Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 04:00:06 -0500 Message-Id: <9203310900.AA25005@coos.dartmouth.edu> Errors-To: libernet-request@Dartmouth.EDU Sender: libernet-request@Dartmouth.EDU From: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Reply-To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 04:00:02 EST From: Barry Fagin Reply-To: Libernet@coos.dartmouth.edu Subject: Libernet Digest V40 #6 To: libernet@dartmouth.edu Libernet Digest Tue, 31 Mar 92 Volume 40: Issue 6 Today's Topics: "wardship rights" and hunting (2 msgs) "Women's Issues" (2 msgs) An experiment Carol Moore and courteous, well-reasoned discourse Drug Policy Foundation is online Feminst Slogans Feminst Slogans & Approaches (Plus Gags/Swank) H. Ross Perot. (fwd) (2 msgs) Nut Cases (2 msgs) Perot (2 msgs) Perot and stockholders Questions, and Organizing (3 msgs) refrigerator magnets for LP inquirers!!! (2 msgs) Removal from mailing list. (2 msgs) Reserve requirments lowered Self Defence state medical licensing boards We are AWARE Who wants to smoke pot? Women's Group AWARE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 07:57:10 -0500 From: Robert J Leone Subject: "wardship rights" and hunting To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Mr. Morrow brings up an interesting point re using "wardship rights" to prevent hunting un private property. Some questions need to be answered: 1) Which of the following actions do "wardship rights" justify in the effort to stop the hunting? a) ostracism of hunters b) tresspass onto private property to chase animals off to wildlife preserves c) active harassment of hunters d) use of deadly force against hunters 2) What if a group of Hindus decided they had wardship rights over cattle, and that killing cattle for meat was unacceptable under all circumstances? 3) Could "wardship rights" be used by Operation Rescue? 4) If a given piece of private property was overpopulated with deer (to the extent that they were starving) could "wardship rights" be used to compel the property owner to buy food for them ? The point of all this, is that the concept of "wardship rights" may open a large can of worms. If a person is causing pain to animals because he (or she) enjoys doing that sort of thing, I think publicizing the fact and socialy ostracizing the person is the best response. Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com) (The opinions expressed are my own.) "If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want bread." - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 08:31:32 CST From: twb3@midway.uchicago.edu (Tom Morrow) Subject: "wardship rights" and hunting To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU After asking several questions that test the limits of wardship rights, Robert J Leone concludes that >If a person is causing pain to animals because he >(or she) enjoys doing that sort of thing, I think publicizing the fact >and socialy ostracizing the person is the best response. I agree. As I noted earlier, we should generally favor property rights over wardship rights. Why? Because the former are clear-cut and well-established, whereas the latter are somewhat vague and less theoretically sound. Wardship rights carry the most weight in cases where children and fetuses are involved. The same issues are involved (persons establishing protective rights over non-persons) but our intuitions favoring intervention are much more strong. Lastly, note this discussion has involved moral principles only--not legal ones. It may be best not to put wardship exceptions into laws regarding property rights. The rule of law demands sharp boundaries. This means that even in a "perfectly libertarian" society there may be times when it is moral to act illegally. Those who do so can appeal to principles of equity, but they should be prepared to pay the price for pursuing extra-legal goals. T.O. Morrow twb3@midway.uchicago.edu Publisher, Law and Politics Editor EXTROPY The Journal of Transhumanist Thought ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 15:35:22 EDT From: Toby Nixon Subject: "Women's Issues" To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Geoffrey S. Nathan wrote: > This is long way round an answer to Marla B's question about how > to attract feminists to the Libertarian cause. My wife, who is > a strong feminist, but not a Libertarian, has pointed out on > numerous occasions that many libertarians *appear* either uninterested > or even actually hostile to women's issues. What exactly ARE "women's issues", in the context of a libertarian society? It appears to me that most feminists are looking for government-imposed preferential treatment, or at least government-imposed "equal" treatment. It's one thing to make a moral argument that women should be treated equally, but it's quite another (and unlibertarian) to argue that laws should be established and people forced to treat women (or blacks, or Mormons, or pot-smokers, or whatever) equally. I think the party is quite sympathetic to the issue of reproductive choice, which is probably the "women's issue" of most current interest (although many feminist groups would attack us viciously for our position against government funding of abortions), and to equal treatment of women before the law. I'd be quite interested in seeing a list of "women's issues" that the party COULD take a position on (i.e., the solutions for which would be consistent with libertarian principles). > Amendment wasn't ratified) get no similar flaming. Libertarians > are, unfortunately, no more immune to sexism than anyone else. > The fact that they should be, but aren't, is one reason why they > can't seem to attract the attention of many women's groups. The reason we don't attract attention from many women's groups is that we absolutely refuse to let them use government force to get their way. In fact, we would dismantle the systems already in place which use government force to give women preferences, and would make government policy truly neutral. These groups see that their traditional pressure tactics won't work on commited libertarians, so they know their time would be wasted on us. Do you sincerely think that groups that are focused on such things as government-imposed comparable worth laws ("equal pay for comparable work") would sincerely be interested in aligning with Libertarians? > Consider the fact that conductors of symphony orchestras that > audition potential members behind a screen have a higher > percentage of women players than those that have open auditions. > Until libertarians recognize that this is sympotomatic of social > ills that are independant of the state, and will not be solved > *merely* by abolishing it, Libertaria will not garner many > feminist votes. We do not want the votes of feminists who would demand the use of government force to try to correct such things as this. It is not the place of government to force anyone to hire more women. It is not, in my opinion, even right for the government to express an opinion on such situations, much less non-coercively encourage equal hiring. That is the purview of non-governmental advocacy groups. Shine light on the problem, boycott, picket, lay on all manner of bad publicity, but don't call in the cops. > Just recognizing (and saying out loud) that > there are problems that we can't fix (while maintaining that > the state can't fix them either) is a good start. I think we've been saying that all along. Libertarians don't have the answer to everything. Utopia is not an option. We don't believe that the government can or should use force to fix the problem of racial or sexual discrimination, but neither do we believe that permitting it is condoning it, nor do we believe that permitting it will make the problem go away. We simply believe that it is MORALLY WRONG to use government force to make someone hire somebody else (or rent to them, or serve them, or whatever); we do believe that tolerance and gentle persuasion will ultimately prevail. Whether or not it is morally wrong for you to use gender as a factor in your personal hiring decisions is NOT, as far as I'm concerned, a Libertarian issue, since it has nothing to do with the relationship between people and the government; it is for YOU to decide what is best for your business. I believe the LP is quite attractive to right-minded feminists, but statists of all types, including statist feminists, will stay away. One more thing: I am probably one who could be said to be "hostile" to "women's issues". Why? Because I believe we should be concerned about "human issues", and that focusing on the concerns of one particular special interest group denigrates the concerns of the people at large. I _am_ hostile to those who try to advance their concerns at the expense of all others. It is the zealous, polemical, continual harping on single issues, to the exclusion of others, that causes people to get branded "nut case". -- Toby ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 23:30:30 -0500 From: kpt@world.std.com (Kevin P Tyson) Subject: "Women's Issues" To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Toby Nixon writes, among other things: >What exactly ARE "women's issues", in the context of a libertarian >society? I think that what you are missing is the need to create a culture of liberty. This is an activity which is outside the scope of the LP as it is presently constituted, but which is important none the less. Relations between men and women are, as you correctly point out, not within the purview of legitimate government intervention. However, the current state of affairs between men and women must be radically changed if we are to achieve a libertarian society. Speaking specifically about my people, black people, it is imperative that black men eliminate the physical abuse they inflict on black women. Is this a women's issue? I think so. Would it be so within the context of a libertarian society? Only if you let black people in. Can this change be brought about by government action? Not likely. What is required is cultural change. Can the LP contribute to bringing about this change? Not as it is presently constituted. >I'd be quite interested in seeing a list of "women's issues" that the >party COULD take a position on (i.e., the solutions for which would >be consistent with libertarian principles). If women's issues stem from our current culture and if creating a culture of liberty is outside the scope of the LP then there is no position for the party to take on these or a whole host of issues that would meet your criteria. >Libertarians don't have the answer to everything. Utopia is not an >option. We don't believe that the government can or should use >force to fix the problem of racial or sexual discrimination, but >neither do we believe that permitting it is condoning it, nor do we >believe that permitting it will make the problem go away. To create a libertarian society it will be necessary for libertarians to come up with a lot more answers then we have now. We are all agreed that they will not be based on government intervention. I think that they must be based on a change of culture. Whatever they are based on we have to demonstrate working solutions to real live problems or we will make only marginal improvement over the situation that obtains. >One more thing: I am probably one who could be said to be "hostile" >to "women's issues". Why? Because I believe we should be >concerned about "human issues", and that focusing on the concerns >of one particular special interest group denigrates the concerns of >the people at large. I _am_ hostile to those who try to advance >their concerns at the expense of all others. There are many levels of organization of human kind between the individual and the entire race which are not "special interests." The family is one example. Native speakers of Tagalog is another. It is possible to pursue the interests of one of these groups as a primary concern without denigrating the concerns of the people at large. I am a partisan for my people and I am not ashamed of it. I do not pursue the interests of black people because the government stamped "Negro" on my birth certificate. The identification that I feel is the result of my cultural heritage. It is not one dimensional. I am not just a generic black man. My people come from St. Kitts. As such I have inherited part of a West Indian tradition which perceives commerce as a good thing. Self reliance and self employment are likewise perceived as good things. I consciously try and share this with American blacks as part of my activities pursuing the interests of black people. By doing so am I in any way incurring your hostility? Are these not "human issues?" If we do not address the issue of a culture of liberty then we will forever be seen by a not insignificant part of the population as white male conservatives pursuing our right to discriminate. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 00:24:59 PST From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: An experiment To: Rich.Corbett@f3.n363.z1.fidonet.org I don't know about this. I tried a few the way you suggested. But I kept on thinking "you mean If there was no love possible with freedom?"...etc. The only way it works is if you are comparing a specific case, e.g. "If this love and no freedom or else freedom and not this love." In which case the answers come out as conditional; but usually freedom comes first for me. The situations are of course hypothetical. They come out clearest when taken to the limit -- "I would rather have love and no freedom than freedom and no love" or "I would rather have freedom and no love than love and no freedom". One of the two statements will attract you more (or more likely, revulse you less -- the decisions are not fun ones), and thus you will have prioritized freedom and love. Assuming that freedom wins for you, then try "I would rather have fun and no freedom than freedom and no fun" and its converse, and (again assuming that freedom wins), "I would rather have fun and no love than love and no fun" and its converse, thus deciding whether fun comes before or after love. To do the list could require quite a few pairwise comparisons; the list I first saw took a LONG time because it had 12 items to prioritize -- I simplified it. Whatever. I said it was an experiment. Kennita ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 12:28:55 -0500 From: "Eve Maler, Open Software Pubs" Subject: Carol Moore and courteous, well-reasoned discourse To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU That's *it*! Carol, a few of your posts on the "communitarian solution" have been interesting and provoking, and they've made me think. I thank you for that. However, I am *sick and tired* of your vastly larger bulk of insulting, baiting, bigoted, slanted posts that make me, being a woman, sorry that you think you speak for women and serve their causes (whatever causes a group of individuals consisting of half the planet can have in common). You are doing more harm than good, and you *don't speak for me*. If you can't see these things in your posts (and for that matter in your printed articles -- I read the Liberty piece and was appalled), then at least take a hint and back off when others tell you they see them. It's disturbing to think this will actually work, but I'm hoping a plea from "one of your own kind" (unless you think I'm a male-identified woman or some such) will have some effect. For liberty, ========================================================== Eve Maler "venuSvo' Suy" Digital Equipment Corporation Nashua, NH maler@decvax.dec.com, voice 603 881-0310, fax 603 881-0120 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 10:38:51 PST From: "June Genis" Subject: Drug Policy Foundation is online To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Thought some of you might want to file this. (BTW, the TCI thread has been very interesting if you've got USENET access. You can get a good overvire by just reacding all files with TCI but noit "re:". /June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Item: alt.activism 54516, 28 Mar 92, 59 lines. (102 items left) From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) Subject: TCI Affair: Current developments/plans 27-29 March The Drug Policy Foundation is now on compuserve. I got the word from a netter and contacted Ken Wall at the DPF. He said that it was OK to post this information and their address: 76546.215@compuserve.com To: LIBERNET (LIBERNET@DARTMOUTH.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 17:24:26 CST From: Jeffrey A. Johnson Subject: Feminst Slogans To: infer1!dartmouth.edu!libernet > From: Rob Levin > To: Libernet (Perry E. Metzger) > Date: 28 Mar 92 11:25:00 > > L(EM> How about > > L(EM> "PUT KOOKS IN THE WHITE HOUSE Vote Libertarian" or > L(EM> "LET FLAKES RUN THE GOVERNMENT Vote Libertarian" or > L(EM> "DESTROY AMERICAN VALUES Vote Libertarian" or > L(EM> "VOTE FOR PROSTITUTES ON EVERY CORNER Vote Libertarian" > > L(EM> Most of your suggested bumper stickers say just about that, Carol. > > Perry, > > You may not be paying attention. The audience her bumpersticker collection > was targeting is not "white bread middle America," "NRA supporters" or > "propertarian anarchists." Marla asked for slogans which might appeal to > womens' groups. Her example was an adaptation of an old feminist slogan. > Carol gave her a number of suggestions in a similar vein. Stop ragging on > her. It is important to remember that a bumpersticker is designed to be displayed for all to see, and not merely for the purchaser's amusement. I agree with Perry that some of the suggested slogans would immediately create a negative image of the Libertarian Party for the thousands of people who have no idea what the LP stands for. I submit that any displayed bumpersticker is de-facto targetted at "white bread middle America", whether intentional or not. Some of the LP's more controversial stances are better explained using more than six words moving at 60+ mph. ====================================================================== Jeffrey Adam Johnson Internet: johnson@inference.com "I speak only for myself." UUCP: ..uunet!inference.com!johnson ====================================================================== "Alcohol didn't cause the high crime rates of the '20s and '30s, Prohibition did. And drugs do not cause today's alarming crime rates, but drug prohibition does." - US District Judge James C. Paine, addressing the Federal Bar Association in Miami, November, 1991 ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 10:20:56 EST From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: Feminst Slogans & Approaches (Plus Gags/Swank) To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU from Rob Levin L(EM> Now, you are an impossible fruitcake, and most people here know that, L(EM> but I think your posting is a useful illustration for other people L(EM> about how NOT to go about the gentle art of political persuasion. I presume that the above sentence is your best effort at applying the GENTLE art of political persuasion. Oh, hardly. Its an out an out insult, directed at Carol's person. Carol is such an easy target I can hardly resist. (BTW, Carol, this is all a demonstration of my phalologocentric drive to intimidate.) Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 9:21:52 MST From: brooke@fuchsia.albuq.ingr.com (Brooke King) Subject: H. Ross Perot. (fwd) To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU (Libernet) Another friend responded: | Preface: I like Perot so much that, like the reporters in Doonesbury | last week, I cannot trust myself to be objective about him. Here are | some knee-jerk reactions to Bushman's mail. | | > FOR: Increasing the tax on the "rich". | | Bad idea. Even in my weakened state that's clear. On the other hand, | see the mail I sent out last week. Somebody has to pay back the money | and they're going to have to do it fairly soon. Perhaps a libertarian | out there could come up with a proposal to (a) balance the budget, and | (b) begin paying down the debt, without increasing taxes on anyone, | and without cutting entitlements. (Note that some of the "rich" Perot | says need their taxes increased are Social Security recipients, i.e., | SS pmts should be taxed as income. What's the problem with that, apart | from the basic problem with taxes?) Is there any other candidate apart | from Marrou/Lord proposing even minor tinkering with SS? | | > FOR: The abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms. | | On C-SPAN he told Brian Lamb that as a kid in Texas, he had guns and | so did everyone else, yet there was no crime with guns. That sounds to | me like he doesn't think guns are the problem. I'm not saying Perot | didn't advocate gun control, but I'd like to hear something more | specific. He said kids don't need to bring guns to school; I agree. | (Except private schools, of course, in which case the contract should | cover this and other possible areas of dispute.) | | > FOR: Giving congress the ability to raise taxes without executive | > approval, i.e. pass tax bills without needing the presidents | > signature. | | News flash: they already have it. If the president fails to sign a bill | (he "vetoes" it) then Congress has the option of voting for it again. | If they can gain 2/3 supermajority in both houses, it becomes law. | | > FOR: Having government determine executive salaries. | | Pretty stupid, huh? How about limiting the tax-deductability of money a | firm pays to its employees in excess of, say, $1 million/year, excluding | dividends paid to employees who are stockholders. You say, but that's | governmental tinkering with private enterprise. No kidding. I haven't | looked into executive salaries, but I wouldn't be surprised if there | were governmental regulations that encourage companies to pay out gobs | of money to their executives. Either that, or this is a failure of the | free market. My first guess is the former. | | This and the next point get to a real dilemma for Libertarians. We want | to do away with State controls, but we seem not to care about the damage | the State has done. It's good that we're humble enough to realize the | State would probably be as bad at repairing the damage it's caused as | it has been as repairing other "problems" throughout history. But it's | also naive to think we can just say to everyone, okay, that's it: no more | taxes, and the 10% of you who work for Uncle Sam are hereby unemployed. | Don't bother to show up for work tomorrow. Similarly, it's unfair to | everyone working for domestic enterprises to saddle them with the National | Labor Relations Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights | Law of 1991, and who knows what else they contend with, then say, okay, | go out and fight a fair fight against Mexico. The free trade argument is | also a little hollow while Americans are subsidizing the Japanese govt. | with $100 billion/year it would otherwise incur in defense spending. | | > AGAINST: The North American Free Trade Agreement (with Canada and | > Mexico). | | Stupid. But they mostly drive Edsels down there anyway, so who cares? | | The following is addressed to those who term themselves libertarians. | The point isn't that Perot is a libertarian. I know that; I said so in | my first bit of mail on this subject. The key thing is that he isn't | of-the-establishment. The proposition is that President Perot would be | a net plus, not the second coming of Ayn Rand. | | 1. He's a competent executive. Time we had some of that. | 2. He wants to have a really good reason before going to war. | 3. He wants to make Germany and Japan pay for their own defense. | He advocates charging them $100 billion/year during a phaseout | period. That's 2/3 of the total defense bill, and it avoids the | problem the LP seems to be ignoring despite it happening right | now in Russia: ex-soldiers, still with weapons, wandering aroudn | in the streets unemployed. | 4. He wants to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. | By the end of this century, interest payments would be 60% of | the budget, vs. about 40% today. If Japan and Germany ever get | annoyed at us, they can wreck our economy by pulling their loans. | (In which case it might be handy to have troops over there :-) | just joking, Jesus, chill out, for God's sake.) | 5. He wants honest accounting for government programs. | 6. He wants a government more responsive to the people. Many people | seem terrified of this prospect. "W'ere not a democracy, we're a | representative republic." This from the same people who advocate | the FIJA. Get real. | 7. He is only going to be in office 4 years. Jimmy Carter did that | and it only cost us 20% interest rates and 9% unemployment. -- Brooke King brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke H +1 (505) 292-6445 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 9:13:53 MST From: brooke@fuchsia.albuq.ingr.com (Brooke King) Subject: H. Ross Perot. (fwd) To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU (Libernet) A friend passed this to me: | Here are some of H. Ross Perot's planks I picked up this weekend. I | thought you all might be interested. | | FOR: Increasing the tax on the "rich". | | FOR: The abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms. | | FOR: Giving congress the ability to raise taxes without executive | approval, i.e. pass tax bills without needing the presidents | signature. | | FOR: Having government determine executive salaries. | | AGAINST: The North American Free Trade Agreement (with Canada and | Mexico). -- Brooke King brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke H +1 (505) 292-6445 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 08:22:24 CST From: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" Subject: Nut Cases To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU This is long way round an answer to Marla B's question about how to attract feminists to the Libertarian cause. My wife, who is a strong feminist, but not a Libertarian, has pointed out on numerous occasions that many libertarians *appear* either uninterested or even actually hostile to women's issues. It is certainly the case on this BBS that there are men who are frightened of women, especially women who are not frightened of men. Carol pointed out several weeks ago that she was trashed for bringing up the A-word, but no one complained when other *men* did so just a day later. Furthermore, she is often referred to in extremely derogatory terms--`nut case' is one of the politer ones, and although she has never posted anything I consider to be anti- male per se (she does say things against the male power structure but that doesn't mean she hates men), she gets flames that would be astonishing (and probably banned) if they were said about say, Blacks or Jews. I note that real nut cases (like those that urge tax resistance on the grounds that the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified) get no similar flaming. Libertarians are, unfortunately, no more immune to sexism than anyone else. The fact that they should be, but aren't, is one reason why they can't seem to attract the attention of many women's groups. Since I used the expression `male power structure', let me illustrate what I mean. As I have said on this list before, not all social ills are caused by government, and not all of them will be cured by removing government influence (although it wouldn't hurt...) Consider the fact that conductors of symphony orchestras that audition potential members behind a screen have a higher percentage of women players than those that have open auditions. Until libertarians recognize that this is sympotomatic of social ills that are independant of the state, and will not be solved *merely* by abolishing it, Libertaria will not garner many feminist votes. Just recognizing (and saying out loud) that there are problems that we can't fix (while maintaining that the state can't fix them either) is a good start. Geoff Nathan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 14:35:35 EST From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: Nut Cases To: GA3662@siucvmb.siu.edu from "Geoffrey S. Nathan" Carol pointed out several weeks ago that she was trashed for bringing up the A-word, but no one complained when other *men* did so just a day later. Untrue. I sent plenty of mail to most of the participants in that discussion exhorting them to stop, this after lots of people complained to me about public complaints about the "A" discussion. I wasn't picking on Carol per se; lots of other people on this list (you know who you are), many of them men, carry on this discussion ad infinitum as well. Furthermore, she is often referred to in extremely derogatory terms--`nut case' is one of the politer ones, But she *IS* a nut case. This may not be the most polite version of the phrase, but it is certainly the only term that comes to mind. Truth is an absolute defense in slander, as I recall, and my comment is no slander. This is the Carol Moore who threatened to strip in front of TV cameras, thus doubtless enhancing our credibility to the max, if the LP weakened its abortion plank in any way. This is the Carol Moore who thinks that a good idea in self defense is shooting at mens genitals. This is the Carol Moore who believes that tens of thousands of women are killed every year by men stalking them, a number that exceeds any reasonable estimate by three orders of magnitude, and indeed nearly exceeds the number of women murdered in the U.S. each year. This is the Carol Moore who seems to believe that any man who disagrees with her must be some sort of cryptofacist male chauvinist pig who has trouble with his sexuality. I believe that the precise term used is that we are all "nerdy college students who have trouble with agressive women". This, of course, must explain our distaste for her; she's an "agressive woman"; the idea that she might not be loved by us for other reasons never registers. These are just the most recent examples that come to mind. I'm sure we could fill tens of pages with examples of her, shall we say, lack of lucidity. No, Carol might not be the same sort of nut case as a Herb Booth or one of the other really completely over the edge loonies that the LP seems to attract on a daily basis, but she is hardly a measure of calm and rational thought. The reports I have of her in personal encounters do not tend to diminish my belief in my conclusions. and although she has never posted anything I consider to be anti- male per se (she does say things against the male power structure but that doesn't mean she hates men), she gets flames that would be astonishing (and probably banned) if they were said about say, Blacks or Jews. She isn't a group. She's an individual. I can insult an individual Jew without being an anti-semite. Similarly, I can insult Carol Moore without being anti-feminist. There are lots of perfectly reasonable feminists on Libernet, and, in fact, I consider MYSELF to be a feminist. I'm strongly in favor of many of the positions Carol holds, such as abortion rights and the like. I don't think that feminism is nuts. I just think that CAROL is *A* nut. I note that real nut cases (like those that urge tax resistance on the grounds that the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified) get no similar flaming. Thats because they post once or twice and within a few days the whole discussion is forgotten. Carol comes around over and over again like a case of Herpes, irritating you seemingly for the rest of your life. If she would just be a small periodic nuisance it wouldn't be so bad, but she is like a migrane headache that won't go away. Besides, as levels of lunacy go, the tax resistance nutcases are no more nutty than Carol. This doesn't mean that they are even remotely on the ball; its just that Carol makes some pretty damn wacky statments. Libertarians are, unfortunately, no more immune to sexism than anyone else. This is not sexism. I am not a sexist. This is pure and simple disgust with a single individual. In fact, the LP is not terribly sexist. Not to play the tokenism card, but have you looked at the leadership lately? The LP *IS* fairly "user hostile" to most groups of people other than the nerdier fraction of society, which tends to think analytically (thus their attraction to the party even though our salesmanship is disgusting) and thus, as a direct result, our demographics. This is NOT the same as sexism, however. There are libertarians who are sexist, but I would say that as a group, although we tend to be insensitive, we do not tend to be bigotted. There *IS* a BIG difference. Saying "get a job" to a guy begging for money on the street, or saying "so leave" to a woman being harrassed on the job is insensitive; saying "and furthermore, all women and blacks are inferior" is bigoted. Lets keep the distinction clear. The one reveals a lack of sympathy for another human being, the other reflects a malformed world view. Few libertarians I know are bigotted, although, there does seem to be a disturbing amount of homophobia in a fraction of the party that does indeed disturb me. HOWEVER, saying Carol is nutty is not sexist. It MAY be foolish and futile and undiplomatic, but so far as I can tell it is neither sexist NOR INACCURATE. Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 09:24:50 PST From: "June Genis" Subject: Perot To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU REPLY TO 03/29/92 10:59 FROM rutgers!dehnbase.fidonet.org!LIBERTY.Echo@Dartmouth.EDU "LIBERTY.Echo" Perot >From: Karen Allard >To: Libernet >Date: 29 Mar 92 09:31:05 >If Perot is in the presidential race to stay, why not have the Marrou people >convince Perot to sponsor and pay for presidential debates on national TV and >invite Andre Marrou? Afterall, isn't Perot a business man who believes in >choice and competition? >Just a thought.... Are you sure that Andre would do that well in a debate against Perot? I'm not. Sure, from a libertarian perspective Andre would wipe the floor with Perot, but remember that the vast bulk of the viewing audience will not be committed libertarians. Perot has shown himself capable of striking a responsive chord with the American people despite his actual stand on the issue by projecting values such as honesty, leadership, and sincerity. Andre would have to compete on this turf as well as the issues. I wish I had more confidence in his ability to do that than I have. /June To: LIBERNET (LIBERNET@DARTMOUTH.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 01:21:21 EST From: toad@cellar.org Subject: Perot To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU June Genis writes: >> (Someone else says: Get Perot to sponsor a debate and invite Andre Marrou) > > Are you sure that Andre would do that well in a debate against > Perot? I'm not. Doesn't matter. One of the things that the L party doesn't have is the ever-important NAME RECOGNITION, which I know from my few experiences with a R party campaign (I was a Teen-Age Republican!) is crucial. Naturally, it doesn't serve the party well if we were to get name recognition by, say, promoting cannibalism. But until we have widespread name recognition, we're irrelevant. As it stands, we have name recognition amongst the intellectsia, and we wind up a question on Jeopardy. We're just another Jeopardy question that 98% of the masses can't answer. But a major debate loss on national television would still get the party serious recognition; and a MINOR debate loss would probably get us 10% of the popular vote. In a lot of states, we'd gain party status, and they'd have to reprint their registration forms to add a third party. Until most of the masses have heard of the L party, they've got a perfectly fine excuse to go on thinking "Let's see, D or R? R or D?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Tony Shepps toad@cellar.org (...{tredysvr|uunet}!cellar!toad) - - The Cellar BBS +1 215 654 9184 Reliable hardware, responsible sysops, - - and the modems always hang up properly +++ATH~+++ATH~+++ATH NO CARRIER ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 11:45:32 PST From: fritzs@microsoft.com Subject: Perot and stockholders To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU | | >From: Rob Levin | To: Libernet (Fritzs) | Date: 27 Mar 92 17:50:44 | | L(> "libertarian" goal is to minimize "coersion", with coersion being | L(> very narrowly defined. This goal, for a "true" libertarian, is | L(> to be paramount, with no consideration placed upon any negative | L(> consequences of that minimization, nor any thought as to "non-coercive" | L(> compulsions that are blatantly non-consensual to anyone but the most | L(> jaded true believers. | | "Non-coercive compulsions" is a self-contradictory term. Nope. I chose my words carefully. There are many forms of compulsion, some of which are coercive. | And, what do you mean, "non-consensual?" Do | you mean that YOU were not consulted when Perot and his prospective employees | entered into their contract? Rob, any scenario that has a libertarian end with "you can always move" or "you can always commute by helicopter" or "sue everybody upstream" or the like -- i.e. one that has a group of individuals reduced to arcane methods to live normal daily life -- is one that, to most people, is non-consensual. I carefully did not use the "coercive" word. Libertarians draw a very sharp boundary between "coercive" and "non-coercive", and give asymptotically-small legal recourse to any problem on the "non-coercive" side of the line. If one is not drilled into seeing that line as a clear moral boundary, one tends to see a lot more gray areas in the middle. In other words, it is a model of human behavior, not to be confused with the real thing. It is a fairly useful model, but so is Newtonian mechanics. Both have the virtues of simplicity and a likelihood of giving reasonable answers under most circumstances. Fritz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 15:26:01 MST From: moore@santafe.edu (Cris Moore) Subject: Questions, and Organizing To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU OK, Libernetters, here we go. I am a student organizer (and a pretty good one) and considering some tenets of Libertarianism. So if you want to recruit me, I'll need some thoughtful answers to the following questions. 1.) Much of the concentration of wealth we currently have is derived from theft or conquest, by corporations or by the government. For us to leave things as they are is to leave enormous injustices in place. So what do you think of the intermediate view that a) we WILL have some redistribution of wealth, through taxes, for at least a transitional period, but b) we will give people _money_ which they spend on privatized goods and services of their choice, not bureaucratically provided services which they are forced to enjoy, and c) "Public Good" programs will be funded on a voluntary basis, with people deciding for themselves how they want their contribution to be spent. 2.) As a particular public good, Libertaria will not work unless people have a lot of education, and very good communication channels (for instance, to publish information about contractors' reliability). Do you agree that without these things, people will not be really "free", even in Libertaria? Are you willing to provide them? 3.) Envisioning a transition to Libertarianism probably involves a transition to local control by existing communities, and then the increasing use of Lib ideas in each community. But do we allow local communities to become _less_ libertarian? For instance, suppose a particularly racist community decides it's OK to persecute people of a certain color. In the past, we have prevented this with *federal* laws, which maybe now we don't want. If individual choice is reached first through community choice (which to me seems likely) than what do we do if communities coerce individuals? Is there a "minimal charter" of freedom-protecting laws which every community would have? And how would they be enforced? Another good example is the recent Federal mandate which forced the Teamsters to elect their officers; a move that helped move the Teamsters toward being an accountable organization, but which came from an unfortunate source, namely the Feds. What do you think of Federal laws which coerce communities into increasing liberty? Finally, let me just say that some really disappointing things have gone out over LiberNet lately. I'm interested in creating a new society. I'm interested in the Greens, in Libertarianism, in any alternative. I am an ORGANIZER which means I do my best to build a constituency. The potential libertarian constituency, it seems to me, includes . Women, whose rights are being taken by the state; . Grass-roots environmentalists (as opposed to the D.C. establishment kind) who are trying to protect their communities FROM the government and from corporations; . Anyone who thinks recent federal spending has had the wrong priorities; . Anyone concerned with civil liberties; . Anyone who believes that local communities are more qualified to e.g. run our schools than the Feds; . Anyone concerned with economic coercion as well as government coercion; and many others. You people are doing a LOUSY job of organizing. When the one woman who dares to raise her voice on Libernet with a few bridge-building ideas gets cut down, you're shooting yourself in the foot. When you insist on making "weapons rights" (nice phrase!) an emphasis while ignoring abortion, government pollution, corruption and a whole lot of other things that are, face it, considerably more important to most Americans, you are perpetuating a stereotype that Libertarians are jerks; a stereotype which until recently kept me away, and will keep me away again if it continues. So recruit me or lose me. Please reply to the above questions, and PLEASE tell me of some constructive suggestions for building a Libertarian movement. Please send copies of your responses both to me at moore@santafe.edu and over the net; right now I just get the Digest. - Cris Moore moore@santafe.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:13:34 -0500 From: Robert J Leone Subject: Questions, and Organizing To: moore@santafe.edu OK, Libernetters, here we go. I am a student organizer (and a pretty good one) and considering some tenets of Libertarianism. So if you want to recruit me, I'll need some thoughtful answers to the following questions. > 1.) Much of the concentration of wealth we currently have > is derived from theft or conquest, by corporations or by the government. > For us to leave things as they are is to leave enormous injustices > in place. So what do you think of the intermediate view that Excuse me? My mother's house was gotten by "theft or conquest"? My car, TV, stereo, etc? > a) we WILL have some redistribution of wealth, through taxes, > for at least a transitional period, but This "re-distribution of wealth" will primarily (from past experience) be from those who work and produce stuff (like me, your parents, and you when you finally enter the working world), to those who are not working and producing stuff. If anyone's assets are derived by theft, it is the latter group's. If anyone's assets are aquired through "conquest" (in the sense of "something aquired by, or as if by, force of arms"), it is the latter group (through use of government force against the producers). >b) we will give people _money_ which they spend on privatized goods and > services of their choice, not bureaucratically provided services which > they are forced to enjoy, and Correction: instead of "bureaucratically provided services", we should let people _keep_ their money (rather than taking it away through taxes and shoving it down their throats as "services"), and spend it as they please. > c) "Public Good" programs will be funded on a voluntary basis, with people > deciding for themselves how they want their contribution to be spent. This last is the most libertarian solution. > 2.) As a particular public good, Libertaria will not work unless people > have a lot of education, and very good communication channels (for instance, > to publish information about contractors' reliability). Do you agree > that without these things, people will not be really "free", even in > Libertaria? Are you willing to provide them? Communications channels, like "Consumer Reports" magazine and the "Better Business Bureau" (a _private_ organization) already exist in private form. Education, as has been shown in numerous studies, is of much higher quality in the private schools. Private schools are also much cheaper than public schools (e.g. New York City spends $5K/student, versus $2K/student average private school tuition). Recently on libernet we've been debating the merits of a voucher system versus a tax-credit system to finance a transition to a privatized school system. > suppose a particularly racist community decides it's OK to persecute > people of a certain color. In the past, we have prevented this with > *federal* laws, which maybe now we don't want. If a person is being subjected to violence and violations of his/her natural rights, and the local police decline to do their job, there is nothing un-libertarian in appealing to alternative sources of protection (or even exercising the personal right of self-defense) If it's a mostly local problem, then surrounding communities can exert pressure through boycotts, etc. (Of course, if it's a widespread problem, then you're screwed, since the federal govt will be dominated by people who hate that group too) This is a problem no matter what system of government you have. Note that in the South in the 1950's, having Blacks sit in the back of the bus was not a bus-company regulation. It was a municipal ordinance. It was _government_ that restricted Black people's ability to just start their own bus company. > Another good example is the recent Federal mandate which forced > the Teamsters to elect their officers; a move that helped move the > Teamsters toward being an accountable organization, but which came > from an unfortunate source, namely the Feds. What do you think of > Federal laws which coerce communities into increasing liberty? As I said before, I don't see libertarianism having any problem with the federal or state govt acting to protect people from having their natural rights violated. There are some other groups, which you might be confusing the Libertarian Party with, which are in favor of "local government majoritarianism". There is also the problem of "what do we do if the source of oppression is the Federal govt (or even the U.N.) ?" Personally, I think there needs to be more of a balance of power, where the state or local govts have a greater ability to tell the federal govt to go to hell. The federal govt will always have a greater ability to gather support for dealing with oppressive local govts, than for overcoming local govts which are fighting federal oppression. We need to beef up local govts ability to fight federal oppression of people, while maintaining the federal govt's ability to fight local govt's oppression of people. > The potential libertarian constituency, it seems to me, includes > . Women, whose rights are being taken by the state; OK > . Grass-roots environmentalists (as opposed to the D.C. establishment kind) > who are trying to protect their communities FROM the government and > from corporations; OK > . Anyone who thinks recent federal spending has had the wrong priorities; Lot's of people think federal spending has had the wrong priorities. The problem is that they disagree on what those priorities should be. The LP wants to _reduce_ federal spending, not just change which pigs get to feed at the trough. > . Anyone concerned with civil liberties; Sounds good to me > . Anyone who believes that local communities are more qualified to > e.g. run our schools than the Feds; As I stated above, I think _individual_parents_ are the best people to decide on their kids educations. Local school boards can be even more corrupt than the people in Congress. Let's privatize the schools. > . Anyone concerned with economic coercion as well as government coercion; Please specify what you mean here > You people are doing a LOUSY job of organizing. Agreed > When you insist > on making "weapons rights" (nice phrase!) an emphasis while ignoring > abortion, government pollution, corruption and a whole lot of other things > that are, face it, considerably more important to most Americans, Don't assume that the favorite topic of this week was the favorite topic of last week, or will be the topic for next week. We've had lots of discussions of environmentalism, so much on abortion that we finally all got sick of it, etc. > you are perpetuating a stereotype that Libertarians are jerks; > a stereotype which until recently kept me away, and will keep me away again > if it continues. If this is how you communicate with people, I wonder if your actual record in organizing will match your claims here. So recruit me or lose me. Please reply to the above questions, and PLEASE tell me of some constructive suggestions for building a Libertarian movement. > - Cris Moore > moore@santafe.edu Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com) (The opinions expressed are my own.) "If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want bread." - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 13:04:34 EST From: Daniel Y Lam Subject: Questions, and Organizing To: moore@santafe.edu (Cris Moore) Hi there: I'm not a member of the LP; I'm not even American, so what I say does not have anything to do with the Libertarian Party. Something you said just interested me. Cris Moore > > > Another good example is the recent Federal mandate which forced > the Teamsters to elect their officers; a move that helped move the > Teamsters toward being an accountable organization, but which came > from an unfortunate source, namely the Feds. What do you think of > Federal laws which coerce communities into increasing liberty? My position is that unions and any other organization should have no special privilege in the eyes of the government or the law. E.g., unions should not have the right to force people to join them just because they work in a particular industry; they should not be exempted in any way from litigation. Once this is established, there's no need to force unions to elect their officers, any more than there's a need to force the Nazi Party to do so. If a member doesn't like a union, he can resign from it. Having said that, the question arises: given that it is not politically feasible to remove unions' legal privileges, is it OK to have laws requiring them to be accountable? For example, here in Australia, the Liberal Party (not liberal in the American sense, more classical liberal) has a policy of requiring unions to have a vote by secret ballot before calling a strike, because at present, union leaders can make life hard for members who vote against them. I haven't been able to make up my mind on this. Maybe Libernetters can help me. Daniel Lam ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 92 19:55:43 EST From: "John M. Sulak" <76330.3412@compuserve.com> Subject: refrigerator magnets for LP inquirers!!! To: LPUS , My home refrigerator is cluttered with magnets from local pizza stores, movie theatres, and hospitals. I see them every time I go to the 'frig. So do friends and guests that visit. I get them in the mail for free and keep them to hang up notes and lists. Lets sent an 'LP Refrigerator Magnet' to all those that call 1-800-682-1776; they can't cost much more than the current package and its postage! Any comments? [other than where will we get the money?] I mean, doesn't this seem like an effective approach to remind people of the LP? John Sulak Distribution: LPUS Internet:LPUS.Echo@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 00:50:38 PST From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: refrigerator magnets for LP inquirers!!! To: 76330.3412@compuserve.com Sounds great! Maybe you could raise cash by selling them in advance through the LP News. Find out the cost for a few hundred, and pick a single/multiple price to advertise them for. If you have some left, sell them at conventions, meetings, etc. Viva la free enterprise! Kennita ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 09:40 EDT From: MIGORDON@vaxsar.vassar.edu Subject: Removal from mailing list. To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Please remove me from your mailing list--no offense meant-- it's just that I've come to realize that Libertarians are just conservatives who (probably) want to smoke pot. Thanks, Michelle Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:08:55 EST From: boba@roadrunner.pictel.com (Bob Alexander) Subject: Removal from mailing list. To: MIGORDON@vaxsar.vassar.edu, libernet@Dartmouth.EDU >Please remove me from your mailing list--no offense meant-- >it's just that I've come to realize that Libertarians are just >conservatives who (probably) want to smoke pot. >Thanks, >Michelle Gordon I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been a libertarian since 1980. I have never smoked pot or taken any illegal drugs. I don't even drink alcohol. Why am I not a conservative? A few reasons: - I am a more "radical" supporter of the free market than most conservatives are. - Although I don't take drugs, I think people should be able to do what they want so long as they hurt no one else. - I feel the same about peoples' sexual behavior. I'm heterosexual, but I have no quarrel with homosexuals and the very idea of oppressing someone because of what they does in their bedroom is disgusting to me. - I oppose the draft. - I'm more concerned about violation of our civil liberties than most conservatives are. - It upsets me to see government programs that subsidize the rich. - It upsets me to see gov't programs that raise the price of food, clothing and housing; things that hurt the poor the most. I could go on. I see many differences between conservatives and libertarians. Carol has accused some libertarians on the net of being conservatives. I think she's mistaken. I have paid attention to Perry Metzger's and Dave Waller's postings for years, and I have no doubt they are libertarians. The fact that they don't agree with some of Carol's radical feminist postings does not make them conservatives. I'd be interested to know what, specifically, convinced you that libertarians are really conservatives. Bob Alexander boba@pictel.com The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Organizations don't have opinions; people do. The above opinions do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or other employees of PictureTel. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 03:46 EST From: "Michael E. Marotta" Subject: Reserve requirments lowered To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU -+O( HERMES a cybercast periodical of commerce HERMES )O+- Volume 2 Number 1 issn 1061-494X March 23, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------ (51 lines) FRACTAL REVERSE MONETARY POLICY by Michael E. Marotta Starting April 2, 1992, bank reserve requirements will be lowered to 8.33%, to a ratio of 1-to-12. This will allow banks to create more money for loans to "stimulate the economy." The Monetary Control Act of 1980 set the reserve requirements for banks at 10%. If you deposit $1,000 in a bank, the bank can now turn around and lend out $12,000 in new money. This may seem wildly inflationary. In fact, on March 1, 1967, the reserve requirments were lowered from 4% to 3%. More, the historic fraction was then a mere 1-to- 20: 5% from 1954 to 1967. The present set-aside of 10% is the maximum allowed by the Federal Reserve Act. One reason cited 25 years ago for easing credit was "the heavy corporate bond borrowing schedule which has been making the overall credit situation tighter." EASY COME, EASY GO The same day that the bond market was cited for the lack of easy credit, President Lyndon Johnson asked for an ADDITIONAL $91 million to build a nuclear-powered rocket. By 1967, the government had already spent $500 million on the project over six years. Most of the money went to General Tire's Aerojet division and Westinghouse; some went to NASA and the AEC. The nuclear-powered rocket to take astronauts to the planets was scheduled for completion "by the mid or late 1970s." Obviously, this was a half billion dollar sinecure. Five years later, Nixon devalued the dollar and five years from now the 30 year T-bonds that were sold in 1967 will come due. Of course, LBJ, being a Keynesian, knew that in the long run he'd be dead. THE PAYOFF The cyclic nature of human history becomes even more dramatic when you look at the Middle Ages or the Ancient World. PRECIOUS METALS IN THE LATER MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN WORLDS, J. F. Richard, ed., Carolina Press, 1983, tells of how money was created, bought and sold. Old empires, new nations and a myriad of small political entities provided the backdrop for huge banking houses, financial dynasties, and the methods of credit and payment they invented. From the Great Depression of 1360, to the hard money inflation of the 1600s, the fabric of transcontinental commerce presaged the world we know today. As we move out of the current worldwide Depression, bear in mind that rising prices and busy people may not necessarily equate to _your_ idea of "good times." JEFFERSON IN MIRRORSHADES Note that the banner of HERMES has changed to show the ISSN designator. The Library of Congress recognizes HERMES as an electronic periodical. This reinforces First Amendment rights subsumed under "freedom of the press." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 08:37:51 CST From: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" Subject: Self Defence To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Let me second the comment about shooting people in the groin. I myself didn't understand Carol's point on that, but I am a self defence teacher myself, and one of the points that we emphasize is that it is very dangerous to attempt to defend oneself by attacking a male opponent's groin. Although I am a karate instructor, and do not own a gun, the point is the same--it is much more likely to enrage your opponent than to disable him. Aim for a part of the body that will *disable* your opponent long enough to get away. That is the ony rational method of self defence. On the other hand, Carol, what was the point of question number five? I assume you were not advocating that women defend themselves that way (see above). Geoff Nathan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 18:06:12 MST From: brooke@fuchsia.albuq.ingr.com (Brooke King) Subject: state medical licensing boards To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU (Libernet) Terry Mcdill writes: In their recent publication, "9,579 Questionable Doctors...", Public Health states that only 1/2 of 1% of the current doctors practicing medicine have ever been disclipined by state licensing boards. They _further_ estimate that 10 times that number should be disclipined. The most common reason for disclipine was over or misprescribing drugs. Their findings indicate that these doctors merely pick up and move to another state. It seems to me that in the deregulated environment you advocate, this abuse would only grow due to the absence of regulatory agencies. Brooke King replies: Maybe. Maybe not. In a deregulated environment there is always the potential for a competing board (as there are multiple boards today, but which do not have authority over who practices, just who practices with a valid claim to their board's certification). The one would not have absolute authority over who practices medicine nor would its monopoly be supported incestuously only by those whom it regulates. Instead, outside forces, namely consumers, would also affect the attitude of the board as they do all other meaningful boards. How does one find out which boards are meaningful? It's tough today because medicine is so tight with information. (Shoot, we have less information about prescription drugs than we did before prescriptions were required. The drug companies aren't allowed to tell us more than the medical lobby wants them to. God forbid they should make blatant advertisement, although I notice a few skirting this by talking about symptoms and advising people to visit doctors with a trailer mentioning the pharmaceutical company's name. End ranting about a pet peeve.) I count myself very lucky that I know a few medical people I trust implicitly to give straight information, if they have it, about their colleagues and treatments. -- Brooke King brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke H +1 (505) 292-6445 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:03:01 PST From: "Lex mala, lex nulla 30-Mar-1992 1052" Subject: We are AWARE To: liberty@cookie.enet.dec.com To start with, anyone who wishes information about AWARE can contact the President and Founder, Nancy Bittle, at bittle@ranger.enet.dec.com The VP , Lyn Bates, is also on the net but I don't have her address handy. AWARE takes no position, that I know of, on hunting, full auto, etc. It exists to educate women on firearms as a self-defense option, the last rung on the self-defense ladder. It also provides training on the use of Cap-Stun for those cases where a firearm isn't called for, or where the individual completely resists the notion of firearms use, or when the person cannot obtain a carry permit for a firearm. It is not a political organization, though it has been taking on some of the government officials who show sexist attitudes towards carry permits in Massachusetts. While all the AWARE officials I know of are strong second amendment supporters, I don't know if they are stereotypical gun nuts. I believe Nancy first fired a gun about 3 years ago and it took her a while before any interest in firearms besides as a self-defense tool took hold. Today she is shooting competitively and guns have become a hobby as well. I, apparently, am a "gun nut". While the term seems to have deragatory significance, I don't see it. "Car buff" doesn't have a deragatory significance, does it? Hacker was a term of respect 15 years ago, today it is used to denote deviant or criminal behavior! Heck, I'm a Hacker Gun Nut, and proud of it :-) Seriously, I'm one of the people who advocate doing LP recruiting amongst gun owners. This isn't because every gun owner is a libertarian, on the contrary many (even most) are typical conservatives. BUT, I have found a much larger than group than you find in the general population who have true libertarian ideals AND are willing to act on them. My friend Kathy, who is tired of choosing between candidates who will take away her guns and those who will take away her reproductive freedom. Her husband Roger, who gets upset at any proposal to restrict liberty. Rich, who only recently started shooting as a hobby and had a political reawakening (and who has re-registered as a Libertarian). Leo, more a hunter than gun owner, who is ready to re-register. These fine people already ARE "l"ibertarians. The opportunity to convert them to "L"ibertarians exists because the attack on their right to own a firearm has pushed them into political activism. They can't be like the general public, sticking their head in the ground and (essentially) voting for the incumbent when the economy is good and for the major party challenger when the economy is bad. They have become aware of the attack on their rights, and have recognized that the attack is not merely on their right to keep and bear arms. Back to "gun nuts". Guns are an interesting diversion. There are probably more formal and informal sports you can participate in with a gun than with a ball. There may be more collectible variations then there are with stamps. There are more mechanical variations (and consequently different "feel" and enjoyment) then with cars. The reality is that guns haven't changed much in the last 100 years, but people's attitudes towards them have polarized dramatically. Guns aren't more prevalent today than 100 years ago, they are just abused, feared, and regulated more (FAR FAR more regulated). Regulation hasn't done anything useful, except raise the levels of fear and abuse! I'm not quite sure why Carol is "gun nut" bashing. I'm a gun nut, as are many of my close friends. Each and every one of us, even those who are not libertarians, subscribe to the non-initiation of force principle. Every one of us views the use of a firearm for self-defense as a last ditch move to protect the life or safety of ourselves and our families. Every one of us has examined the moral, legal, and practical implications of using a firearm for self-defense. And, each of us is trained (to varying degrees of course) in handling a firearm. Gun nuts don't worry me. People who aren't gun nuts, but own guns, DO WORRY ME because they are more likely to be irresponsible and dangerous around guns. As a libertarian I have a very simple view of gun ownership for self-defense. I think its perfectly ok for someone to own one, and perfectly ok if they don't. For those who do want to own them, I'm an NRA Certified instructor and would be happy to provide training in safe gun handling (or set up a Personal Protection course for that matter). I'll even do the basic "Home Firearm Safety" class at cost (a couple of dollars of materials). In fact, one of my "things local libertarians could do for publicity" is to sponsor free Home Firearms Safety classes! Hal Ps: Usual disclaimer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 13:26:30 EST From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski) Subject: Who wants to smoke pot? To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Libertarians -- Conservatives who want to smoke pot? Certainly that's not true. We should work on our image in this regard. Libertarians support _both_ personal freedom and self reponsibility. This could involve the freedom to smoke pot (and I don't), but as long as people are responsible for their actions, who am I to judge what they do? Legalizing drugs also has the immense advantage of reducing violence in society caused by drug laws. Conservatives tend to blind themselves to this fact by making a holy war out of the war on drugs. Mark Sulkowski ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 10:27:56 EST From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: Women's Group AWARE To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU from drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) from Carol Moore 5) do they advocate that women defending themselves, especially against rapists, aim for the sex organs? If not, do they think women who aim for/happen to hit the sex organs should receive less sympathy from the police than ones who aim for a less symbolic part of the anatomy? Aiming for the sex organs is a huge mistake. In a life and death situation you want to make your shots count. While an accurate shot to a man's groin might rip off one of his balls, it has less probability of accomplishing the desired result, which is to stop the attack. Ah, but is that Carol's goal? Were I a believer in the same psychobabble she believes in, I would say that Carol has a fixation on the penis and testicles, probably a classic case of "penis envy", and that she is attempting to castrate men in an attempt to re-enact her early childhood conflicts. However, the truth is that such psychobabble IS pure rot, and that Carol is simply a nut who is with the disease she accuses others of possessing. To whit: Carol believes that we libernetters who believe strongly in the right to bear arms are just overgrown boys who like killing things instead of people who treat the weapons in their possession as tools to defend themselves. On the other hand, Carol has just demonstrated that, should she be presented with a conflict situation, she would attempt to act out her childish desire to castrate men instead of attempting to treat the weapon in her hands as a tool to defend herself. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:57:04 EST From: John G. Otto To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: peaceful homes > PERRY METZGER: > Yes, we want to legalize prostitution, but many people oppose > legalization and have no desire to turn their peaceful communities > into havens for street-walkers. I can't help but think of Leon Louw's remarks concerning voting in Switzerland. The big issue up for a vote in one town he visited was whether it would be proper to limit the hours when prostitutes could "advertise". The radical authoritarians there wanted to ban them from the streets until something like 19:00 (or was it 17:00?) so die schuler wouldn't take any side trips on their way home from school in the afternoon. Note that this is the same place where every household is armed with fully automatic and/or semi-automatic military firearms. Liberty is pretty much a package deal - either you have it... or you don't. Has anyone read Jacob Sullum's reason article on privacy? Reactions? jgo John G. Otto otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 14:08:33 EST From: John G. Otto To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: Crime in the USA - Arrests by Gender Arrests by Gender, 1986 (of 10,743 reporting gangs and population 193,488,000) # arrested Total Male Female %M %F Total 10,392,177 8,586,328 1,805,849 82.6% 17.4% Index Crimes Murder 16,066 14,083 1,983 87.7% 12.3% Forcible rape 31,128 30,780 348 98.9 1.1 Robbery 124,245 114,495 9,750 92.2 7.8 Aggravated assault 293,952 255,176 38,776 86.8 13.2 Burglary 375,544 345,886 29,658 92.1 7.9 Larceny 1,182,099 819,754 362,345 69.3 30.7 Vehicle theft 128,514 116,348 12,166 90.5 9.5 Arson 15,523 13,397 2,126 86.3% 13.7% Violent 465,391 414,534 50,857 89.1% 10.9% Property 1,701,680 1,295,385 406,295 76.1% 23.9% Index Total 2,167,071 1,709,919 457,152 78.9% 21.1% Other assaults 593,902 503,732 90,170 84.8% 15.2% Forgery & Counterfeiting 76,546 50,612 25,934 66.1 33.9 Fraud 284,790 161,523 123,267 56.7 43.3 Embezzlement 10,500 6,678 3,822 63.6 36.4 Stolen property* 114,105 101,069 13,036 88.6 11.4 Vandalism 223,231 199,882 23,349 89.5 10.5 Offenses-Family&Children 47,327 40,250 7,077 85.0 15.0 Weapons** 160,204 148,372 11,832 92.6% 7.4% Prostitution & Vice 96,882 33,553 63,329 34.6 65.4 Other Sex Offenses 83,934 77,278 6,656 92.1 7.9 Drugs 691,882 591,806 100,076 85.5 14.5 Gambling 25,839 21,390 4,449 82.8 17.2 Liquor Laws 490,436 407,942 82,494 83.2% 16.8% Drunkenness 777,866 708,317 69,549 91.1 8.9 DUI 1,458,531 1,290,900 167,631 88.5 11.5 Disorderly conduct 564,882 461,975 102,907 81.8 18.2 Vagrancy 32,992 29,052 3,940 88.1 11.9 Other non-traffic 2,272,589 1,923,173 349,416 84.6% 15.4% Being suspicious 7,455 6,217 1,238 83.4 16.6 Curfew & Loitering 72,627 54,087 18,540 74.5 25.5 Running away 138,586 58,601 79,985 42.3% 57.7% * Buying, receiving or possessing stolen property. ** Carrying, possessing, etc. TOTAL M F VICTIM MIN 3470145 2733415 736730 MAX 6438877 5236091 1202786 NO VICTIM MIN 3953300 3350237 603063 MAX 6922032 5852913 1069119 SUM CHECKS 10392177 8586328 1805849 maxvict + minnone 10392177 8586328 1805849 minvict + maxnone 10392177 8586328 1805849 totals read in ------------------------------ End of Libernet Digest ****************************** MAIL>