rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/16/90)
In article <1856@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes: >They can be a communist. They have the right to make films (as long as >no one is coerced to provide the means). Similarly, others have the >right: > 1) to seek out knowledge of and expose to the public those who are > communist; > 2) to not deal with or in any way aid the communists. > This reminds me of the econmic pressure = censorship debate that springs up every time some group organizes a ban on advertizers of an "offensive" tv program. Sure, they have the "right" to do the above, and this is an unfortunate consequence of protecting people's rights. There is nothing forcing the holders of these rights to wield them in a wise, prudent manner. A black man can open a business in a white neighborhood, but the whites still have the "right" not to shop there. This doesn't make it a wise or beneficial thing to do, but they DO have the right, don't they? So while no LEGAL persecution of political beliefs (in the case of the HUAC), or racial discrimination (in the case of the black business man), or censorship (in the case of the ban) takes place, all three exist EFFECTIVELY. Makes you wonder, though, what would have happened to the individuals "excersizing their rights (1 and 2 above)" if a 1960's-style Civil Rights Act was around for them. I mean, take your scenerio above and turn the clock back to the mid 1960's. Then substitute "blacks" for "communists" and "racists" for "others". Maybe justice wasn't quite as blind as you think it was. At any rate, I think a big part of the "why shouldn't they be communists" question was "why are you so doggone happy to see the communists persecuted." You do seem awfully satisfied with the fact that the destruction of these people's careers, reputations, and lives is protected by the Constitution. Are you similarly pleased when the victims of these rights are blacks or homosexuals or jews or etc.? -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/17/90)
Mr. Gleason! I don't know where you dig up your ideas but Communism is totally incompatible with the concepts of the Declaration of Independence. The notion that the individual is subservient to the state is fundamental to communism. Nothing could be more antithetical to the notion of individual soveriegnity so eloquently represented by the Declaration of Independence. You are either an utter fool or a willing teller of the Big Lie! - Tim
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/18/90)
In article <21642@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >At any rate, I think a big part of the "why shouldn't they be communists" >question was "why are you so doggone happy to see the communists >persecuted." You do seem awfully satisfied with the fact that the >destruction of these people's careers, reputations, and lives is >protected by the Constitution. Are you similarly pleased when the >victims of these rights are blacks or homosexuals or jews or etc.? So what if someone is pleased or not pleased? Maybe I hate Lima beans. So much so I organize a Lime beans haters society. How many Lima bean farmer's live do I ruin? Does it matter? Maybe I just don't buy your product? Like cigarettes? And get a bunch of my friends to help not buy your product? How many people's lives do I disrupt because of this? In a free society, free association will help some, hurt some, and at times be neutral. So what and too bad -- freedom does not generate nirvana, just freedom. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/18/90)
In article <21642@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >This reminds me of the econmic pressure = censorship debate that springs >up every time some group organizes a ban on advertizers of an >"offensive" tv program. > >At any rate, I think a big part of the "why shouldn't they be communists" >question was "why are you so doggone happy to see the communists >persecuted." You do seem awfully satisfied with the fact that the >destruction of these people's careers, reputations, and lives is >protected by the Constitution. Are you similarly pleased when the >victims of these rights are blacks or homosexuals or jews or etc.? Well I can't imagine how you draw a link between communists, whose raison-d' etre is to IMPOSE controls on other people's lives and advance the cause of statism and groups which HAPPEN to be unpopular for irrational reasons. Frankly, I am DELIGHTED when communists suffer heavily in private dealings. Just as it pleases me when a man who successfully overcomes a conviction due to a technicality is nonetheless ostracized. To some extent, a group which advocates the communist position is almost at the point of advocating criminalactivity and the fact thatthey'd like to get democratic support is totally irrelevant. However, its too dangerous to pursue these people along these lines, although if communists were elected it would be people's foremost requirement to oppose them in any sense. And people should oppose the current crushing march of statism in the West, but its slow and there isn't a nucleus of minds able to deal with the issue. And, before you whine about the destruction these bastards have brought on themselves by their offensive views, how about the destruction that socialism and general government regulation has wrecked on so many lives, both directly and (more usually) as a very subtle, persistent drain. Ron
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/18/90)
In article <2903@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >So what if someone is pleased or not pleased? It makes me wonder WHY they're not pleased. It's called "trying to understand another's point of view." > >Maybe I hate Lima beans. So much so I organize a Lime beans >haters society. How many Lima bean farmer's live do I ruin? >Does it matter? Of course it matters. First of all, please don't try to sidestep the issues by changing them. The subject had to do with political and social freedom, not marketplace economics. It matters because it demonstrates just how much you and the HUAC and others really believe in the concept of "political freedom". You'll follow the law to the letter SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS YOU TO VIOLATE IT IN SPIRIT. If you persuade people to use their economic freedoms to enact EFFECTIVE censorship or persection, it shows that you DON'T believe in political toleration and the free exchange of ideas (talk about un-american activities). >In a free society, free association will help some, hurt some, and >at times be neutral. >So what and too bad -- freedom does not generate nirvana, just >freedom. MY point exactly. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on if the participants follow it only to the letter while actually opposing it idealistically. It makes no difference if I have a right to free speech when the general public is dedicated to supressing ideas they don't like. You were gleefully recounting how the HUAC was completely within their rights in doing what they did. As you pointed out, this fact doesn't make a bit of difference. They were determined to do something that was in direct opposition to the ideals this country was (supposedly) founded on, and they did a marvelous job of accomplishing it in spite of the Bill of Rights. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/19/90)
In article <1999@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) writes: > Well I can't imagine how you draw a link between communists, >whose raison-d' etre is to IMPOSE controls on other people's lives >and advance the cause of statism and groups which HAPPEN to be >unpopular for irrational reasons. Easy, they're all examples of people recieving social persection for a characteristic which we claim to believe they are welcome to hold. We say "we think people should be free to hold any beliefs they like and express them whenever they like," and then socially and economically punish people for doing just that. Also, all (existing) govt. by its very nature exists to impose controls on people's lives. The problem isn't the desire to impose controls, but what controls are to be imposed. > >Frankly, I am DELIGHTED when >communists suffer heavily in private dealings. Just as it pleases >me when a man who successfully overcomes a conviction due to a >technicality is nonetheless ostracized. So then if you were to say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defen your right to say it", the statement "but I'll see to it that you never work in this town again" would appear in parantheses. >To some extent, a group >which advocates the communist position is almost at the point of >advocating criminalactivity and the fact thatthey'd like to get >democratic support is totally irrelevant. However, its >too dangerous to pursue these people along these lines, although if >communists were elected it would be people's foremost requirement >to oppose them in any sense. What you're saying is that communsists are so dangerous that, if allowed to actually hold jobs and stuff, they could convince the stupid public into electing them into office, and enacting their programs. The only way to stop this is to "shun" them socially and economically. Public debate and free election is just not enough. This all may be true, but I maintain that it is contrary to the philosophical foundation of the US govt. system. BTW, what's inherently dangerous with making economic decisions based soley on the economics involved (ie who to hire, sell to, etc), and political decisions soley on political ideas (ie who to elect)? > And, before you whine about the destruction these bastards >have brought on themselves by their offensive views, how about the >destruction that socialism and general government regulation has >wrecked on so many lives, both directly and (more usually) as a very >subtle, persistent drain. A. Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of whining? Is it whining when I do it, and complaining or asserting when you do it? B. Just what is the fair destruction that holders of offensive views deserve? Are there similar punishments due people who have offensive sexual practices or offensive religious beliefs? C. How about changing the way government does things by VOTING. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of communism with you. I'm not communist or socialist. Frankly, I think that those sorts of controlled economies are doomed to failure. But I intend to defeat these people in public debate and at the ballot box. I don't think there's any need to starve them too. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <21696@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >You were gleefully recounting how the HUAC was completely within their >rights in doing what they did. As you pointed out, this fact doesn't make >a bit of difference. They were determined to do something that was in >direct opposition to the ideals this country was (supposedly) founded >on, and they did a marvelous job of accomplishing it in spite of the >Bill of Rights. I did no such thing. I said no such thing, and I posted no such thing. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <21696@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >It matters because it demonstrates just how much you and the HUAC and >others really believe in the concept of "political freedom". You'll >follow the law to the letter SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS YOU TO >VIOLATE IT IN SPIRIT. If you persuade people to use their economic >freedoms to enact EFFECTIVE censorship or persection, it shows that you >DON'T believe in political toleration and the free exchange of ideas >(talk about un-american activities). So if I choose not to buy a product, say, Coors beer, because I don't like the politics of the owner of Coors then I'm censoring or violating some type of freedom???? And I can't get a bunch of my friends to boycott a product either? So everybody that is not buying Exxon products because of the oil spill is censoring Exxon, right? On yeah, almost forgot. I don't tolerate socialism, communism, fascism, Pol Pot, N. Korea, Vietnam, PRC, and Albania. I am against the free expression of ideas in such areas as teaching and encouraging youngsters to kill, steal, and commit arson, as well as yelling FIRE falsely in a movie theater. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/19/90)
In article <21696@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >VIOLATE IT IN SPIRIT. If you persuade people to use their economic >freedoms to enact EFFECTIVE censorship or persection, it shows that you >DON'T believe in political toleration and the free exchange of ideas >(talk about un-american activities). >MY point exactly. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written >on if the participants follow it only to the letter while actually >opposing it idealistically. It makes no difference if I have a right >to free speech when the general public is dedicated to supressing ideas >they don't like. You miss the point badly. An open mind is*NOT* a passive mind. Freedom of speech does *NOT* mean either of: 1) a guarantee to inflict your stupid (or otherwise) opinions on others 2) a requirement for people to ignore your statements in treating you And neither of these is even part of the PRINCIPLE. Last time I recalled, alot of people defend extreme idiots who mouth B.S. like "There was no holocaust" or "Socialism is a viable system for preserving individual liberties" (not considered that extreme today -- but that's our society's failing) or "all atheists should be sent to hell promptly (by burning)" are defended solely on the grounds that their reprehensibleideas are indeed covered by freedom of speech. Given the choice of a society with censorship or one with ENFORCED SUPPORT of ANY idea someone mouths, I'll pick the former! In the end, there is nothing about free speech which has ANY ramifications for people's reactions except that: NO ONE should physically harm or in any way use physical coercion (including theft, fraud, breach of contract, etc.) against someone who has said anything at all (leaving aside questions of communications of criminal intent), including the government. And philosophically, it is not only legal but DESIRABLE in the EXTREME to suppress illogical and incorrect ideas but NOT by force. I can't believe ANYONE seriously thinks that EVERY idea that someone may propound should be seriously heard. What if I suggested "you should be tortured" -- would you figure, I'd best not oppose this idea, or else I'll be impeding free speech and circulation of ideas. The point is that we allow free speech because it is too dangerous to ourselves to try and suppress speech NOT because its an unqualified good to have EVERYTHING that can be stated, stated. Ron
byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jan13231318@image.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: [Chris Conway, Gerry Gleason, and Phil Ronzone on the Declaration of Independence ] > You must be young, to be so optimistic and idealistic. > The American Revolution was fought over money, not over freedom. I'm surprised that you have positioned yourself so explicitly. Then you believe that the revolutionary soldiers who risked and lost their lives in the revolution were cynical money-grubbers? Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the others didn't care a whit about freedom or democracy? Have you ever read any of their books? How you reached such a conclusion is beyond me...You must be blinded by irrational anti-americanism. Yeah, that's it. > Look > at our northern neighbor. What are the chief differences? Certainly > not freedoms, as they have nearly identical freedoms. No, it's money, > because Canadians are, in general, poorer than Americans. Oh, I see. People with money are not entitled to establish free republics (nor live in them, right?). Only poor people are allowed to establish governments right? The fact that Canadians are roughly as rich as americans (ever been to Canada? I have.) is of little consequence, by what logic does the income of a person determine his desire to live in a free country? Are rich people incapable of moral judgement? Do you really beleive all of these things? > Look at the people who wrote the Constitution. They are, to a man, rich. Heavens no! That means they MUST have had no interest in liberty! ;-) > Who was the first President? Why, the richest man in the country, of > course. I don't have any statistics on Washington's wealth, but I doubt he was the richest man in the country. Do you have some information I don't? Be that as it may, this displays the usual ridiculous attitude that wealth implied immorality. If Washingto was such a bad guy, why didn't he accept the offer to become King of the US? Why did he resign his office? Was lying when he talked about not establishing presidential dynasties? He must have been...he committed the ultimate sin...he had money! > Was the Constitution ratified by the people? As I remember, it was ratified by the elected representatives of each state (remember, this was 13 years after the DOI). > No, it was ratified > by the state, using force and fraud. Fraud? I doubt it. For such outrageous accusations, you provide very little explanation or evidence. Just knee-jerk anti-americanism. Force? Absolutely not! In what sense was the constitution implemented by "force"? That's just silly. It was ratified by elected officials and was widely thought of (not just in the US either) as a declaration of proper governmental principles beyond any acheived before. History seems to have proven them right. > A document of freedom? Bah, humbug! > > No, the concept that the American Revolution was fought to ensure > freedom is as pernacious an information virus as the FCC Modem-Tariff > virus making the rounds. Unfortunately, there is very little chance > of killing it, whereas the Modem-Tariff virus may be killed due to a > posting in news.announce.important. Yet, I try anyway. I suppose you can come up with a better guarantee of freedom than the bill of rights? I'd be interested to hear what kind of document you could imagine that would be a better job (aside from nit-picking or changes made since that time, like abolition of slavery and universal suffrage). Perhaps if you bothered to read some of the writings of Paine or Jefferson your opinions might change (even though americaphobes are notoriously bull-headed). I don't like the consequences of the government established by Lenin, but I doubt that he intended for it to result in the kind of moral and economic disaster that is did. I am surprised that americaphobes don't hold Washington in at least as high regard as I hold Lenin (even though it's not very high). Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)
In article <YZggmCy00W0TQ96MFn@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > Of course, what do you expect? At the time, Washington and cohorts > probably had about the same amount of education (other than > self-education) that you have now (or have had the opportunity to take > advantage of). The average citizen was more concerned with making a > living and surviving than with idealistic notions such as freedom and > individual liberty. > Accounts of american attitudes after the revolution as seen by foreigners are quite consistent. The general population was very aware of their freedoms and very proud of the establishment of a free country. Come on americaphobes, can't you come up with any rationale behind your silly projection of anti-americanism on early americans? Of course not. Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/19/90)
>I did no such thing. I said no such thing, and I posted no such thing.
You're absolutely right. My mistake.
--
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edurhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/20/90)
(Phil Ronzone) writes: > You miss the point badly. An open mind is*NOT* a passive >mind. Freedom of speech does *NOT* mean either of: >1) a guarantee to inflict your stupid (or otherwise) opinions on others >2) a requirement for people to ignore your statements in treating you This posting is based on the (incorrect) assumption that I would want laws forcing people to treat each other in a way that I consider fair. Not all that is legal is good or right, and not all that is wrong should be illegal. > And philosophically, it is not only legal but DESIRABLE in the >EXTREME to suppress illogical and incorrect ideas but NOT by force. Then what kinds of supression do you support? Let's say I expressed some philisophically illogical and incorrect ideas that were so offensive as to earn me the hatred of every man, woman and child in North America. By your thinking, a perfectly reasonable reaction to this would be for me to lose my job and get kicked out of the house I rent. You would respect my rights to my property (car, furniture, clothes, a couple other toys). This will do me no good, as nobody is about to sell me any food, or land to produce it. You're right, this would do an excellent job of discouraging me from expressing unpopular ideas. >I can't believe ANYONE seriously thinks that EVERY idea that someone >may propound should be seriously heard. What if I suggested "you should >be tortured" -- would you figure, I'd best not oppose this idea, or >else I'll be impeding free speech and circulation of ideas. I never said not to oppose ideas. If you said that, and your boss said "Rich, I heard what Phil said, and I'm firing him for it.", I actually would ask him not to. If your landlord promised to kick you out, I'd discourage that, too. I have faith in lot of other mechanisms to keep you from torturing me, or convincing others to. >The >point is that we allow free speech because it is too dangerous to >ourselves to try and suppress speech NOT because its an unqualified >good to have EVERYTHING that can be stated, stated. And I protmote social tolerance of people with ideas I consider offensive for the same reason. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <21703@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >Easy, they're all examples of people recieving social persection for a >characteristic which we claim to believe they are welcome to hold. We >say "we think people should be free to hold any beliefs they like and >express them whenever they like," and then socially and economically >punish people for doing just that. I too believe men are free to HOLD any beliefs he/she care too. If a man (specifically male gender) HOLDS the belief that his sexual gratification is best achieved by forcible abduction and rape of young girls -- you'd better believe that I will practice social persecution of that individual. I will not trust him, I will keep an eagle eye on him whenever he is around young girls, and I would not hire him or socialize with him. You may hold any beliefs you'd like. It is your RIGHT. I also have the RIGHT of association for any reasons I'd care to have also. And that right is social and economic also. BTW -- I don't believe people are WELCOME to hold beliefs -- I believe they have the RIGHT to. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/20/90)
In article <526@smcnet.UUCP> byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) writes: [lots of valid points, rebutting the foolish claim that the US constitution was an example of "evil capitalist exploitation" or some such nonesense] >> Was the Constitution ratified by the people? >> No, it was ratified >> by the state, using force and fraud. > >Fraud? I doubt it. For such outrageous accusations, you provide very >little explanation or evidence. Just knee-jerk anti-americanism. > >Force? Absolutely not! In what sense was the constitution implemented >by "force"? That's just silly. It was ratified by elected officials >and was widely thought of (not just in the US either) as a declaration >of proper governmental principles beyond any acheived before. History >seems to have proven them right. The constitution was worth the slight bending of the rules that was undergone to pass it -- but remember that the authors, 1) created its own amending formula and retroactively applied it for its OWN amendment (whereas the last one required unanimity, this one did NOT) 2) applied a fairly significant amount of coercion to the hold-out states that did NOT support the document (Rhode Island was embargoed as I recall). >I suppose you can come up with a better guarantee of freedom than the >bill of rights? I certainly hope that one can be made which will stand the test of time better than this one -- the biggest problem is that the bill of rights was undercut by other parts. Ron