the written Torah) and >>in D'vorim (Deutoronomy) they are clearly stated as applying >>the moment the Jews entered Israel (crossed the Jordan). [Not >>after the Babylonian exile as one person stated]. They do >>not apply today according to the consensus of opinons. >> >>[Explanatory note: >> among the property repatriated every 50 years were slaves. JoSH] 1) Steven, you didn't correctly read my comment; I referred to the laws operating PRIOR to the exile. Afterwards, it was difficult or impossible to reconstruct the details of who had owned what, hence my comment. The issue of de facto abandonment of the practice, as distinct from de jure, is what had been raised, and that only in passing. 2) JoSH, since slaves were normally freed every seventh (Sabbatical year), how do you get the idea that they could be repatriated every fifty? (By the way, slavery was more a matter of indentured servitude than the kind of horror perpetrated in certain other cultures we can all name. The law said, for example, that if a master had only one bed, the slave had to get it and the 'master' had to sleep on the floor. Also, the slave could not be made to do work to which he was unaccustomed. Also, if the slave was physically injured, we went free. Moreover, it is spelled out that if a slave WANTED to remain a slave instead of being a free man, he could do so but was punished by having his ear pierced as a sign that he was ignoring the command to seek to be a servant only of his Creator. David (sde@mitre-bedford) [From the Britannica: "... At the beginning of the jubilee-year the liberation of all Israelitish slaves and the restoration of ancestral possesions was to be proclaimed. ... (Lev xxv 8-34) ... These enactments, in order to be understood rightly, must be viewed in relation to the earlier similar provisions in connexion with the sabbatical (seventh) year. ...(Exod xxi 2 seq, xxiii 10 seq, Deut xv)... It is evident that these enactments proved impracticable in real life (cf Jer xxxiv 8 seq), so it became necessary in the later legislation of P, represented in the present form of Lev. xxv, to relegate them to the 50th year, the year of Jubilee. ..." Also please note that the liberation of slaves only applied to Hebrews-- foreigners were held in perpetuity. If I may venture a further note of interest, the inscription on the Liberty Bell is from the same Leviticus XXV. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 84 20:44:20 EST From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Re: Electronic democracy I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it would be beneficial for the less educated to be less well represented, but I think the idea that excluding the poor (like poor, albiet educated students) would be beneficial is less easily supported. -- Mike^Z ------------------------------ [Flame warning: All the following messages are on the subject of whether the electronic democracy letters should have been moved to poli-sci from human-nets. Take any action you feel appropriate.] ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 29 November 1984 10:48:16 EST From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa Subject: reader assumptions I think all posters should make the assumption that no one on this list reads Human-Nets. The babbling (lower than flaming) there got so bad that hardly anyone I know reads it any more. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 84 11:55:52 EST From: Charles <MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Re: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another Hi David, Well, you won't beleive me, but I did think long and hard before moving the ED discussion. You think I don't like being able to put out a digest a day? Anyway, I quote you from the 'official' description of Poli-sci: POLI-SCI is a spinoff from the HUMAN-NETS discussion list. Shortly after the November 1980 election, HUMAN-NETS began to discuss the impact that electronic communications had on the election. As this discussion continued, it lost its narrow focus on electronic communications and began to consider the election in general, how elections are won and lost, and the nature of the electoral college. The growth of these discussions, and their spawning of related discussions, indicated that a separate discussion list was merited and POLI-SCI was installed. Since then POLI-SCI has begun to consider other topics including the history of the Carter and Nixon presidencies, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc. (with a little less dignity, the list might be characterized as a permanent distributed political bull session). ... sound familiar? The ED discussion was, in my opinion (there, I said it) in the exact same boat. It had become a discussion of the POLITICAL implications of the idea. Hence, I suggested to JoSH (and he agreed) that the discussion be moved there. And yes, we're listening. I'm sorry if my thought processes aren't exactly the same as yours. No, in fact I'm glad they're not the same. Charles ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 84 21:28:35 EST From: Charles <MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Re: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another Well, once again I'll say that in my opinion, the discussion had moved very much into the political sphere. It seemed to me that the technical means (hardware, lines, and software) were concluded to exist for any method other than everyone-sends-to-everyone (this was pointed out very early on), and the discussion centered on the *political* model that this electronic system would follow, and its desirability (or lack thereof)... Charles ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------