nathanm@hp-pcd.UUCP (02/04/84)
Listen. Billy Pilgrim is unstuck in time.
Now that I've captured your bewilderment, consider this:
National politics is a cesspool in which the large chunks rise to
the top. Walter Mondale is promising to take us from the post-
industrial age into the industrial age. Ronald Reagan is riding
the crest of a recovery he didn't create. National elections are
circuses in which candidates plan non-events so the media can
give the public the impression that something significant is
happening. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't really
matter who's in charge.
If this worldview strikes close to home, read on.
It's time for the disaffected among us to do something. The usenet
has enormous potential as a political force. Aside from access
to the net, we have nothing in common, so choosing an existing
candidate to support is clearly out of the question. What we
need to do is create our own candidate. For the primaries. For
the election. For America.
I'm not sure where to start... this idea is still in the
germinal stages. I might suggest something ridiculous like
electing an astronaut, but that wouldn't be original. We
need to define our candidate from scratch. Our candidate
needs a name, a sex, a personality, a platform, a slogan (how
about "Who's in charge here?") and, of course, a following.
Let's put our creative minds to work and assemble a
presidential candidate for 1984.
Hi-ho.
----
Nathan Meyers
{allegra!harpo,hplabs}!hp-pcd!nathanmschnable@ihuxf.UUCP (Andrew T. Schnable) (02/08/84)
Hi-ho? I think you mean ho-hum.
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (02/08/84)
I nominate the following Presidential junta (in alphabetical order):
Laura Creighton
Mark Horton
Prentiss Riddle
Sophie Quigley
I realize that at least two of these are Canadian citizens and that there
is supposed to be only one President, but this is a new concept we're dealing
with, isn't it? (Or elect one President with the understanding that the
electee shares his responsibility and powers with the others.)
These persons have demonstrated to my satisfaction an ability to express
themselves effectively, calmly, and rationally. Each defends his/her
ideas well, and those ideas conflict enough to generate creativity.
As an added bonus, Mark Horton is a proven administrator!
Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/09/84)
Hey Laura, Mark, Prentiss, What do you say about hiring Dave Decot as out PR person for our campaign? I think he'll do a good job. Sophie.
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (11/21/84)
. The following is an excerpt from: "The Debtor Economy" by Felix Rohatyn, New York Review of Books, November 8,1984. ============================================================================== Between 1980 and 1984, the share of disposable family income of the poorest fifth of the population actually declined from 6.8 to 6.1 percent. The share of the most prosperous fifth increased from 37 percent to 38.9 percent. Clearly that is not an acceptable trend in a society committed to the idea that all parts of the population should benefit from growth and prosperity. President Reagan's election in 1980 and the subsequent tax and budget programs of his administration showed that there was, rightly or wrongly, a political consensus that income redistribution has gone too far. I think we must examine a wider range of possible solutions. Recently Dr David Owen, one of the leaders of the Social Democratic party in England, proposed a new plan for creating capital and savings for those at the low end of the British economic scale. He suggested that the British government distribute the shares of government-owned companies such as British Airways, British Tele- communications, etc. to those below a certain level of income. This would create some capital and savings for people who would probably have little access to both for many years. Although the U.S. government does not own industrial concerns to the same extent that the British govenment does, nevertheless the U.S. goverment is in many businesses. It not only owns TVA and Conrail but has large holdings of coal, timber and gas and oil leases, among others. The current proposals to "get the government out of business" may be reconsidered with such a plan in mind. Instead of selling Conrail, TVA or others, the government might set them up as operating companies and devise ways to distribute their shares to those at the lower end of the income scale. Instead of transferring more income from one set of Americans to another, we could transfer capital assets from the government into the hands of its needy citizens. ============================================================================= Is this a new idea? I like the way it cuts across both right-wing and left-wing dogma, suggesting, in the same breath, redistribution of wealth and the dismantling of New Deal holy cows. The author is a New York investment banker (i.e., he arranges corporate takeovers for seven-figure fees). In political terms, he is a liberal with a sense of economic reality. While I'm at it, here is another quote from the same article: ============================================================================= The current formula for dealing with [the international debt crisis] is to impose austerity on Latin America in order to maintain the myth that our bank loans are worth 100 cents on the dollar. I believe this policy, if it continues, will create more communists during the next decade than Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas could during the next fifty years. =============================================================================
mwm@ea.UUCP (11/26/84)
No, it's not a new idea. I posted a similar suggestion a few days ago, and my source was an article I saw in the late 60s. The difference between those two and what you posted was that, instead of giving away the government held companies, that they be turned into dividend-paying stocks, and the dividends used to fund the normal government functions (transfer funds, etc.) BTW, the phrase "get the government out of business" isn't usually used to indicate that the government should let go of it's business holdings but that it should quit trying to run businesses that it doesn't own. <mike
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/26/84)
>I think we must examine a wider range of possible solutions. Recently Dr David >Owen, one of the leaders of the Social Democratic party in England, proposed a >new plan for creating capital and savings for those at the low end of the >British economic scale. He suggested that the British government distribute the >shares of government-owned companies such as British Airways, British Tele- >communications, etc. to those below a certain level of income. This would >create some capital and savings for people who would probably have little >access to both for many years. > >Although the U.S. government does not own industrial concerns to the same >extent that the British government does, nevertheless the U.S. government is >in many businesses. It not only owns TVA and Conrail but has large holdings >of coal, timber and gas and oil leases, among others. The current proposals >to "get the government out of business" may be reconsidered with such a plan >in mind. Instead of selling Conrail, TVA or others, the government might set >them up as operating companies and devise ways to distribute their shares to >those at the lower end of the income scale. Instead of transferring more >income from one set of Americans to another, we could transfer capital assets >from the government into the hands of its needy citizens. > > Felix Rohatyn, > courtesy of gabor@qantel This certainly seems more reasonable than having a pre-apocalypse fire sale of national assets to the present throng of corporate developers, but it isn't clear to me whether or not this too becomes a one-shot deal. You can only give away an asset once, and since the bulk of the US government's assets are in raw resources rather than industrial plant, very little in the way of "new" government assets are being created. Thus, such a program will, sooner or later, give away all that can be given away, leaving nothing for those unfortunate enough to become destitute later. If the distribution is stretched out over a longer period of time, the amount to be allocated to each individual must shrink, ultimately to the point of inconsequentiality. Thus, some means needs to be found to keep ownership of these assets in circulation along the bottom of the economic heap. Perhaps the "stock" issued in the national operating companies could be constituted such that the owner is obliged to sell if the owner's economic state was better than some statistically derived cutoff, but enforcement of such a provision could be a bureaucratic nightmare and a distortion of the purist market principles that seem to underlie the proposal. May the Market Force be with you, always, Baba
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (03/03/85)
Could we agree to ban cross-postings between net.politics and
net.politics.theory.
I know that many articles have both theoretical and topical content, but
surely almost all could be allocated to one newsgroup or the other without
serious injustice to anyone's ideas.
I know all about pride of authorship, but it's really arrogance that lets
us force our postings on people who have chosen not to subscribe to the
newsgroup that our article belongs in.
Why not, if you feel your topical article contains an important theoretical
insight, post a separate small article to net.politics.theory. Similarly,
if your dissertation on political theory contains an insightful topical
remark, make a separate article out of it for net.politics. The small
focused article will get more attention than the same point buried in a large
article on a different theme.
--
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPAarndt@lymph.DEC (03/26/85)
I propose that the bombing of abortion clinics be made LEGAL!! That way we do away with the crime per se (and think of all those poor people sneaking around back alleys to get explosives and suffering pangs of conscience when bombing) and, since people will do it anyway no matter what the law says, the law against it is plain silly. Stand up and be counted for the right to BOMB!!! Who are these people who would limit the ways I have to express myself?? How dare they try to stuff their morals down my throat!!! STAND UP FOR CHOICE!!!!!, AMERICA! Bombing is as American as apple pie. Who's behind this attempt to limit our freedoms?? Norman Lear?? Connie Chung?? Turn back the tide! Let's make mugging legal. That would raise the employment figures for poor black youths right away! Poor whites as well, eh. Let's not play favorites. Let's see. Think of the suffering of the muggers that drives them to the deed. If it were legal they could hold up their heads in society and even form unions! They'll do it anyway, right? You take it from here . . . Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Biding my time) (03/27/85)
> > I propose that the bombing of abortion clinics be made LEGAL!! > > Stand up and be counted for the right to BOMB!!! > > Who are these people who would limit the ways I have to express myself?? > How dare they try to stuff their morals down my throat!!! > Right arm, Ken, baby! RIGHT ARM! I'm personally negotiating with some of Comrade Ortega's red scum for an AK47 (the sweetest little assault rifle in the world, eh, Yuri?) and 20K rounds of kisses. After the deal I'm going to stitch their entrails to the wall & start expressing *myself* freely! YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! ihnp4!ihdev!rastaman "Madness!" - R.N. Marley
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (03/28/85)
@Begrin(flame) > > I propose that the bombing of abortion clinics be made LEGAL!! > Just the other night, I had the thought that New York City should make thefts of less than $100M misdemeanors (rather than a paltry $500). Just think: New York City could become completely theft free! They would disappear off the crime charts! And how about: assault doesn't count unless the victim dies! Suddenly, no violent crime! With just a few strokes of the pen, NYC could become the world's safest city! As long as they don't have any USENET connections........ @End(emalf) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Think of it as "evolution inaction". There are no unintentional spelling errors in this article.
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/30/85)
Hey, if we start bombing abortion clinics, I have an even better idea: LET'S BOMB CHURCHES!!!!! After all, religion is a major cause of war, sexism, persecution, racism, discrimination due to sexual preference, stifling scientific thought, etc. How many people have died because of religion as opposed to how many fetuses are aborted? Stop everything nasty. Bomb a church today!
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (04/01/85)
A previous posting (I don't remember whose it was) sarcasticly argued that laws against abortion-clinic bombings violates our freedom. In article <mit-eddi.3921> barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) replied: > Hey, if we start bombing abortion clinics, I have an even better idea: > > LET'S BOMB CHURCHES!!!!! > > After all, religion is a major cause ... > How many people have died because of religion as opposed to how many > fetuses are aborted? Stop everything nasty. Bomb a church today! Mikki, I think you missed the irony intended. The writer did not seriously advocate legalizing abortion clinic bombings. He was trying to emphasize that if personal freedom is not restricted where it may harm others (eg smoking indoors in public), then lawlessness results. That is, if one considers a fetus as a person with full rights to protection under the law, then consideration of the rights of the mother to control of her own body must be balanced against concern for the rights of the fetus. I guess some people have trouble recognizing sarcasm. Frank Silbermann
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (04/03/85)
In article <301@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >I guess some people have trouble recognizing sarcasm. Your comment on Mikki's heavily sarcastic article proves that point. Now how about moving this to net.abortion. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (04/04/85)
> In article <mit-eddi.3921> barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) replied: > > Hey, if we start bombing abortion clinics, I have an even better idea: > > > > LET'S BOMB CHURCHES!!!!! > > > Mikki, I think you missed the irony intended. The writer did not seriously > > I guess some people have trouble recognizing sarcasm. > > Frank Silbermann > I'd agree with that :-). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA You can't spell "vile" without "vi".
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/12/86)
[Jan Wasilewsky] >Oded's proposal is non-coercive. But it is morally preferable even >compared to encouraging voluntary population control. What are the >malthusians afraid of? That people may be brought into the world >whose life will be not worth living? Well, let *them* be the judges >of that. The Malthusians are afraid of the prospect of a large number of people whose lives are much poorer, shorter, and less fulfilling than they need to be. Consider an African child born in the next century who faces an impoverished and malnourished life owing to overpopulation. Your response is to make suicide pills available -- presumably not through the government. Then, since this hypothetical person can freely choose to live or die, you consider that the situation is morally acceptable. Your view, evidently, is that a possible person is better off if he exists, so long as he is not so miserable as to take his own life, than if this possible person never comes to exist. Well, I can quote Sophocles as a distinguished authority against this view. But it is a very dubious one in any case. A possible person is not a real person who can be better or worse off. There is in fact no person until the moment the person comes into existence. There was no actual Jan before Jan came into existence, there were only possibilities. What you (the real Jan) are saying is that the fact that you choose to go on living now demonstrates that you are better off than if you had never existed. But this is fallacious, because it implies that if you had never existed, you would have regretted the fact and been deeply upset about it. Which is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as saying that fictional characters are to be pitied because they will never come to know the joys of real life as we do who are fortunate enough to exist. So when you say >If it's not worth it, they can quit. If they are never born, they get >no chance and no choice. you commit a philosophical solecism. If "they" are never born, i.e., if "they" never exist in the first place, then there is no "they" to be the subject of "they get no chance and no choice." It is nonsense to say that the "choice" of something nonexistent is constrained. Pity the poor unicorn, never to run and play in the fields like his four-footed counterparts who are lucky enough to exist -- what a colossal injustice has been perpetrated on the unicorn. So this argument in favor of unlimited population growth is absurd. My response to the question of the hypothetical 21st century African is that we should strive to keep the human population below levels at which this African may be expected to be miserable for a substantial part of his life. We ought to maximize the number of good, happy lives -- not the number of merely endurable lives. There is a great difference between merely going on living and living a truly happy and fulfilling life. See Parfit's *Reasons and Persons* for an exploration of the philosophical (particularly the ethical) problems in connection with future generations. >Some people are so scared of babies they propose coercive population >control - a conception police. This is a distortion. I have not "proposed" coercive population control measures, without qualification; rather, I have claimed that the moral acceptability or unacceptability, the wisdom or foolishness of coercive measures, *depends on both the particular type of coercive measures employed and the circumstances in which they are applied*. I am all for purely voluntary measures *unless* there is good reason to believe that they will not work. Most of the articles objecting to coercive measures (particularly from the libertarian camp) have been kneejerk reactions to the terms "coercive" and "coercion". I have already pointed out that one of the strong points of libertarianism is that you do not have to work very hard or study very long to understand it. Coercion is bad: now you understand moral and political philosophy. The rest of us have to beat our brains out on tough philosophical issues. >At any rate all population control advocates should embrace it, >*unless* what really interests them is not overpopulation, but >control for control's sake. If they won't let people be born *or* die >without permission, then they simply want total control over you - >or, in equivalent words - they want to *own* you. Even if my motives are to enslave the world and become dictator for life, that would be irrelevant to the philosophical and scientific issues we have been discussing. Speculation about one's opponents' motives is usually unhelpful. If you want to engage in a name-calling or motive-attribution contest, please do it somewhere else. What interests me is the welfare of the actually existing human beings of the present and future. Richard Carnes