text:
In article <[email]> 2-100-1![email] (Lazarus Long) writes:

//You are so incredible, Lazarus! What I had said that I thought you were more
willing to villify your opposition, and not accept that two paradigms may
exist simultaneously, neither of which is THE paradigm, and THEN I said, this
MAY be because I am biased against you. That is, I generously allowed that my
interpretation of you being more willing to do something which I consider
useless and unfruiful (than lain, who supposedly is on MY side) may be the
result of me being biased against you. It is because many human beings will
have the tendency to be malfeasant and opportunist like you, that an impartial
thrid party is needed to keep people like you in line, even in a libertarian
society. You are despicable. You have no qualms about 'cheating' when it means
basically nothing to you. What are you going to do when it REALLY matters to
you? You are a true disgrace; your calling yourself a libertarian does great
disservice to libertarianism and stains the reputation of other libertarians
in these fora who are honorable people, willing to discuss concepts and
argument honestly, without reverting to your childish methods. Have you no
shame? Are you that insecure?//

//The simple fact that I did not admit anything of the sort, but was only
giving you the benefit of the doubt, and allowing that my interpretation of
your greater tendency to engage in logically and intellectually useless
practice may be due to some bias against you, should suffice. Don't worry,
Lazarus (or whatever your real name is), my post is still available, and I
will not hesitate to repost so that all can see what kind of person you really
are, so that you lose whatever little credibility you have left. And, BTW,
being called a 'pompous twit' by someone like you is a badge of honor.//

could be>ku> very useful  both to you and to the rest of us.//

//I did, Lazarus. I refered to BOTH of you.//

//So what? When did I say those transaction were NOT markets? I mean,
thankfully, my sentence is right there above for all to see. It says that
private companies, firms, are NOT markets. For a person who accusses others of
not reading carefully (and much worse) you should be a bit more careful.//

expire, be>ku> settled?  What if the workers decide that they do not want to

//Exactly. Or the employers have signed a contract and then wish to break it.
//

//And so? How are you going to get the workers out of your factory? On your
own? What if a more powerful, smarter, better armed individual together with
his private army comes into your factory and takes it over? What are you going
to do then? Are you going to forego all your properties, and happily try to
contract with someone else?//

//With what power of enforcement? What if the people who are found 'guilty' or
'liable' by those private courts decide to tell the private court and you to
'get lost' and to 'take your private court decision and stuff it'. What
recourse would you have then? BTW, you are digging yourself in a deeper and
deeper whole, vis-a-vis lain et al.//

//Then declare victory and leave the 'happless' socialists and anarchists to
'read them and weep'. And, BTW, LESS government intervention and smaller
(lower) spending by the state is not anarchism or libertarianism. You want
'private courts' (whatever that means, really) and NO state. I want less
government spending on defense, farm - subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. Does
that make me a libertarian as well?//

literally. You can>ku> not have a  market for those activities which are
indispensible for>ku> the market itself to  exist and operate. If the function
of

//Well, how so? Offer an argument, not a two-word non-reply.//

//I'll take your word for it, for NOW. Mind you, I WILL check those sources
out, and then will probably make a fool out of you by quoting from them to the
contrary. Challenging me in matters of text, as you should have surmised by
now, is a DUMB idea. But, you seem to be a masochist, so I may find it in my
heart to indulge you.//

//So what? Slavery and serfdom have been around for hundreds of years and in
many different places. And, BTW, WHO enforced those right to private property
and person in Iceland? The individuals themselves?//

advocated the elimination of individual rights?

//Who is blaming you for anything, whatever your profesion is? You said that
Rand "was not enamoured of Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists'. Therefore,
she is not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, so anybody who quotes her to
support his/her libertarian and 'anarcho-capitalist' positions is quoting the
WRONG person. What does my ignorance or knowledge of the topic to do with what
I said? And, if you think you are accomplishing something by calling me a
'student' I can tell you have failed. You obviously have never really be a
STUDENT (literally) of ANYTHING. And it shows.//

//So you accept that nobody has the right to free speech while on somebody
else's property. BTW, I spoke of free-speech right, not other rights, such as
rights of use.//

//Excellent. More power to you. And I am not a boy, nor a 'dear boy.' Do not
project your own self-image unto others//

//It is plain for everyone to see who has been biased, who has cheated, who
has evaded, who has insulted. Your own behavior is the best evidence as to why
an 'vigilant neutral third-party' would be required even in a utopian
'anarcho-capitalist' world for people to be able to enjoy their private
property rights free from the continual fear of being predated by people like
you.//

Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
UCLA - Sociology


author: ANC Webmaster

subject: Animal Control Officer Feeds Puppies to Snake

text:
A Detroit, MI animal control officer was recently fired for feeding puppies
to a large python that had been confiscated during a police raid.

http://www.anc.org/pets/pets_article.cfm?identifier=2003_0507_officer

-Animal News Center Webmaster


author: Patrick Cassidy

subject: Re: Animal Control Officer Feeds Puppies to Snake

text:
What is the difference in this and feeding them rats or mice or goldfish?

Not that I would do any of them.  Just curious as to how you draw the line.

Patrick

"ANC Webmaster" <[email]> wrote in message
news:VBOua.31302$[email]...
puppies


author: Katra

text:
ANC Webmaster wrote:

This is not a new practice unfortunately... :-(

I knew a guy in college that had large pythons and boas. He bragged to
me about how he got free food for his snakes by answering adds for free
kittens and puppies.

Some people are sick. :-(

K.


author: Doug Kanter

text:
"Patrick Cassidy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b9o5k6$bpg$[email]...
line.

Great Northern pike (the fish) will eat baby ducks. We eat hamburgers. Have
you ever noticed how beautiful a cow's eyes are?


author: JK

text:
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:36:28 -0500, Katra <[email]>
wrote:

Snake's gotta eat too, right?  Or does the snake have to go veggie?


author: Polidogs

text:
And that is why it is VERY important NEVER to put A FREE to a good home ad in
the paper.

Better yet is to get your dog or cat spayed or neutered!

Poor pups.: (

Polidog


author: Bob

text:
The difference is, you don't find dogs in the wild for snakes to eat.

"Doug Kanter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:GzOva.6034$[email]...
goldfish?
Have


author: Michael Saunby

text:
"Doug Kanter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:GzOva.6034$[email]...
goldfish?
Have

And tasty too!

Michael Saunby


author: [redacted]

text:
In rec.pets.dogs.rescue JK <[email]> wrote:

The owner does not have to lie to people about their pet going to a good
home and then killing it. That's highly unethical and does not show him
worthy of having any animal, mammal or reptile.

Alice


text:
Depends on where you live, I suppose. I'm in upstate NY. As far as I know,
there aren't snakes big enough to eat your average puppy, and certainly not
a dog. But, cats and small dogs are regularly eaten by coyotes, just 10
minutes outside of the city of Rochester. Not being a snake expert, I don't
know how big they get down South.

In any case, I don't see that this is much to get worked up about. What
percentage of dogs & cats never leave the shelters due to euthanisia?

"Bob" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Hibwa.523$[email]...


author: Dragon Fly

subject: Re: Average incomes in Russia 10% higher than in Estonia

text:
[email] (Tapani Hietaniemi) wrote on 17 Jan 94 09:29:19 EET:

Do not be so nervous, Tapani. You lost. Be corageous to acknowledge this.
Nobody gonna believe you any more after it became obvious that you
are just a cheap cheat and forger.
You claims that Estonia led x-Sovok republics by incomes per capita
and your data were proven to be forged.
Your persistent and noisy attempts to convince the public that Estonia
as also a democratic state is another cheap cheat. Estonia & Latvia
are just ordinary post-Sovok nationalist dictatorships, prominent
only by the stench they emit around themselves.

Wholeheartly at infinum
Dragon


author: Tapani Hietaniemi

text:
DragonFly wrote:
: [email] (Tapani Hietaniemi) wrote on 17 Jan 94 09:29:19 EET:

: > I am not the only one who has a very low esteem indeed on Viznuk as a
: > "discussion partner". Usually his propaganda should not be commented since
: > he does not appreciate the facts.

: Nobody gonna believe you any more after it became obvious that you
: are just a cheap cheat and forger.
: You claims that Estonia led x-Sovok republics by incomes per capita
: and your data were proven to be forged.

As I said above, Viznyuk does not care much about facts. He omitted the
next two chapters from my previous posting which I repeat:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue, he hopelessly mixes up concepts "average wage" "average
income" and "pro capita consumption".

Viznjuk has not forwarded any comparative estimations on these issues between
various former Soviet republics based on a same source. The point I made,
was that according to the CIA World Factbook, Estonia is leading the XSU
republics in pro capita consumption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

With best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi
Helsinki


author: Eduard Ponarin

text:
In article <2hejro$[email]> [email] (Tapani Hietaniemi) writes:

Does this consumption thing include paying rent, heating and such?
(Incidentally, I think it should be PER capita.)

Ed Ponarin,
[email]
THESE OPINIONS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER


subject: why doesnt there exist a Propertarian Party?

text:
surely it should be the third alternative in the american republic of
the S.S. you'd have republicans, democrats and propertarians... i.e.
libertarians could finally come out of the closet.

i don't understand, why was the libertarian party founded in 1971 and
the propertarian one doesn't exist, not to mention there not being any
plans to found one in the future. what's up with the far right, are
they embarassed to come out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

why is there so much literature on ''libertarianism'' and so little on
properterianism?


subject: Re: why doesnt there exist a Propertarian Party?

text:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:07 -0700, [email] wrote:

It looks to me like there are already two propertarian parties in the
USA: "excessive" and "even more so."

If you are actually interested in freedom and human rights, I would
advise you to Google "geolibertarian" and start reading.

-- Roy L


author: Immortalist

text:
On Aug 3, 11:35 am, [email] wrote:

Jeez man that theory has been around for centuries;

Hobbes saith: Life for man is...
       "nasty, brutish, and short."

In the Leviathan, Hobbes developed his political philosophy. He argued
from a mechanistic view that life is simply the motions of the
organism and that man is by nature a selfishly individualistic animal
at constant war with all other men. In a state of nature, men are
equal in their self-seeking and live out lives which are "nasty,
brutish, and short." Fear of violent death is the principal motive
which causes men to create a state by contracting to surrender their
natural rights and to submit to the absolute authority of a sovereign.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823860.html

---------------------------------------

Men leave the state of nature and establish a civil society when they
voluntarily give their natural right to self defense to a common
public authority. They do this in order to acquire mutual protection
of their "lives, liberties, and estates" from those who in a state of
nature would be of danger to them, by means of placing the retaliatory
use of physical force in under "established, settled, known law,"
interpreted by an "indifferent judge," with the "power to support the
sentence when right."

Thus underlying the laws of the government are the powers granted to
individuals in the state of nature by the law of nature, transferred
by their common consent to a government authority. "The obligations of
the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are
drawn closer, and have by human laws, known penalties annexed to them
to enforce their obligation." Locke maintains that the proper function
of law is to create, rather than restrict, personal freedom, that the
law of a government is not an instrument to restrain the freedom of a
rational being, but is a framework required to preserve and enlarge
it. For "where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberty is to
be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where
there is no law." In other words, law, in Locke's view, exists only to
stop the deeds of those who would transgress on another's freedom, for
the purpose of preserving that freedom. Such laws are not arbitrary,
since "nobody can transfer to another [i.e., the government] more
power than he has in himself."

Such a government is legitimate, because its powers derive from its
citizens, who give their consent to its formation. By "agreeing with
other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable,
safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment
of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not
of it," such men have given their "express consent" to the government
of such a community. In addition, any man who is born within a
particular government and accepts the protection provided by it,
thereby gives a "tacit consent" as to the legitimacy of that
government

http://tinyurl.com/r1wm

------------------------------------------

Locke is most renowned for his political theory. Contradicting Thomas
Hobbes, Locke believed that the original state of nature was happy and
characterized by reason and tolerance. In that state all people were
equal and independent, and none had a right to harm another's "life,
health, liberty, or possessions." The state was formed by social
contract because in the state of nature each was his own judge, and
there was no protection against those who lived outside the law of
nature. The state should be guided by natural law.

Rights of property are very important, because each person has a right
to the product of his or her labor. Locke forecast the labor theory of
value. The policy of governmental checks and balances, as delineated
in the Constitution of the United States, was set down by Locke, as
was the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a
right but an obligation. At Shaftesbury's behest, he contributed to
the Fundamental Constitutions for the Carolinas; the colony's
proprietors, however, never implemented the document.

http://www.infoplease.com/bio/8-29jlocke.html

--------------------------------------------

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right
to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we
may say, are properly his.
  ---John Locke, "The Second Treatise On Civil Government"

Property rights are an extension to the right to life. In order to
support yourself through reason and stay alive, you must be able to
own and use the product of your labor. If the tools of your survival
are subject to random confiscation, then your life is subject to
random destruction.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html

-------------------------------------------

...This [labor theory of value] has political implications. In its
original context, it was used to support the new notion of private-
property. John Locke, in his Treatise on Government, asked by what
right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when
according to the Bible God gave the world to all humanity. He answered
that a person owns ones own labor, and that when a person labored --
even the mere labour of picking an apple off a tree -- that labor
entered into the object, and so the object became property of that
person. From this Locke and others further argued that commodities
have value because of the labor invested in them.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

--------------------------------------------

...[natural rights] - the idea that each person owns himself and
should have certain liberties that cannot be expropriated by the state
or anyone else. When someone labors for a productive end, the results
become that person's property, reasoned Locke. His conclusion that
labor contributes far more than nature to the value of goods was the
first step toward the labor theory of value, as articulated by David
Ricardo and Karl Marx.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Locke.html

---------------------------------------------

Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an
original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own
strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by
entering into a social contract under which the state provides
protective services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded
this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the
consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any
time...

political theory: in order to preserve the public good, the central
function of government must be the protection of private property...

Consider how human social life begins, in a hypothetical state of
nature: Each individual is perfectly equal with every other, and all
have the absolute liberty to act as they will, without interference
from any other. (2nd Treatise �4) What prevents this natural state
from being a violent Hobbesian free-for-all, according to Locke, is
that each individual shares in the use of the faculty of reason, so
that the actions of every human agent-even in the unreconstructed
state of nature-are bound by the self-evident laws of nature...

Understood in this way, [the_(state)_of_nature] vests each reasonable
individual with an independent right and responsibility to enforce the
natural law by punishing those few who irrationally choose to violate
it. (2nd Treatise ��7-8) Because all are equal in the state of nature,
the proportional punishment of criminals is a task anyone may
undertake. Only in cases when the precipitate action of the offender
permits no time for appeal to the common sense, reason, and will of
others, Locke held, does this natural state degenerate into the state
of war of each against all. (2nd Treatise �19)

Everything changes with the gradual introduction of private property.
Originally, Locke supposed, the earth and everything on it belongs to
all of us in common; among perfectly equal inhabitants, all have the
same right to make use of whatever they find and can use. The only
exception to this rule is that each of us has an exclusive right to
her/his own body and its actions. But applying these actions to
natural objects by mixing our labor with them, Locke argued, provides
a clear means for appropriating them as an extension of our own
personal property. (2nd Treatise �27) Since our bodies and their
movements are our own, whenever we use our own effort to improve the
natural world-the resulting products belong to us as well.

The same principle of appropriation by the investment of labor can be
extended to control over the surface of the earth as well, on Locke's
view. Individuals who pour themselves into the land-improving its
productivity by spending their own time and effort on its cultivation-
acquire a property interest in the result. (2nd Treatise �32) The
plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I
have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held
in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal
appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke
held, so long as there is "enough, and as good" left for others with
the gumption to do the same. (2nd Treatise �33)

Within reasonable limits, then, individuals are free to pursue their
own "life, health, liberty, and possessions." Of course the story gets
more complicated with the introduction of a monetary system that makes
it possible to store up value in excess of what the individual can
responsibly enjoy. (2nd Treatise �37) The fundamental principle still
applies: labor is the ultimate source of all economic value. (2nd
Treatise �42) But the creation of a monetary system requires an
agreement among distinct individuals on the artificial "value" frozen
in what is, in itself, nothing more than a bit of "colored metal."
This need for agreement, in turn, gives rise to the social order.

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm

--------------------------------------

Many people use the expression "private property" and even the word
"mine" without being acquainted with John Locke's labor theory of
property. They will find that theory stated with maximum clarity in
Chapter V of his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government.

Everyone, according to Locke, owns himself by right and the power
invested in his mind and his hands. This is the simplest declaration
of the fundamental injustice of chattel slavery, which is the
ownership of one human being by another.

After this first step, Locke proceeds by distinguishing between the
common and the proper. That which is not owned by anybody at all, yet
maybe used by all, are certain tracts of public land that the
community makes available to all members and can be used by them in
common. The famous Boston Common is an example of this distinction.
Forgetting the existence of Indian tribes in the New World of America,
Locke refers to a time when all the world was like America, given by
God to all human beings in common for their invasion and exploitation.
What any human being, invading this God-given common, appropriated to
himself or herself by his own labor became his or her private
property.

When a man, for example, caught and tamed a wild horse, that became
his horse; when he fenced in a plot of land and cultivated it by using
his horse to pull tools that he himself made my his own labor, the
resulting produce and the land itself became his private properties.

Locke thinks that no one should appropriate more than he can store for
a future day. Nothing should be wasted. Enough should be left in the
common for others to appropriate.

In one passage Locke considers the possibility of the solitary farmer
employing another person to work for him. Let us consider this more
complicated situation.

http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-prop.html

--------------------------------------

3.1 The Second Treatise of Government

Here is the subject matter of the various chapters of the Second
Treatise:

Chapter 1 Book I: the definition of Political power

Chapter II-VII: the bases of government, states of nature, war,
slavery, the nature of property

Chapters VIII-XIV: the nature of political power and legitimate civil
government

Chapter XV: recapitulates the fundamental distinctions between
paternal. political and despotic power.

Chapter XVI-XVIII: elaborates the nature of illegitimate civil
government. It specifies three forms of such illegitimacy: 1. an
unjust foreign conquest, 2. internal usurpation of political rule and
3. tyrannical extension of power by those who were originally
legitimately in power.

Chapter XIX: gives the conditions under which legitimate revolution
may occur.

Figuring out what the proper or legitimate role of civil government is
would be a difficult task indeed if one were to examine the vast
complexity of existing civil governments. How should one proceed? One
strategy is to consider what life is like in the absence of civil
government. Presumably this is a simpler state, one which may be
easier to understand. Then one might see what role civil government
ought to play. This is the strategy which Locke pursues, following
Hobbes and others. So, in the first chapter of the Second Treatise
Locke defines political power.

Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with
penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the
regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of
the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of
the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the
public good
In the second chapter of The Second Treatise Locke describes the state
in which there is no government with real political power. This is the
state of nature. It is sometimes assumed that the state of nature is a
state in which there is no government at all. This is only partially
true. It is possible to have in the state of nature either no
government, illegitimate government, or legitimate government with
less than full political power.

If we consider the state of nature before there was government, it is
a state of political equality in which there is no natural superior or
inferior. From this equality flows the obligation to mutual love and
the duties that people owe one another, and the great maxims of
justice and charity. Was there ever such a state? There has been
considerable debate about this. Still, it is plain that both Hobbes
and Locke would answer this question affirmatively. Whenever people
have not agreed to establish a common political authority, they remain
in the state of nature. It's like saying that people are in the state
of being naturally single until they are married. Locke clearly thinks
one can find the state of nature in his time at least in the inland
vacant parts of America and in the relations between different
peoples. Perhaps the historical development of states also went though
the stages of a state of nature. An alternative possibility is that
the state of nature is not a real historical state, but rather a
theoretical construct, intended to help determine the proper function
of government. If one rejects the historicity of states of nature, one
may still find them a useful analytical device. For Locke, it is very
likely both.

3.2 Human Nature and God's Purposes

According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's
property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as
individuals is survival. A wise and omnipotent God, having made people
and sent them into this world:

...by his order and about his business, they are his property whose
workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's
pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one
community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among
us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made
for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for
our's.

It follows immediately that "he has no liberty to destroy himself, or
so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use
than its bare possession calls for it." (II. ii. 5) So, murder and
suicide violate the divine purpose.

If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means
necessary to that end. On Locke's account, these turn out to be life,
liberty, health and property. Since the end is set by God, on Locke's
view we have a right to the means to that end. So we have rights to
life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights, that is
they are rights that we have in a state of nature before the
introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights
equally.

If God's purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my
species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty
and property -- then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights
to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural
equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to
life, liberty, health and property. This is the law of nature. It is
the Golden Rule, interpreted in terms of natural rights. Thus Locke
writes: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which
obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind
who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one
ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or
possessions..." (II, 6) Locke tells us that the law of nature is
revealed by reason. Locke makes the point about the law that it
commands what is best for us. If it did not, he says, the law would
vanish for it would not be obeyed. It is in this sense, I think, that
Locke means that reason reveals the law. If you reflect on what is
best for yourself and others, given the goal of survival and our
natural equality, you will come to this conclusion.

Locke does not intend his account of the state of nature as a sort of
utopia. Rather it serves as an analytical device that explains why it
becomes necessary to introduce civil government and what the
legitimate function of civil government is. Thus, as Locke conceives
it, there are problems with life in the state of nature. The law of
nature, like civil laws can be violated. There are no police,
prosecutors or judges in the state of nature as these are all
representatives of a government with full political power. The
victims, then, must enforce the law of nature in the state of nature.
In addition to our other rights in the state of nature, we have the
rights to enforce the law and to judge on our own behalf. We may,
Locke tells us, help one another. We may intervene in cases where our
own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of
nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under
these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic
principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to
the crime. But when the victims are judging the seriousness of the
crime, they are more likely to judge it of greater severity than might
an impartial judge. As a result, there will be regular miscarriages of
justice. This is perhaps the most important problem with the state of
nature.

In Chapters 3 and 4, Locke defines the states of war and slavery. The
state of war is a state in which someone has a sedate and settled
intention of violating someone's right to life. Such a person puts
themselves into a state of war with the person whose life they intend
to take. In such a war the person who intends to violate someone's
right to life is an unjust aggressor. This is not the normal
relationship between people enjoined by the law of nature in the state
of nature. Locke is distancing himself from Hobbes who had made the
state of nature and the state of war equivalent terms. For Locke, the
state of nature is ordinarily one in which we follow the Golden Rule
interpreted in terms of natural rights, and thus love our fellow human
creatures. The state of war only comes about when someone proposes to
violate someone else's rights. Thus, on Locke's theory of war, there
will always be an innocent victim on on side and an unjust aggressor
on the other.

Slavery is the state of being in the absolute or arbitrary power of
another. On Locke's definition of slavery there is only one rather
remarkable way to become a legitimate slave. In order to do so one
must be an unjust aggressor defeated in war. The just victor then has
the option to either kill the aggressor or enslave them. Locke tells
us that the state of slavery is the continuation of the state of war
between a lawful conqueror and a captive, in which the conqueror
delays to take the life of the captive, and instead makes use of him.
This is a continued war because if conqueror and captive make some
compact for obedience on the one side and limited power on the other,
the state of slavery ceases. The reason that slavery ceases with the
compact is that "no man, can, by agreement pass over to another that
which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life." (II. 4, 24)
Legitimate slavery is an important concept in Locke's political
philosophy largely because it tells us what the legitimate extant of
despotic power is and defines and illuminates by contrast the nature
of illegitimate slavery. Illegitimate slavery is that state in which
someone possesses absolute or despotic power over someone else without
just cause. Locke holds that it is this illegitimate state of slavery
which absolute monarchs wish to impose upon their subjects. It is very
likely for this reason that legitimate slavery is so narrowly
defined.

There have been a steady stream of articles over the last forty years
arguing that given Locke's involvement with trade and colonial
government, the theory of slavery in the Second Treatise was intended
to justify the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery.
This seems quite unlikely. Had he intended to do so, Locke would have
done much better with a vastly more inclusive definition of legitimate
slavery than the one he gives. It is sometimes suggested that Locke's
account of "just war" is so vague that it could easily be twisted to
justify the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery. This,
however, is also not the case. In the Chapter "Of Conquest" Locke
explicitly lists the limits of the legitimate power of conquerors.
These limits on who can become a legitimate slave and what the powers
of a just conqueror are ensure that this theory of conquest and
slavery would condemn the institutions and practices of Afro-American
slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

"Of Property" is one of the most famous, influential and important
chapters in the Second Treatise of Government. Indeed, some of the
most controversial issues about the Second Treatise come from varying
interpretations of it. In this chapter Locke, in effect, describes the
evolution of the state of nature to the point where it becomes
expedient for those in it to found a civil government. So, it is not
only an account of the nature and origin of private property, but
leads up to the explanation of why civil government replaces the state
of nature.

In discussing the origin of private property Locke begins by noting
that God gave the earth to all men in common. Thus there is a question
about how private property comes to be. Locke finds it a serious
difficulty. He points out, however, that we are supposed to make use
of the earth "for the best advantage of life and convenience." (II. 5,
25) What then is the means to appropriate property from the common
store? Locke argues that private property does not come about by
universal consent. If one had to go about and ask everyone if one
could eat these berries, one would starve to death before getting
everyone's agreement. Locke holds that we have a property in our own
person. And the labor of our body and the work of our hands properly
belong to us. So, when one picks up acorns or berries, they thereby
belong to the person who picked them up.

One might think that one could then acquire as much as one wished, but
this is not the case. Locke introduces at least two important
qualifications on how much property can be acquired. The first
qualification has to do with waste. Locke writes: "As much as anyone
can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much by
his labor he may fix a property in; whatever is beyond this, is more
than his share, and belongs to others." (II. v. 31) Since originally,
populations were small and resources great, living within the bounds
set by reason, there would be little quarrel or contention over
property, for a single man could make use of only a very small part of
what was available.

Note that Locke has, thus far, been talking about hunting and
gathering, and the kinds of limitations which reason imposes on the
kind of property that hunters and gatherers hold. In the next section
he turns to agriculture and the ownership of land and the kinds of
limitations there are on that kind of property. In effect, we see the
evolution of the state of nature from a hunter/gatherer kind of
society to that of a farming and agricultural society. Once again it
is labor which imposes limitations upon how much land can be enclosed.
It is only as much as one can work. But there is an additional
qualification. Locke says:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any
prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good
left; and more than the as yet unprovided could use. So that, in
effect, there was never the less for others because of his inclosure
for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of,
does as good as take nothing at all. No body could consider himself
injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught,
who had a whole river of the same water left to quench his thirst: and
the case of land and water, where there is enough, is perfectly the
same. (II. v. 33)

The next stage in the evolution of the state of nature involves the
introduction of money. Locke remarks that:

. ... before the desire of having more than one needed had altered the
intrinsic value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to
the life of man; or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal,
which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great
piece of flesh, or a whole heap of corn; though men had a right to
appropriate by their labor, each one of himself, as much of the things
of nature, as he could use; yet this could not be much, nor to the
prejudice of others, where the same plenty was left to those who would
use the same industry. (II. 5. 37.)

So, before the introduction of money, there was a degree of economic
equality imposed on mankind both by reason and the barter system. And
men were largely confined to the satisfaction of their needs and
conveniences. Most of the necessities of life are relatively short
lived -- berries, plums, venison and so forth. One could reasonably
barter one's berries for nuts which would last not weeks but perhaps a
whole year. And says Locke:
...if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its
color, or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling
pebble or diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not
the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things
as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his property not lying
in the largeness of his possessions, but the perishing of anything
uselessly in it. (II. 5. 146.)

The introduction of money is necessary for the differential increase
in property, with resulting economic inequality. Without money there
would be no point in going beyond the economic equality of the earlier
stage. In a money economy, different degrees of industry could give
men vastly different proportions. "This partage of things in an
inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of
the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on
gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing to the use of money: for in
governments, the laws regulate the rights of property, and the
possession of land is determined by positive constitutions." (II. 5.
50) The implication is that it is the introduction of money, which
causes inequality, which in turn causes quarrels and contentions and
increased numbers of violations of the law of nature. This leads to
the decision to create a civil government. Before turning to the
institution of civil government, however, we should ask what happens
to the qualifications on the acquisition of property after the advent
of money? One answer proposed by C. B. Macpherson is that the
qualifications are completely set aside, and we now have a system for
the unlimited acquisition of private property. This does not seem to
be correct. It seems plain, rather, that at least the non-spoilage
qualification is satisfied, because money does not spoil.

The other qualifications may be rendered somewhat irrelevant by the
advent of the conventions about property adopted in civil society.
This leaves open the question of whether Locke approved of these
changes. Macpherson, who takes Locke to be a spokesman for a proto-
capitalist system, sees Locke as advocating the unlimited acquisition
of wealth. According to James Tully, on the other side, Locke sees the
new conditions, the change in values and the economic inequality which
arise as a result of the advent of money, as the fall of man. Tully
sees Locke as a persistent and powerful critic of self-interest. This
remarkable difference in interpretation has been a significant topic
for debates among scholars over the last forty years. Let us then,
turn to the institution of civil government.

The institution of civil government comes about because of the
difficulties in the state of nature. Rather clearly, on Locke's view,
these difficulties increase with the increase in population, the
decrease in available resources, and the advent of economic inequality
which results from the introduction of money. These conditions lead to
an increase in the number of violations of the natural law. Thus, the
inconvenience of having to redress such grievances on one's own behalf
become much more acute, since there are significantly more of them.
These lead to the introduction of civil government.

3.3 The Social Contract Theory

Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the
17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Locke
a social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailing
way of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindly
adopted? I think the answer is that there is something about Locke's
project which pushes him strongly in the direction of the social
contract. One might hold that governments were originally instituted
by force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt this
view, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are at
the heart of his project in the Second Treatise. Remember that The
Second Treatise provides Locke's positive theory of government, and
that he explicitly says that he must do this "lest men fall into the
dangerous belief that "all government in the world is merely the
product of force and violence." So, while Locke might admit that some
governments come about through force or violence, he would be
destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between
legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that
legitimate civil government can come about in this way. So, for Locke,
legitimate civil government is instituted by the explicit consent of
those governed. Those who make this agreement transfer to the civil
government their right of executing the law of nature and judging
their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central
government, and this is what makes the justice system of civil
governments a legitimate function of such governments.

Ruth Grant has persuasively argued that the establishment of civil
government is in effect a two step process. Universal consent is
necessary to form a political community. Consent to join a community
once given is binding and cannot be withdrawn. This makes political
communities stable. Grant writes: "Having established that the
membership in a community entails the obligation to abide by the will
of the community, the question remains: Who rules?" (Grant, 1987 p.
115) The answer to this question is determined by majority rule. The
point is that universal consent is necessary to establish a political
community, majority consent to answer the question who is to rule such
a community. Universal consent and majority consent are thus different
in kind, not just in degree. Grant writes:

Locke's argument for the right of the majority is the theoretical
ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to
government, the distinction that permits an argument for resistance
without anarchy. When the designated government dissolves, men remain
obligated to society acting through majority rule.

It is entirely possible for the majority to confer the rule of the
community on a king and his heirs, or a group of oligarchs or on a
democratic assembly. Thus, the social contract is not inextricably
linked to democracy. Still, a government of any kind must perform the
legitimate function of a civil government.

3.4 The Function Of Civil Government

Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate
civil government and distinguish it from illegitimate civil
government. The aim of such a legitimate civil government is to
preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and
property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its
citizens who violate the rights of others others and to pursue the
public good even where this may conflict with the rights of
individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the
state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the
crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one
of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state
of nature. An illegitimate civil government will fail to protect the
rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in
the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able
to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have
despotic power over its subjects. Since Locke is arguing against the
position of Sir Robert Filmer who held that patriarchal power and
political power are the same, and that in effect these amount to
despotic power, Locke is at pains to distinguish these three forms of
power, and to show that they are not equivalent. Thus at the beginning
of Chapter XV Of Paternal, Political and Despotic power considered
together he writes: "THOUGH I have had occasion to speak of these
before, yet the great mistakes of late about government, having as I
suppose arisen from confounding these distinct powers one with
another, it may not be amiss, to consider them together." Chapters VI
and VII give Locke's account of paternal and political power
respectively. Paternal power is limited. It lasts only through the
minority of children, and has other limitations. Political power,
derived as it is from the transfer of the power of individuals to
enforce the law of nature, has with it the right to kill in the
interest of preserving the rights of the citizens or otherwise
supporting the public good. Despotic power, by contrast, implies the
right to take the life, liberty, health and at least some of the
property of any person subject to such a power.

3.5 Rebellion and Regicide

At the end of the Second Treatise we learn about the nature of
illegitimate civil governments and the conditions under which
rebellion and regicide are legitimate and appropriate. As noted above,
scholars now hold that the book was written during the Exclusion
crisis, and may have been written to justify a general insurrection
and the assassination of the king of England and his brother. The
argument for legitimate revolution follows from making the distinction
between legitimate and illegitimate civil government. A legitimate
civil government seeks to preserve the life, health, liberty and
property of its subjects, insofar as this is compatible with the
public good. Because it does this it deserves obedience. An
illegitimate civil government seeks to systematically violate the
natural rights of its subjects. It seeks to make them illegitimate
slaves. Because an illegitimate civil government does this, it puts
itself in a state of nature and a state of war with its subjects. The
magistrate or king of such a state violates the law of nature and so
makes himself into a dangerous beast of prey who operates on the
principle that might makes right, or that the strongest carries it. In
such circumstances, rebellion is legitimate as is the killing of such
a dangerous beast of prey. Thus Locke justifies rebellion and regicide
(regarded by many during this period as the most heinous of crimes)
under certain circumstances. Presumably this was the justification
that was going to be offered for the killing of the King of England
and his brother had the Rye House Plot succeeded.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/


author: tomcervo

text:
Long ago Gore Vidal stated that the Republicans and the Democrats were
merely two branches of the Property Party.


author: *Anarcissie*

text:
On Aug 3, 8:23 pm, David Oberman <doberman@etc.> wrote:

Exactly.

Who better to know...


author: tg

text:
On Aug 6, 4:30 pm, Ron Peterson <[email]> wrote:

Don't be silly. US libertarians are basically Republicans, and as far
from being anarchists as you can get.

-tg


author: Fred Weiss

text:
On Aug 7, 5:00 am, "James Whitehead" <[email]>
wrote:

Well, at least you admit it's only "half decent" - though from what I
understand even that is a generous description.

"Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who
tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it
canceled - 48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some
type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months."

http://tinylink.com/?BjOPbIECmt

Fred Weiss


author: Ron Peterson

text:
On Aug 3, 1:35 pm, [email] wrote:

Property can buy all the politicians it wants. U.S. Libertarians are
basically anti-tax anarchists and don't want to maintain a police
state that would effectively protect property.

The far right wants to prevent self-destructive behaviour of
indivduals which is at odds with the Libertarian Party who would like
to remove legal restrictions on the sale and use of drugs.

There's enough literature, but it's usually in the form of economic
literature.


text:
Because properterianism is only half a thought.  It needs considerable
development to turn it into public policy.

Might as well form a political party in favour of apple pie.

[email] wrote:


text:
no, it's because fascists don't want to come out of the closet and so
purport to be for liberty when it's all just about their own property.

On 7 ago, 00:11, mjt95 <[email]> wrote:


text:
On Aug 7, 12:34?pm, Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

Consider the source--the author works for the Manhattan Institute; the
instant he admits that socialized medicine is less than a living hell
on earth he goes back to looking down throats for a living.
If it's so goddam awful why do polled Canadians prefer it in such
decisive numbers to the US system?


text:
On 8 ago, 01:40, tomcervo <[email]> wrote:

not in wuss' dictionary, or should i say pictionary

--the author works for the Manhattan Institute; the


text:
On Aug 7, 7:40 pm, tomcervo <[email]> wrote:

Consider logic. Do you know what the ad hominem fallacy is?

Consider cause and effect. I rather suspect he already considered
socialized medicine - not to mention socialism in general - a "living
hell" which is why he chose to associate with the Manhattan Institute
in the first place.

So now that we have removed any semblance of either logic or a
recognition of causality from your "argument", there's not much left
to it, is there?

As for polls, they are essentially meaningless since genuine free
market medicine no longer exists and hasn't for a long time. The gov't
has so distorted and crippled it that people no longer have any
conception of what it would be. So they support "the devil they know"
more out of fear - and the fear-mongering of socialists - than
knowledgeable choice. However, it is notable that many Canadians do in
fact cross the border to get medical care - and at great additional
personal expense, since they are forced to continue subsidizing the
socialized system in Canada despite the fact that they choose not to
use it (or, really, endure it).

Fred Weiss


text:
On Aug 7, 11:12 am, tg <[email]> wrote:

But, Republicans aren't for the legalization of drugs.


author: Day Brown

text:
Neither atheism nor Christianity can produce a decent republic and
find the rational space between anarchy & tyranny, nor socialism &
capitalism. Whatever the merits of Libertarianism, its going nowhere
because of the power of mass media to manipulate the minds of the
masses. Rational discourse only works with a rational electorate.

We dont have that.


text:
On Aug 8, 2:17 pm, Ron Peterson <[email]> wrote:

Nonsense. Read what you just quoted and then explain how something can
be "wrong with the US government" from an anarchist point of view.
There's an anarchist point of view, and then there's the US
libertarian<cough>Republican point of view. Anarchists think that
having a state is a bad idea, and liberepublicans think having a state
is a great idea, as long as the violence serves their perceived self-
interest.

-tg


text:
On Aug 8, 10:11 am, [email] wrote:

Do you, Blob?

Why don't you tell us?

Fred Weiss


text:
Ron Peterson wrote:

What's your point? The underlying philosophy is the same---for the
state, against anarchy.

-tg


text:
On Aug 8, 5:05 am, [email] wrote:

Libertarians are for anarchy by advocating the dissolution of most
aspects of the government. Government welfare would disappear. Drug
laws would disappear. National defense would become minimal. If
Libertarians were in control the US wouldn't be in Iraq (e.g. Ron
Paul).


text:
On 8 ago, 05:09, Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

again, too fucking ambitious, wuss.

Do you know what the ad hominem fallacy is?

lies and more lies, only thing you're good at, wuss.


text:
On 8 ago, 15:20, Ron Peterson <[email]> wrote:

no, that's a lie. the very reason ''libertarians'' claim to be against
gubbamunt is because they're the closest thing the government there
is. they're pure utter heartless 1914 capitalism.


text:
On Aug 8, 9:20 am, Ron Peterson <[email]> wrote:

I think you need to look up the word "anarchy".  By your theory, a
person who was for all kinds of socialist institutions would also be
"for anarchy" or a "libertarian" if they advocated the elimination of
current laws on recreational drug use, and/or refrained from invading
other countries. Is that your position?

-tg


text:
On Aug 8, 9:53 am, tg <[email]> wrote:

Emma Goldman defines anarchism as "ANARCHISM:-The philosophy of a new
social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory
that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong
and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

U.S. drug laws and military actions are examples of what is wrong with
the U.S. government from an anarchist and Libertarian point of view
and not a way of defining anarchism or Libertarianism as others may
have a similar view.

Some socialists are also anarchists and were critical of strong
socialist states such as the Soviet Union.


text:
I dont waste space here characterizing the comments of others.
The Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, are clubs for rich
lawyers.

The policies promoted are severely limited by group think in both
cases.
Like GW Bush, many of these leaders own "ranches", which are merely
hobby farms where they get to play cowboy with real cows. The farm
bill has been in large part crafted to minimize the expenses of this
hobby. That has a lot to do with driving farm families off the land.

The remainder is now but 1% of the population, and the urbanites dont
hear anything they have to say in the mass media. Even in the Iowa
primaries, very few of the people who have a voice in the process are
actually farmers.

I dont post this thinking it will result in any policy change, but to
warn those few who can think outside of the partisan boxes referred to
above, that this kind of thing has led to the collapse of great
empires before. Those republics which have relied on the farmer's sons
to man their armies survived. Those that relied on the slave labor of
landed aristocracy always fell into tyranny.


author: David P.

text:
Day Brown <[email]> wrote:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was
the case with the Greeks and Romans, and
must be that of every free state."
  -- Thomas Jefferson

    It would be more equitable having each individual fight the flu
on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each
other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza,
everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men.
.
.


author: David Oberman

text:
tomcervo <[email]> wrote:

He must have announced that from the balcony of his opulent palazzo on
the Gulf of Salerno.

____
The clouds never expect it
 when it rains
But the sea changes color
 but the sea does not change

           -- Wordsworth


author: James Whitehead

text:
">

we did that in the UK - its taking years to get our health services and
education back to half decent - and ruined the conservative party who said
you could do what you think - fooling most of the people - but only some of
the time...


author: Bill Steele

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

Please continue this fascinating discussion without the idiotic
cross-posting to entertainment groups.  Surely such erudite philosophers
should be able to read what it says at the top of the message and think
about what it means?


author: ** CRAM **

subject: cyberspace standoff over privacy vs. security

text:
The New York Times, January 2, 1996, Business, p. 14

   Viewpoint: J. Walker Smith

   Standoff in Cyberspace Gulch

   In the new frontier that is cyberspace, a showdown is
   shaping up as the law moves into town. On one side is a
   band of cybercitizens bent on protecting their privacy as
   they explore this unmapped territory. On the other are the
   lawmakers charged with safeguarding all cybercitizens from
   crime, even if it means forcing them to give up some of
   their privacy by, say, signing in as they enter town.

   This is how the public debate over cyberspace security has
   been framed. And on-line users are, indeed, worried about
   security. Yankelovich Partners surveyed 400 randomly
   selected on-line users, aged 16 and older, by telephone in
   mid-October and found that 90 percent agree that better
   Internet security is needed to insure that personal and
   financial information is not accessible to unauthorized
   people. Nearly 80 percent believe it is too easy for one's
   credit card number to be stolen if used on the Internet.
   And almost 70 percent agree that pornography on the
   Internet has gone far beyond reasonable bounds.

   Women even more than men (81 percent versus 55 percent)
   believe that more regulation is needed to police the
   Internet and that the kinds of information accessible on
   the Internet need to be more closely regulated (75 percent
   versus 49 percent).

   The concerns are not unjustified. Recent headlines tell of
   network security breaches and the growth of cyber-porn.
   Arrests of renegade hackers and crusades against indecent
   material have brought some comfort. But as outlaws are
   brought to justice and the momentum builds for laws to make
   the system secure, the risks to privacy have been loudly
   denounced.

   A cyberspace that offered privacy, security and decency
   would clearly be preferred. But recognizing that this
   simply may not be technologically achievable, most on-line
   users put security and decency ahead of absolute privacy.
   Fifty-three percent of cybercitizens agree that
   guaranteeing Internet security is more important than
   worrying about the privacy of each user.

   This is not really surprising. What is special about
   cyberspace is not that users can operate in anonymity, but
   that their online experiences are under their own control.
   In cyberspace, users choose their own combinations of
   information and entertainment from a new wealth of options,
   and are thrilled by the power to interact with other users.
   It is likely, in fact, that as software improves, on-line
   users will find it in their self-interest to reveal more
   and more about themselves so the interactive system can
   cater easily to their needs and preferences. The appeal in
   this is already being discovered. A broader Yankelovich
   survey of 600 adults (16 and older) in October showed the
   percentage of on-line users among American adults at a new
   high of 16 percent, up from 6 percent only a year ago. And
   in a similar survey of 414 cybercitizens by the firm last
   May, 71 percent of respondents found it highly desirable to
   be able to receive customized information, while only 35
   percent felt the same about a guarantee of anonymity.

   None of this, of course, implies that privacy should not be
   secured when possible. But in no way should it distract
   regulators from maintaining order and decency on this new
   frontier, nor should it be allowed to defeat the progress
   of commercial ventures. Special care should be taken to
   safeguard the power of individual users to navigate choices
   as they wish. The paramount consideration, in fact, should
   be increasing the resources available to make cybercitizens
   out of all people and to see that computer networks become
   an accessible, civilized public domain.

   But who should lead this regulation? Cybercitizens in
   general are unsure. A sizable majority, 63 percent, believe
   that it is only a matter of time before government will
   have to step in to regulate the Internet, but only a
   minority, 42 percent, think that would work. Self-policing
   is apparently not the answer either; 51 percent think that
   would fail.

   The quandary here -- that regulations are both thought to
   be needed, yet anticipated to fail -- is the biggest issue,
   and one that puts additional pressure on the limits of
   cyberspace privacy. This crisis of confidence, as much as
   lawlessness itself, could easily choke the growth of
   cyberspace.

   J. Walker Smith is a managing partner in Atlanta for
   Yankelovich Partners and author of the Cybercitizen Survey.

   [End]

   Readers may submit opinion articles to Viewpoint and
   articles on personal experiences to From the Desk Of, Money
   and Business, The New York Times, 229 West 43d Street, New
   York 10036, or send E-mail in care of <[email]>
   or <[email]>. All submissions become the
   property of The Times. They may be edited and may be
   republished in any medium. If manuscripts are accepted for
   publication, authors will be notified within two weeks.

 \   \   \   \   \   \   \   \   \   |   /   /   /   /   /   /   /   /   /   /
          _______       ________          _____        _____  _____
         ///   \\\      |||   \\\        /// \\\       |||\\\///|||
        |||     ~~      |||   ///       |||   |||      ||| \\// |||
        |||     __      |||~~~\\\       |||~~~|||      |||  ~~  |||
         \\\   ///      |||    \\\      |||   |||      |||      |||
          ~~~~~~~       ~~~     ~~~     ~~~   ~~~      ~~~      ~~~
 /   /   /   /   /   /   /   /   /   |   \   \   \   \   \   \   \   \   \   \

C y b e r s p a t i a l  R e a l i t y  A d v a n c e m e n t  M o v e m e n t

--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                [email]
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    [email]
If you have any problems, address them to          [email]


subject: Re: cyberspace standoff over privacy vs. security

text:
** CRAM ** ([email]) wrote:

:    In the new frontier that is cyberspace, a showdown is
:    shaping up as the law moves into town. On one side is a
:    band of cybercitizens bent on protecting their privacy as
:    they explore this unmapped territory. On the other are the
:    lawmakers charged with safeguarding all cybercitizens from
:    crime, even if it means forcing them to give up some of
:    their privacy by, say, signing in as they enter town.

what's amusing is that the lawmakers are not only completely
clueless, but also completely irrelevant in regards to cyberspace.

and pretty soon (because of this trend), they will be completely
irrelevant in regards to the real world, too.

hey, Uncle Sam, don't feel bad.  it was lots of fun while it lasted.

<g>

                      zzz                                             zzz
                      zzz                                             zzz
                      zzz                                             zzz
 zzzz zzz  zz zzzzzz  zzzzzz   zzzzz zzzzzz  zzzzzzz  zzz  zz zzzzzz  zzz  zz
zzz   zzz  zz zzz  zz zzz  zz zzz z  zzz  zz zzz  zzz zzz  zz zzz  zz zzzzz
 zzzz  zzzzzz zzzzzz  zzz  zz  zzzzz zzz     zzzzzzz   zzzzzz zzz  zz zzz  zz
           zz zzz                            zzz
zzzzzzzzzzzz  zzz   to communicate is Human  zzz  to encrypt is Divine


author: Dennis Edwards

text:
Again, the Internet is not a public utility. If you don't like this
network, go find another one to suit your needs.

It's not.

Right. 80% BELIEVE. NOT 80% KNOW.
It's MUCH more difficult that, say, tapping someones phone line to get
their credit card number. Much of this is hype caused by companies
such as Netscape and others who wish to promote their secure products.

Again, on what authority? This only proves that pornography is out
there.

These people don't even understand what the Internet really is. It's
not something that was built for them. THey choose to use it.

Goes right along with the growth of the internet itself.

53%. From what area? What country? Where? 53% doesn't cut it Jack...
The internet isn't a fucking democracy.

And it would be NOTHING like the cyberspace we have. Obviously you
don't know anything about how it works,either.

And it's up to them to limit what informatino they give.

Do you think that a poll of even a few thousand people can be an
acurate reflection of the overall opinion of millions of people? Did
you survey anyone outside of the USA? People who'se lives and needs
and customs are different then your own?

maintaining order and decency will be up to individual providers, and
will be dictated by their users.

They already can navigate choices as they wish. This will not change.
Fine. You want a network for everyone. GO make one. Don't tell us to
change ours.

Right. Again, are these people technically minded? Do they now how
impossible this is?

51% of the tiniest fraction of the millions of people using the net.

In other words, be responsible for your own bloody actions.
Lawlessness choke the growht? Someone does something to a provider
that the provider doesn't like, the provider removes them.  Plain and
simple.

What drivel. Keep this stuff where it belongs; in tabloids.

God. Nice name...

Oh wow. Why leave the address to reply to and use an anonymous server?
Get a grip.

-
Dennis Edwards
[email]
CSG Network Services
Cyberstore Systems Inc.


author: Craig Berndt

text:
In Article<[email]>, <[email]> write:
\
t


author: TerryR

text:
[email] (Dennis Edwards) wrote:

Wow, take it easy.  It's suppose to be an article.  You're absolutely
right in a lot of the things you state...but who are you lashing out
at?

Point of fact, historically people have given up freedoms to preserve
their own security.   Gerry Spence, a reknowned trial attorney, wrote
a book "FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY" that deals with this issue.  In the
books he cites quite a few examples where people (specifically,
Americans) have "given" up their rights to get a greater sense of
security.  To me this means that as long as the average person
"perceives" a threat to their personal security, they will "pay the
price" for that security.  What is the answer?  IMHO, the best way is
to eliminate that "threat".  How?  That is the tough one....one man's
poison is another man's dessert.  I still think that the new law will
have to go through numerous court cases to be able to define
"indecent".  I've heard here where people have stated that abortion
issues will not be able to be discussed on Usenet.  If that is the
case, the precedent will be set that abortion issues will NOT be able
to be discussed anywhere...TV, newsprint, support groups, etc.  My
bigger concern is the irresponsible behavior that is sometimes found
on Usenet.  Things like forged postings and e-mails, unjustifiable
inflammatory remarks, misrepresentation of opinion as fact, etc.  A
few of the long term participants will know those for what they are.
But imagine a newbie just coming online, sees some of the postings,
reads some of the accusations and misrepresentations.  What do you
think will be going through their minds?  The article, or whatever,
stated that the majority of the women feel more regulation is
required.  Why?  What is it that makes those people feel that way?

Terry


author: Peter Brewer

text:
In article <[email]>,
Dennis Edwards <[email]> wrote:

Its easier than that. What happens when your credit card disappears at
your favorite eatery? Someone could be making a duplicate all of the
time is outside of your range of vision! Forget netscape and the
Internet my stock, mutual funds, investment firm ( hint: Peter Lynch
used to work for them ) keeps giving out supposedly private/sensitive
information to stock brokers who keep making cold calls to my house!

The Internet is a haven of privacy compared to giving information
to your local motor vehicle bureau ... particularly your SSN!

-- peter


author: Michael Kelly

text:
[email] (TerryR) wrote:

[snip]

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

If you eliminate the "threat" then another will be
quickly manufactured.  The Soviet threat(tm) has
been eliminated, right?  So now we have "terrorism,"
drugs and all the rest of it.

They keep changing the names, not the policies.
As another example, the installing of puppet governments
to ease foreign investment used to be called "nationbuilding"
but now I'm sure it has some name with the word "democracy"
in it.  It's the same policy.  Neocolonialism.

[snip]

Read L. Fletcher Prouty's book JFK for
some thoughts on how they use the
external threat to maximize their own
power.

Enjoy. :)

ciao


author: Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

subject: Biblical Archaeological Review - what is its perspective?

text:
The perspective of the Biblical Archaeological
Review is attested to by its founder and editor,
Hershel Shanks, in a recent interview regarding
the "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua" (James,
son of Joseph, brother of Jesus) ossuary ...

---
 Oct. 24, 2002
 In the name of the brother
 http://makeashorterlink.com/?P3FA14B32

 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1035430650013)
---

Excerpt from interview with Hershel Shanks, founder
and editor of Biblical Archaeological Review:

Question: News reports say this is the first archeolo-
gical discovery to corroborate New Testament refer-
ences to Jesus. Had anyone seriously suggested that
Jesus didn't exist?

Answer: I suppose there are some crazies who doubted
it, but no, not really.

- - - end excerpt - - -

That answer says a lot about the perspective of the
BAR, claiming that doubt regarding a supposed man/
christ/son of God/salvation-promoting prophet, an icon
of religious faiths (either desired or claimed to have
been manifested with disparate and irreconcilable
interpretations by three major monotheistic religions),
who goes by the name Yeshua (Jesus), a name in
widespread use at the time the supposed "super-
natural superman" would have existed, marks you
as a "crazy".

Another excerpt from Shanks, regarding the ossuary:

 ... It brings this [ancient] world into view. It provides a
bridge to a 2,000-year-old reality. It is almost a fantasy
world for us; it was a very different world from ours. This
ossuary is visual - a tactile piece of that world. It is almost
like going on a pilgrimage in time.

It gives us insights not just into miracles and theology,
but into the everyday aspects of how Jewish people lived
and buried their dead in a Jewish way. ...

- - - end excerpt - - -

He acts like this is the holy grail or the first example of
a mention of Yeshua (Jesus) on an ossuary. It's not,
there are several of them. Here's a link to one profound
find indicating a dead Yeshua (Jesus), son of Joseph,
containing boxes inscribed with the names Joseph, Mary,
another Mary, Matthew, and Judah, "son of Jesus" ...

Christianity empty without faith in resurrection
Saturday, April 11, 1998
 http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/ba041198.htm

- - -

Shanks is patently pushing-promoting religious faith,
and presuming the "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua"
is linked to the bible characters.

Also of note, Shanks doesn't mention that the ossuary
was looted from a burial site. Also of note, Shanks
mentioned that the looting / selling of the ossuary was
done by Arabs, implying that somehow added legiti-
macy to the find, even though he comments that both
the looter and the seller of the ossuary are unknown.
Also, the Israeli-born collector is anonymous.

So, basically, what we have is an ossuary with no public
(known-traceable) source, and the BAR promoting it as
legitimate, even going so far as to have a claimed loca-
tion for the find. How can they claim a location if the ossu-
ary was looted? Did the looter brag about where he stole
the ossuary from, or was the supposed location concocted
or merely asserted, without evidence, akin to the claimed
63 C.E. date with nothing but supposition to support that.

As for the tests BAR did, on its authenticity, once again,
an entity with an agenda is predisposed to select indivi-
duals, such as Father Joseph Fitzmyer (referenced in
the article) to support their suppositions. Independent
validation and review? Not yet done (and as of yet, there
have been no reports that any independent study is
planned or allowed, although such a controversial claim
is bound to illicit a desire, if not demand, by independent
entities to obtain permission to study the ossuary and its
claimed origins).

That interview with BAR founder / editor Shanks only con-
firms the statement by Daniel Lazare (author of a recent
cover story in the U.S. magazine "Harper's" subtitled
"Archeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History") regard-
ing the "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua" (James, son
of Joseph, brother of Jesus) ossuary ...

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty - Israel: Scholars
Disagree Over Reported Ossuary Of Jesus' Brother, James
 http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/23102002155823.asp

Excerpts:

 ... One of the problems with the James ossuary is
that its provenance is muddy. It apparently was looted
from an ancient burial plot and sold. It was not found
in an established archaeological site, where its environ-
ment would have been meticulously recorded.

"Harper's" writer [Daniel] Lazare [author of a recent
cover story in the U.S. magazine "Harper's" subtitled
"Archeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History"]
comments: "But it's a longshot. It doesn't mean it's
impossible. It's just unlikely. And the fact that it was
not recovered through a recognized archaeological dig
but was found on the open market does compromise
it, as well."

 ... eagerness to find historic evidence, writer Lazare
says, contributes to a problem. In his "Harper's" article,
Lazare says that many Biblical archaeologists make the
nonscientific error of beginning from a set of beliefs
and then fitting the evidence they discover into those
beliefs: "[This view] tends to assume that whatever
archaeologists find will somehow buttress Christian or
Jewish faith, and tends to look at it from that perspec-
tive."

Lazare continues: "Well, the 'Biblical Archeology Review'
is a very interesting publication. It's kind of imbued with
that kind of mentality. It's a magazine that's written for
and read by believers." ...

- - - end excerpts - - -

~~~
 Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 (Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
 Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
 http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~


author: godlessheathen

subject: Re: Biblical Archaeological Review - what the HELL IS IT?????

text:
Explain "Biblical Archaeology".  Archaeology is science and science NEVER
starts with an expected outcome-- scientific method uses "observation
without expectation".  "Biblical Archaeology" starts with the expected
outcome that biblical events are true.  These two states of mind are
mutually exclusive.  "Biblical Archaeology" is an oxymoron. As is "creation
science".

Bob....

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&
cid=1035430650013)


author: JTEM

text:
"godlessheathen" <[email]> wrote

It's not unlike "UFO Archaeology."

Not necessarily. That may be 60, 70 or even 90% true, but
it isn't entirely true.

Even some of the purely religious-based archaeology isn't
pure crap. Most of it is -- there's no denying that -- but
enough of isn't to warrent a little "scientific" tolerance.

A good example is "The house of Peter" found some years
back. The assumptions used to identify the house are anything
but baseless. What is "Wrong" and "unscientific" is to
positively identify the house as having belonged to Peter.
There are other plausable explainations -- ruling out a
positive identification -- even if the assumptions made by
the "Biblical" archaeologists are fairly sound.

A bad example is the recent ossuary of "James, brother of
Jesus." This is being widely reported as "Proof" of the
historical Jesus, and even the great stature of "Jesus" as
it would be unusual (to say the least) for a brother to be
named on an ossuary.

Why is that "bad" archaeology and bad "biblical" archaeology?

Well, the ossuay of "Jesus, son of Joseph" was found years
ago and dating to the same biblical period.

Only problem is, you don't need a bone-box for someone
who rose from the dead, in the flesh, and left his tomb behind.

So the biblical "Archaeologists" just kind of set that one aside,
claiming that it was all "coincidence."

When "James" is found, however, their very own standard
of "proof" flew right out the window, proving that they're
not so much "archaeologists" as they are "cheerleaders."


author: Bob

text:
"godlessheathen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:pzpv9.7030$[email]...
"creation

Whoa! Cool the engines! Chill out.

1) "archeology" is not science, it is a field in the humanities that seeks
to develop an understanding of the cultural chronology of the past through
artifacts.
2) archeology relies upon the scientific method for the authentication of
the chronology of purported artifacts. However, for the interpretation of
these artifacts (once authenticated) archeology has never been nor could
ever be "scientific."
3) there has never been an objective scientist anywhere. Quite in spite of
the desire for openness of result, it only exists in mundane matters. In
that sense there has never been nor ever will be a true scientist in any
field.
4) the standard of objectiveness demanded by mature science is only upon the
a) the repeatable structure of an experiment or event, b) the measurements
used to gather data, and c) The interpretation of data according to strict
statistical principle. Even under these constraints, vast areas of
"SCIENTIFIC" theory and "SCIENTIFIC" analysis force all areas of SCIENCE to
sustain a large body of thought that is far from objective.
5) I think you are confusing the term "scientific method" with the term
"science." They are not the same. The intellectual struggle with the data
and the manipulation and measurement of the data are two separate dynamics.
Both belong to science, only one is more objective.
_____________________________

The truth is, all areas of science are driven purely by political and
cultural clout. The scientific method is merely the requirement for various
procedural protocols. Notwithstanding, theories come and go based more upon
"who is who" than "what is what."

Einstein was not the first to balk at theories of space, or to even suggest
many of the principles he established. But he was such an amazing and
influential person that the social pressure to take him seriously could not
be ignored. His theories were outstanding but it was the political climate
that permitted him to be heard.

Truth in science is actually very raw, leads to few further conclusions, and
is mundane. It is the agendas of the personalities involved vying for
political king pin positions that determines what will be accepted as the
"reasonable" conclusions drawn from the data.

The methods of science are aimed at objectiveness more so than the methods
of government politicians, but if you think the politics are absent in what
gets the wink of credibility in any field of science, then you have not been
a scientist for very long.


author: Marvin Edwards

text:
"godlessheathen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:pzpv9.7030$[email]...

starts with an expected outcome-- scientific method uses "observation
without expectation".  "Biblical Archaeology" starts with the expected
outcome that biblical events are true. <

Apparently some events described in the Bible are based on actual historical
events. Archaeologists take advantage of ancient documents to locate cities
that once existed. It makes more sense to dig where you expect to find
something.


author: Sparkup

text:
"godlessheathen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:pzpv9.7030$[email]...
"creation

Im guessing its like Ancient Roman archaeology, or Egyptology. It references
a particular area of study.
It does not necessarily indicate any preconceptions, although I would
presume that it would attract archaeologists who hold beliefs that are in
harmony with the bible.

(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&


author: Tichy

text:
"JTEM" <[email]> wrote in message news:<eaJv9.158059$md1.34368@sccrnsc03>...

<snip>

1)  James, Joshua (or "Jesus"), and Joseph were all common names.  The
ossuary of James is the probabilistically most notable, especially
given the order of the names.
2)  While noting that the authenticity of the "Jesus" ossuary has
little bearing on the gospel narrative one way or another, at what
point after death was an ossuary typically inscribed?  Might such an
inscription be the sort of thing conducted by Joseph of Arimethea as
part of the burial preparation?

Again, the James ossuary is considerably more astounding
probabilistically.

The name "James" was apparenty the rarest of the three, contributing
to the statistical support for the recent find (in terms of potential
significance).

Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP


text:
"Marvin Edwards" <[email]> wrote in message news:wStv9.1045$[email]...

Hmmm ... ever heard of Vedic Archaeology -or- Quranic
Archaeology? godlessheathen's point (that archaeology
and science should, ideally, be done in as objective a man-
ner as possible) is put in doubt by Shanks' comment (Shanks,
the founder/editor of the Biblical Archaeological Review) in
response to the question: "Had anyone seriously suggested
that Jesus didn't exist?"

Shanks' Answer: "I suppose there are some crazies who
doubted it, but no, not really."

There appears to be a blind spot in the perspective of many
who confuse religious myth/fantasies with historical facts
and with what is required for estimable historical research.

Even Time magazine recently chimed in with "Almost no
educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.
Some accept it on faith, others on the testimony of a brace
of ancient chroniclers, both Christian and Roman."

Almost no educated person? Plenty of educated people
doubt the amalgamation of personages and myths (asserted
to be the New Testamyth Jesus) existed.

A brace of ancient chroniclers, both Christian and Roman?
I don't know what that means, "brace". How many is that?
By definition, a Christian believer in the Jesus of New
Testamyth fame is a believer based on faith. Hard to dis-
believe when you've been taught (or have decided) that
your immortal salvation depends on believing Jesus
existed, as a human godlike thingie. The New Testamyth
asserts that your immortal salvation is based on that, be-
lief in the Jesus man/myth - you better not say myth, if you
are of christian faith, 'cause the New Testamyth claims
you'll be tossed in a lake of fire if you don't believe.

Heavy stuff, that, the belief seduction (immortality) and
promises of torment (blackmail). Difficult for many who
have been exposed to all that as "Truth(tm)" to even
come close to doubt regarding such a man as being
pure myth rather than God man.

Now, we could go into the lack of historical evidence that
a Jesus (of New Testamyth fame) existed and the dispu-
tation regarding the scant mention by a very few, notable
among them, Josephus and his scant disputed references
to both James and Jesus, as well as to the fact that *no*
historian wrote about him in the day and age he would
have been alive (had he ever really existed), but instead
of all that (discussed endlessly in many threads, and I'll
be more than happy to discuss it, again, if anyone is inter-
ested), I'll sum this reply by saying ...

 ... To call doubters "crazy" and to assert that "almost no
educated person doubts that a Jesus man (that is even
close to anything mentioned in the New Testamyth)
existed" is pejorative, biased, misinformed, misleading,
in error, an insult to logic / reason / doubt, and typical of
the impact that over 1,000 years of the darkest period in
human history (christian rule of the western world) had on
our ability, in this day and age, to reasonably assess the
evidence and lack of evidence regarding that claimed
supernaturalistic superman who over 3 billion (2 billion
christians, 1 billion muslims) treat as a real human, based
purely on faith in God / Allah.

~~~
 Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 (Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
 Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
 http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~


author: [redacted]

text:
In talk.atheism Tichy <[email]> wrote:

aparently, the ossuaries were used some years after the burial when/if the
bones needed to be exhumed to make room for another person. Space was
aparently rather tight around that time.


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:keTx9.6078$[email]...
news:<eaJv9.158059$md1.34368@sccrnsc03>...

Used, yes.  My question concerns preparation of the ossurary, not the use of
the ossuary.  How was one body discerned from another, if more than one was
placed within a tomb, for instance?  Were the wrappings distinctive?
Wrist-bands, like in the hospital?  Or perhaps was the later-to-be used
ossuary placed where it would identify its future (or so it was thought)
contents?

<snip, 'cause Mike was done commenting>

Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP


text:
Piggybacking . . .

<[email]> wrote in message
news:keTx9.6078$[email]...
news:<eaJv9.158059$md1.34368@sccrnsc03>...

If you research it enough, you'll find that three ossuaries with that
inscription have been found.  So, either it means that the names really were
common (as alleged) or you can look at it positively (for an atheist) and
figure that having three improves the odds that one of them really was that
of Jesus of Nazareth.

Though Marczyk may not elect that path since it suggests a historical Jesus
. . .
;-)

Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP


text:
In talk.atheism Tichy <[email]> wrote:

I don't think they'd have prepared them in advance because they weren't
always needed, etc. Apparently (and I could be WAY off base here :) if
someone was buried in a cave and they needed the space later for another
body, they'd make a box and remove the bones of the first person and put
them into the box. Then they'd bury the second person. But not all people
would have to be removed and only one person would be in place at a time so
there'd be no need for the box ahead of time.


author: Ollie Clark

subject: Re: Police chief calls for £7 pint

text:
Uno Hoo! wrote:

Not if they're paying for them almost 3 times over.

Yes, but they pay an inordinate ammount of tax, far more than it costs the
NHS to treat them.

If anything, smokers are subsidising non-smokers healthcare. Next time you
see someone lighting up, be sure to thank them. :-)

You probably hadn't seen my other post giving the numbers when you read
this so I'll let you off but you should really do some research before
making unfounded claims.


author: Phil Stovell

subject: Re: Police chief calls for £7 pint

text:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:58:17 +0100, Cynic wrote:

I wonder if boozers, through the tax and excise duty on their drugs, have
paid for all the carnage they cause, including police time and hospital
admissions?


subject: Re: Police chief calls for £7 pint

text:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:47:33 +0100, DHP wrote:

Rubbish.

If everybody stopped smoking and drinking today what would happen?

True, there would be less hospital admissions. BUT the smokers and
drinkers pay more than they cost into the government's spending pot. The
result would be us non smokers and those non drinkers paying more in
taxes. The ex- smokers and drinkers would be rich beyond their wildest
cough and vomit.

They indirectly fund the NHS (as can be said for every other tax). Remove
the revenue and it'll come from elsewhere. Not to mention people living
longer.


subject: Re: Police chief calls for £7 pint

text:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:16:43 +0100, DHP wrote:

Doesn't refute my argument that if smokers and boozers stop everybody will
have to pay more in different taxes to maintain all the services we have
now, does it?

I know - lets legalise and regulate cannabis FOR ADULTS and get even more
hospital beds.


author: phil-osophy

subject: Anti-Drug Campaigners - Please Read

text:
I have but 1 question for you all, please tell me if you have ever
taken drugs yourself? i will reply with an answer i already know, thanks


subject: Re: Anti-Drug Campaigners - Please Read

text:
bobbie sellers wrote:

Hi, liked the post, my writing and grammer aint the greatest, this
you'll have to excuse. The reason for the question to anti-drug
campaigners was the same reason as your reply.

Everyday uneducated people (i call small box thinkers) see only what
they are told and form the beleif solidly, instead of using their head
a bit.

Like you was saying, caffeine, coca cola tobacco, alcohol (probably the
worst), asprin.  People take these "drugs" everyday, i dont doubt 90%
of anti-drug campaigners do take some sort of drugs, wether medical or
everyday stimulants suce as coffee, tea, tobacco and the one that makes
me laugh the most, alcohol.

You could be sat in a pub and overhear 2 drinkers calling somebody who
smokes a little weed from time to time a junkie, hopeless drug addict,
contradictory to say the least but i feel a little sorry for these
people who don't have the brainpower to figure out they are doing
exactly the same thing.

For the Anti-drug camapaigners, have you ever taken an illegal drug?
probably not, my frustration is this, how can you be against something
you have never experienced, you cant really have a say on it.  Even if
you don't take illegal drugs, do you drink coffee or smoke ciggarettes
or take an asperin for a headache, if you do, and i bet you do, you are
the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

There's the argument for legal/illegal drugs, no such thing, they are
all 1 in the same thing if you drink coffee or snort cocaine you are
changing your natural state of being, speeding it up, coffee can cause
insomnia in people and lack of sleep is extremely damaging to health,
so can cocaine, i'm going to finish with my personal view on drugs,
anti-drug campaigners, and the reason i think people use and abuse
drugs.

Firstly i'll say, i know my writing can lead astray at times (must be
the drugs lol)
I think that if drugs of all types where to be legalized it would take
it away from the streets, if the government was to sell these drugs
they would be clean drugs, as to the dirty stuff on the streets, i now
hear they are putting heroin inside herbal marijuana just to make
people feel dopey, over the years i have taken all kinds of drugs,
sometimes feeling myself getting gripped by a drug, this is the main
part, being able to say no and i have, with ease, ok not so many are so
lucky to say no.  I know if i let it grip me my life will be ruined,
people abuse them because for 1 they are illegal, that plays an immense
part and 2 it fills gaps and takes away "reality".

I'm not really for or against drugs, they are what they are, i can
control myself on them where as others can't maybe if they where
educated well enough, not government crap like DON'T DO IT it will kill
you, that's like saying don't push this button to a child, its human
nature to seek these things, we are naturally curious.

If drugs where legalized and controlled and people where educated more
with something like:-  If your going to take drugs look at the long
term effect of this user that user, you only need to look at hollands
laws to understand that by legalizing you are giving people choice,
which they are fully entitled to and usually the law is respected.


author: bobbie sellers

subject: Re: Anti-Drug Campaigners - Please Read

text:
On 13 Jan 2007 02:53:29 -0800,"phil-osophy",  wrote

    If you have ever drunk a Coca-Colaï¿½ or similar "soft" drink you have
commenced down the long path of life as a drug user.  It is full of
caffiene, a drug to which by dint of my abuse of coffee in my 30s I
evolved an exteme sensitivity.  I say abuse but it was only 3 or 4 cups
a day.
    If you have ever smoked tobacco or drunk alcohol you have flirted with
the deadliest and most addictive of drugs.  Especially if you are youthful
as the sound of your handle indicates.

    Take a look at my tag lines, I drink cocoa and eat chocolate
every day. That is a tiny bit of caffiene and a bit of theobromine.
    Cocoa and chocolate along with other drug bearing herbs and
plants are proof that Divine(?) Providence looks after idiot humans
very well.

    Outlawing relatively harmless herbs has created a vast criminal
enterprise in supplying simply extractions of the more active ingredients
as white powders(hopefully).  These white powders approach the addictive
effects of tobacco but generally do less harm to the body than alcohol.
The white powders were devised sometimes in pharmaceutical labs for
products that are still in use by physicians or with a physician's
prescription, but are used by criminals because they are easier to
smuggle than the raw extract of opium or coco leaves.

    Aspirin is a deadly drug and is sold over the counter and
so are a host of others.

    Drugs can be very useful and the term covers a host of chemicals
that help keep your blood pressure down or up and your heat beating
steadily among other things.  Oh and if you fall and break an arm
you will find narcotic pain killers quite useful if you follow
the doctor's directions as to their proper use.  I have learned that
from a couple of experiences with my right arm..

    What drugs have you taken Phil?  Were they as dangerous as
the lies you are fed in school about them?

     The following material is included for the more uninformed lurkers
and prohibitionists. Nearly all of it is from U.S.A. government sources.

    ** Begin copied material from Usenet **

    Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want
    you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar
        <http://www.briancbennett.com>

    Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for
    ourselves:
    http://cannabisconsumers.org

    "Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
     <http://www.leap.cc>

  ...America just celebrated 90 years of Federal drug "control"
  (the Harrision Narcotics Act was passed on December 17, 1914) --
  when do you suppose this prohibition stuff will start to "work"?
        Brian Bennett, Thursday 17 December 2004

    ** End copied material from Usenet   **

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)


subject: Re: Will someone please answer a little question for me???

text:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

More lies.  I *have* debated your "ideas", and quite well, IMO.
I have not attempted to "suppress" anything, nor could I.

Sorry, I'm not that naive.  There is such a thing as reading
between the lines, and with your posts, it's quite easy to do.
You write a vague sentence, you can expect people to make inferences.
A vague sentence cannot be taken at face value.

Put that in context.  I thought it was clear that I was taking
you at your word that you were *not* a rapist.  I was trying to
get you to see the difference between a rapist and a non-rapist.
You said you identified with the pressure "Henry" was experiencing.
He raped, and you didn't.  What's the difference there?  I was
trying to get you to think about that.

Absolutely not.  I intended to express my anger and disgust.

*You* however did say what you said to hurt.  I will never
be convinced otherwise.  I will point out to you again
that I and other people here have experienced things far
more "devastatingly hurtful".  I can't think of anything
that's been said to me that I would call "devastating".  So
I think someone just has a thin skin.  Aw.  Some of us
don't have the luxury of a thin skin.

Aw.   A little Puritan, are we?  So what.  The fact
that you don't swear doesn't make you any less despicable
than Lan.  You are.  In fact, the fact that you are
incapable of seeing that makes you even more frightening.

Bullshit.  I don't believe that.  I don't believe anything
you say and never will.  There's nothing you can do to
make things right.  You said the one thing that makes
you lower than dirt, and all your attempts to make amends
won't change the fact that you're the sort of person
who *would* say such a thing.  Until you change the aspect
of you that would make you say or think such things, I
want nothing to do with you.

This thread bothers me not one bit when I'm not online.  You wish
this was some sort of personal crisis for me.  And your tone here
is condescending again, but I really don't think you know what
"condescending"
and "patronizing" mean.  Again, *you're* the one with the problem
here, and you ought to deal with your own failings before attempting
to "help" others.

That's not really true.  You said some things that
are offensive to pretty much anyone who gives a crap
about rape or rape victims, and other people have said
so much.

{plonk}


author: Alan Mackenzie

text:
[email] wrote on Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:57:33 -0500:

Accepted and much appreciated. Thanks.