|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Authors Genie discussions on censorship, homosexua
A ONE-SIDED DEBATE
Introduction
What you have here are comments I made in the Science Fiction and
Fantasy RoundTable here on GEnie, in discussion topics on
"Censorship - what they want you to see," "Homosexuality in SF
and Fantasy," "The 'War' on Drugs?," and "Libertarianism and SF."
You will be reading only my comments, and will have to guess at
the surrounding context (or endure the tedium of tracing my
comments by number back to the topics in the SFRT); I do not have
the right to distribute the other people's comments without their
permission, and it would be a major headache to get so many
different participants all to agree on this -- especially when
they can't agree on anything else!
After several months of participating in these topics, I decided
that I was accomplishing nothing more than giving people hostile
to the ideas I was promoting an excuse to question my
motivations, my sanity, my education, and my psychological
orientation. So I have deleted all these comments from the
topics in which they appeared. The phrase "casting pearls before
swine" comes to mind.
I find it astonishing how rare it is today to find anyone capable
of engaging in a discussion of ideas wihout immediately engaging
in twenty different forms of what is called in debate "the \ad
hominem\ attack -- the attack against the speaker, instead of
what is spoken. Perhaps I should not be astonished, considering
that in most schools, this is how teachers deal with their
students, and it's usually all the students learn how to do.
I do not believe in laying back and taking personal insults
lightly. You will see in my comments many responses from me
that look to be \ad hominem\ themselves, because you will not be
seeing the comments they are in response to.
Frankly, I'm not sure any of this will be worth reading apart
from the discussion, but I'm a writer and couldn't see erasing my
work without archiving it somewhere.
If you get anything worthwhile out of this, please let me know.
I'd hate to think there was no one anywhere worthy of a \good\
argument.
J. Neil Schulman
*****************************************************************
************
Topic 3 Fri Feb 12, 1988
CPHILLIPS (Forwarded)
Sub: Censorship - what they want you to see
This topic is for the discussion of Censorship - of books, of television,
movies, plays, etc. etc... This goes not only for censorship of Sci Fi type
stuff but ALL literature and entertainment.
498 message(s) total.
************
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 197 Wed Nov 29, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
I guess I have the same feeling as Lenny Bruce on this topic--let it all out
into the open and remove the "charge" that suppression gives to "forbidden"
words. I also think that a closet racist or sexist is a lot more dangerous
than one who's been exposed.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 202 Wed Nov 29, 1989
<RETURN>, <S>croll, <Q>uit ?s
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
Neil, you're well within your rights. GEnie has the right to allow or
disallow whatever it wants--that's what _private_ means. The rest of you guys,
however are spineless wimps who I'm glad weren't around when the Bill of
Rights was being talked up. (Smile when you say "spineless wimp," pardner!)
:)
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 210 Thu Nov 30, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
This is definitely looking like a thread on free speech and expression that
deserves a topic in its own right. If someone doesn't start it here, look for
it in the SoftServ RT as soon as it gets going in the next few days. The
question about swastikas and garages depends, of course, on whether the
swastika is being painted on someone _else's_ garage or on one's own. Neil
Harris's point is quite correct: GEnie (and its employees) have the right to
decide what will or will not be painted on the side of their garage, and to
excise paint they find objectionable. Otherwise, the rest of us don't have the
"editorial" option--only the option to post a reply or not ... which is how it
should be. I STRONGLY recommend that everyone in this discussion read S.I.
Hawakaya's "LANGUAGE IN THOUGHT AND ACTION"--the classic popularization of
general semantics. Robert Heinlein first recommended it to me in 1973 and
this recent trouble about flag burning makes it evident that Sam Hawakaya is
more needed than ever. There MUST be a clear distinction between human action
that "causes evident damage to another" and human action which is merely
"symbolic." This applies to many hotly debated current issues such as the
cutting of of National Endowment to the Arts subsidies to "obscene" art, flag
burning and--it would seem from the comments in this topic-- to the necessity
for tolerating offensive opinions and symbols. Tolerance is the hallmark of a
free society. I am disappointed by the' lack of tolerance I have noted in the
comments above. Neil Schulman
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 212 Thu Nov 30, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
Of COURSE everyone has the right to express offense! That's the point!
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 219 Fri Dec 01, 1989
SOFTSERV at 16:58 EST
I think there needs to be made a clear distinction made between "symbolic
speech" and "speech as action." I think the following scenario can define the
latter case. I'm driving along a strange road at night, in pouring rain that
has gone on for days. I'm lost on my way to town. I see a Stranger walking
on the side of the road, pull over and ask for directions to town. "Take the
next left--it'll take you to where you want to go." I thank the Stranger, roll
up my window, and take the next left. And, a half mile further, plunge 200
feet down to my death on the rocks below because the bridge on tha road washed
out. Now, I know some (including libertarians) who would argue that the
Stranger had no obligation to tell me about the missing bridge, because we had
no contract requiring him to give me truthful information. Caveat emptor, or
the equivalent. (I'm assuming that the Stranger _knew_ that the bridge was
out, and that his words, should they be followed, were likely to lead to my
death.) Is the Stranger responsible for murdering me? One can argue he was
speaking symbolically when he told me the road would take me "where you want
to go" inasmuch as he may have assumed that what I _really_ wanted was to die.
(Gee, not a bad idea for a story. All we have to assume is that I was
looking for a hotel to commit suicide in and the Stranger was psychic. A
classic Alfred Hitchcock Presents idea.) Leaving out my intents or he
Stranger's psychic abilities, what we clearly have is a case of an information
provider deliberately passing on toxic information. I do not classify this as
"symbolic speech." On the other hand, what about an insult? S.SCHWARTZ refers
to seeing a swastika as emotionally equialent to being spit on. The emotional
reaction, being subjective, is not a proper subject for law--the fact is that
the actions are different. Spitting is a physical action, which can cause
"evident damage," if nothing else to S. SCHWARTZ's clothes. In the Age of
Aids it might even be truly toxic were saliva to end up on exposed human
tissue. The swastika, however, is a symbol ... and the reaction to the symbol
will be dependent on the viewer (Aztec, Nazi, American, or Hindu?) ... and
even whether the swastika is dexter or sinister ... and the viewer understands
the difference. (The dexter swastika is a "good luck" symbol; Hitler used the
sinister.) A lot of the problems surrounding "symbolic speech" are side issues
that need to be resolved along with the "free speech" issue. What constitutes
"evident damage" or "proof of evident damage." Are human beings "volitional"
in their responses, or automatons who will react to symbols as invariantly as
a computer "reacts" to programming? Is there a bias in granting exemptions
for "evident falsehood." (People have spent years in jail on bunco raps for
promising a lot less than the average parish priest.) Anybody starting to get
nervous about restricting people's right to be insulting, lest the Wiccans
start a class-action suit against publishers of the King James Bible. ("Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live ...") Your turn.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 228 Sat Dec 02, 1989
SOFTSERV at 03:42 EST
If you're right, Patrick, that libertarianism is "the political expression of
passive-aggressiveness," then I submit that all _other_ political expresions--
democracy, republicanism, monarchy, fascism, socialism, and communism--are
expressions of _pathological_ aggressiveness. Bravo Diplomacy and Tom Perry.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 237 Sat Dec 02, 1989
SOFTSERV at 20:20 EST
Schwartz and Sherwood, you have no idea what libertarianism is if you think it
has anything to do with solipsism, gangs, adolescents, or life being nasty,
brutish, and short. (Discussion of life being nasty, brutish, and short
should be conducted in the Harlan Ellison topic.) (It's okay; Harlan's a
friend. :) ) Look, libertarianism says nothing more essentially than that all
human relationships must be voluntary, not coercive. Contracts between or
among individuals are valid; they may not be imposed on others by force or
threat of force. The details of how this is to be implemented vary widely even
among those labelling themselves libertarian. People ranging from Karl Hess
to Robert Heinlein, from Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (both black, by the
way) to Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane (both women, by the way). You want to
discuss libertarianism. Seriously? Look for the "Tanstaafl Lounge" Category
in the SoftServ RT Bulletin Board, as soon as it's up and running. Or, you can
buy my two novels, ALONGSIDE NIGHT and THE RAINBOW CADENZA. Or find a nice
public library to borrow them from.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 243 Sun Dec 03, 1989
SOFTSERV at 01:04 EST
S.SCHWARTZ: What group do you think I was sneering at? I thought I was merely
turning an insult around.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 278 Sat Dec 09, 1989
SOFTSERV at 20:31 EST
Jane, send your "unpublishable" book to the Vice President of
Acquisitions for SoftServ (and a member of SFWA himself), Victor
Koman. If you want, you can upload the book to him at GEnie
address SOFTSERV-VK. (If you want to see the SoftServ Contract,
download SOFTSERV CONTRACT II from the SFRT library.)
Books which publishers feel they can't "reasoonably sell" are
EXACTLY what we're looking for.
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 280 Wed Dec 13, 1989
SOFTSERV at 02:25 EST
Sherwood, come into the SoftServ RT, as soon as it's officially announced--
Neil.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 287 Sun Dec 17, 1989
SOFTSERV at 18:07 EST
Jane--wanna bet? Neil
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 289 Mon Dec 18, 1989
SOFTSERV at 11:47 EST
Jane, Victor Koman swore to me when I bought my first computer in 1983 that HE
would NEVER buy a computer to write on--he intended to spend his entire
literary career writing on his classic Remington Rand manual typewriter.
*SNICKER* Can't be too careful who you hang around with. Neil
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 306 Sat Dec 23, 1989
SOFTSERV at 13:55 EST
Jane. We'll get you. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon, and for
the rest of your life.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 318 Wed Dec 27, 1989
SOFTSERV at 03:55 EST
Football! Hmmph! Jane, have you ever noticed that watching American football
is a lot like watching the meter maids hand out parking tickets?
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 325 Tue Jan 02, 1990
SOFTSERV at 03:15 EST
Aladdin-AI? Hey, Juan, are you listening?
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 360 Tue Jan 23, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:56 EST
Beethoven is dangerous, too. He once commented while watching an Easter
Parade, "What a fuss to make about a poor crucified Jew!" ('Course he said it
in German, so maybe it's okay.)
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 366 Tue Jan 23, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 16:56 EST
\Orpheus and Euridice\ takes you right to hell!
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 371 Wed Jan 24, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 06:11 EST
Nah, then we'd have to move this discussion to Topic 7 ...
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 385 Wed Jan 31, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:03 EST
Right on!
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 392 Tue Feb 06, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:42 EST
Let the manufacturers comply with the law \literally\ by putting the "adult
lyrics" label on \everything\; cheaper than having to go through the lyrics
and deciding what might be "offensive" to some assholes.
And, I think there would be salutory educational benefits by having The
Tschaikovsky Violin Concerto and The Brahms Quartets labelled obscene.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 413 Sun Feb 11, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 06:11 EST
Dana's a friend of mine -- the first night I moved to California I slept on
his floor -- and you should hear some of the songs (main subjects smoking
grass, getting laid, and overthrowing the state) \he\ used to write and
perform!
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 419 Thu Feb 15, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:34 EST
The problem with the death sentence in Ruudhdie is that it has a context not
generally understood here. It seems the Iranians view \Satanic Verses\ as
the \second\ time in a hundred years that the British have attempted to
discredit Islam with propaganda -- the first being the British subsidizing the
Bahai.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 421 Fri Feb 16, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:43 EST
Persian history is not my strong point; I got the Iranian viewpoint from a
former landlord, an expatriate Iranian engineer. He didn't agree with
Khomenei's paranoia, but said it was believable to Iranians -- given past
British manipulation of religious movements in Iran for political purposes --
that a book published by a British writer would "naturally" be a British
attempt to discredit Islam for political purposes.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 425 Fri Feb 16, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 18:22 EST
I guess the Ayatollah didn't catch the nuances of the book. Not surprising--
the sort of critics who write killer reviews never do.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 433 Sat Feb 24, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:17 EST
*sigh* I'd like to point out that this sort of thing arises because (a)
people are taxed for public schools; (b) kids are forced to attend these
schools by law unless their parents have the dough to pay twice and put their
kids in private schools; and © public schools therefore become subject to a
"winner take all" political process where parents have to fight to have the
views they want their own kids taught imposed on everyonne else's kids, too.
Thus censorship of one stripe or another is an inevitable consequence of
government schooling.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 435 Sun Feb 25, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:57 EST
And the right to continue to be taxed for paying to educate other kids with
books they don't approve of? Boy, that's really freedom of choice, isn't it?
Freedom as defined by defined by Big Brother and Stalin.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 441 Sun Feb 25, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:55 EST
David, public education \is\ child abuse. It is 13 years of mindkilling
boredom, authoritarian bullying, and political propaganda.
Steven, we live in a "nation of illiterates" \now\. The literacy rate was
higher before compulsory public education.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 448 Tue Feb 27, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 04:50 EST
State licensing still means that if you don't fulfil the politician's idea of
what "education" is, you don't get credentials.
I agree that most Americans don't take seriously the idea of abolishing public
schools. That's because most Americans have already been brainwashed by
public schools. Catch-22. (Another Book to Ban, if ever there was one!)
I have a request to teachers in \Rainbow Cadenza\ not to make it required
reading. I figure people will find enough reasons to dislike it without any
help.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 453 Tue Feb 27, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 17:04 EST
I encourage anyone who wants to to buy up copies of my books and burn them.
Full price, please, not remainders--and remember that hardcovers will burn
longer and brighter.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 457 Wed Feb 28, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:16 EST
I don't want to pull topic drift too far, Alan, but your example is exactly
why libertarianism doesn't go too far. It takes a understanding of how real-
world economics relies on cause-and-effect to understand that passing a "law"
to require a minimum wage can't actually force employers to pay more than they
want (or can afford to) for an employee; all it can do is eliminate jobs and
workers which are worth less than the forced minimum therefore creating
unemployment.
I don't believe in compromise or "working within the system" because force is
absolutely the wrong way to organize human society. Compromise with that is
compromise with organized criminality.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 470 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:00 EST
Glad to hear how many people have PERed the libertarian topic. Wouldn't want
anyone to feel they were risking contamination.
Alan, our viewpoints are obviously so far apart that communication is
impossible -- too few common referents. We'd have to spend hours simply
finding some before we could even define the other's position. I will state
flatly that I consider centrist politics to be insane -- it is based on
clearly false premises -- but, as we were reminded in a wonderful movie called
\Serial\, "In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane."
I challenge anyone to read my posting in the Libertarianism topic today and
not come away considering that it is the inconsistency of current politics
which is insane. The title of my little gem is, "No Right to 'Just Say No.'"
Category 24, Topic 14.
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 477 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:13 EST
Well, what I have gleaned from the above comments is that the sort of people
who you've heard claiming to be libertarians are assholes, so you've tuned
them out. Quite likely--I've known a lot of libertarians who are in fact
assholy. But I doubt any of you have the faintest idea what libertarian
philosophy is, although each of you is sure you do.
I'm not worried about any bear traps about sweat shops. You want me to say
that I think sweat shops are bad? I'll go further--I think having to work a
40 hour week in an air condititioned, carpeted office is hell, too, for anyone
with an IQ over 90. Working for someone else sucks. This doesn't change the
historical fact that people \voluntarily\ worked in sweat shops because the
alternatives available to them were worse -- and it doesn't change the fact
that minimum wage laws can't force someone to pay more for labor than the
market will bear -- all it can do is eliminate jobs. I'm sorry, but \you're\
the idealistic utopian whose idea has never worked and can never work in the
reral world -- I'm basing my comments on proven real-world observations.
You think I'm off the deep end? Feel free to think so; doesn't change the
fact that I'm not if you think I am, and my protesting I'm not won't change my
being so if I am. I either am objectively crazy or not, independent of your
opinion or mine, so what's the point of fighting about it?
However, if you think me arrogant for suggesting that you don't know shit
about real-world economics or politics, consider that you are just as smug
and arrogant in tuning me out on the assumption that I don't.
Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing the point of which of us is the more
arrogant, either
Listen to me or not. It's not a free country, but you at least have that
right left.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 484 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:36 EST
On minimum wage-- so an employer has so much budgeted for labor costs. Which
is better -- the employer being free to hire two people at $2.00 an houir or 1
for $4.00 an hour? Before you answer, consider that the job which is
eliminated might be the difference between living badly and starving to death.
People always look at jobs as if the employer gets to set whatever wages s/he
likes. Not true -- employers have to compete for labor, same as employees
have to compete for jobs. Lots of places you can't \hire\ employees at
anything as low as minimum wage.
The biggest problem employers have nowadays is how to get work out of people
who can't read and have no skills to speak of -- often not even speaking the
same language as the customers. Some people just aren't \worth\ anything on
the job market -- and like it or not, businesses aren't going to give someone
a job because they need one or have a "right" to one, but only because they
are worth the money the employer has to spend to get the job done.
Is everybody as sick of reading these economics lectures as I am of writing
them?
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 486 Fri Mar 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:44 EST
No, I only observe that people who have been miseducated into thinking that
clear economic fallacies are "another school of economics" are ill- informed.
As I pointed out in another topic, I was once completely ignorant of economics
myself -- having attended only public schools -- and it took several years of
hard, independent study to correct this.
Wage price controls are to economics what astrology is to astronomy.
I don't want to lecture -- and certainly not for free. Read \Human Action\ by
Ludwig von Mises. Or even \Economics in One Lesson\ by Henry Hazlitt. Then
your ignorance will be lessened enough for me to consider that you are
entitled to have your opinion taken seriously.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 493 Fri Mar 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 19:02 EST
Well, if I take this to the libertarian topic, will any of you meet me there?
Except for S.Schwartz, who has already PERed the topic, of course.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 494 Fri Mar 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 19:36 EST
Patrick, what libertarian magazine did you work for? The answer may explain a
lot.
Sarah, your intellectual arrogance is at least equal to mine. You assume I'm
out there and you're not. You don't figure out who's right and whose wrong by
counting heads.
Susan, cover your ears. You bore me, too.
Lawrence, either a minimum wage is below or at the prevailing price for labor,
in which case it is a dead-letter, or it is above it, in which case it
eliminates any jobs worth less than that rate. You forget that unless there
are other interventions such as tarriffs, all raising the cost of labor does
it either make the product more expensive (and therefore unable to compete
with similar products produced more cheaply elsewhere, which eliminates jobs
when production is shut down) or it causes the employer to find a less labor-
intensive solution -- such as automation -- which eliminates jobs.
Patrick, your point about black-market effects is right-on.
------------
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 498 Sat Mar 03, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 00:21 EST
Look, Susan Shwartz, you started this. I simply respond at the noise level of
the other person. \You're\ the one who went into the l libertarianism topic,
where I posted a message on drugging of prisoners, and put in the message,
"Cripes, I thought I PERed this topic."
Is there a non-libertarian among you who will agree that was rude?
Don't call me arrogant. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
And for those of you who actually believe in free speech, there are no thought
police in the SoftServ RT. You're all invited. (Even you, Susan Shwartz.)
------------
*****************************************************************
************
Topic 7 Tue Apr 04, 1989
T.BURKE2 [Tim Burke] (Forwarded)
Sub: Homosexuality in SF and Fantasy
What kinds of treatments have you encountered of homosexuality in SF and
Fantasy novels? Feel free to discuss both homophobic accounts and sensitive
portrayals...
246 message(s) total.
************
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 26 Mon Jan 29, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 21:56 EST
The point is, sexual preference \isn't\ hardwired in. It's imprinted at some
point -- how early is hard to say. But almost certainly before you have any
volitional choice about it -- so it might seem like it's genetic to someone
who's trying to figure it out by introspection.
Whoever or whatever made us this way -- God or evolution -- must have found
some practical value in it, or the trait wouldn't be present. My theory is
<RETURN>, <S>croll, <Q>uit ?s
that homosexuals are the active "yeast" or "culture" in a civilization -- now
that "cultural" evolution has replaced "genetic" evolution in the progress of
our species.
If division of labor works in economics, why assume that it isn't presen t in
evolution as well? "God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform."
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 27 Mon Jan 29, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 22:01 EST
Or, if you don't mind the reference to (*yech*) television, maybe gays are the
"binaums" of our cultural evolution ...
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 33 Tue Jan 30, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:21 EST
Jim Munson, go back a few messages and read my last comment. I didn't say
"hard-wired." I said "imprinted."
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 35 Tue Jan 30, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 04:43 EST
It does, though. Mr. Epstein has been arguing that homosexuality is in some
sense disfunctional or unnatural. I am arguing that it may very well have
societal or cultural utility. This aspect of my comment seems to have been
completely overlooked.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 47 Wed Jan 31, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 11:35 EST
Obviously the Defense Department view is that the United States' potenttial
Obviously the Defense Department view is that the U.S.' enemies are more
attractive ...
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 60 Fri Feb 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 01:54 EST
"Ich bin ein Berliner!"
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 64 Fri Feb 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 14:28 EST
When Kennedy said it, though, the folks at the Wall didn't laugh, they
cheered.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 74 Mon Feb 05, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:55 EST
Jane, does your proscription for portraying children involved in sex exclude
children playing doctor with no adults involved? I find the current refusal
to realize that children have sexual feelings to be a certain sign of our
sexually obsessive and sick culture.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 85 Thu Feb 08, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:02 EST
Jane, I portrayed a \society\ that regarded child sexual abuse as \de facto\
acceptable in \Rainbow Cadenza\. I also showed my heroine barely surviving
the trauma.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 92 Sun Feb 11, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 06:12 EST
Yes, there's more freedom of speech in Russia now than there is here in the
land of the free.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 107 Mon Feb 12, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 05:21 EST
I am shocked at how if a media figure makes (or is alleged to make) a
politically incorrect statement, s/he can be blacklisted with the approval of
minority groups who themselves have been the target of blacklisting.
I guess it's just a matter of whose ox is being gored, isn't it? The
situational "ethics" which takes the place of \principles\ in current
political discussions makes me want to vomit.
I repeat: Russia now has more free speech than the former Land of the Free.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 124 Tue Feb 13, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 18:47 EST
Sixty Minutes is produced by CBS News, not by the entertainment division.
Rooney's job was to give editorial commentary, which is an \evaluation\ of
current newsworthy topics. There was nothing of the "fire in a crowded
theater" nature in his giving a personal evaluaion of the relationship
between AIDS and the gay lifestyle (and if the Gay community denies any link
whatsoeer between AIDS and the gay lifestyle, why is the gay community at all
interested in the AIDS epidemic?), nor, I believe, in his biting comments
about blacks. One is free to disagree with them wihout rioting; one is free
to respond to his comments in other forums.
And considering that the remarks for which he is being suspended are not even
ones he made as \on-the-air commentaries\, CBS is merely knuckling under to
special-interest groups who wish to see their party line rigorously observed.
This sort of cowardice is how the black-list worked in the forties and
fifties.
Free Speech is \definitely\ in trouble in this country. Bad trouble. Use it
or lose it, people.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 131 Wed Feb 14, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:31 EST
You want to call Rooney "entertainment" because he's entertaining on a news
show? Fine. Is Gary Trudeau therefore less protected for Doonesberry under
your precious first amendment than the editorials?
I am not evaluating whether Andy Rooney is a bigot or an asshole. I am arguing
that he has a right to be a bigot and an asshole without being censored--
particularly when his opinions do not differ from conventional wisdom by all
that much.
Does homosexual behavior cause AIDS? No. Does \promiscuous\ homosexual
behavior spread AIDS? That, in fact, was the argument made in \The Normal
Heart\. If Larry could raise that issue,
so can Andy Rooney ... sauce for the goose and all that.
Was sabotage responsible for the deaths on the USS Iowa? That was the
official Navy conclusion -- true or not.
I tell you three times: if you do not protect Andy Rooney's right to broadcast
opinions you may find offensive or distasteful, I assure you the Gay Activist
Alliance will be harder hit by blacklisting than Andy Rooney.
Defend Andy Rooney's right to express his opinions free from the chilling
effect of "suspensions" or, when the political tide shifts again, it may be
you being pulled out to sea by the undertow.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 133 Wed Feb 14, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 07:07 EST
Who wants to sign a petition?
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 135 Wed Feb 14, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 19:17 EST
Fine, Martha. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. CBS is free to
fire or suspend whomever it wishes -- including anyone expressing the
viewpoint that a homosexul relationship can be proper, should the political
wind change.
And, retroacticely, then, there was nothing wrong with networks refusing to
hire writers, producers, actors, or directors who were thought to be
"unAmerican."
Do I have it right this time?
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 142 Thu Feb 15, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:24 EST
CBS holds a government-issued license to broadcast. That makes them, if not
direct agents of the State, at least their willing tools. \That\ makes it a
freedom of speech issue.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 157 Thu Feb 15, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:46 EST
I'm not going to scroll through the last dozen remarks again to pin down who
said what, so I'll just respond in general:
1) The charge against the judge has nothing to do with free speech, anymore
than a murderer confessing to a crime is being punished for exercising free
speech. The judge confessed to judicial misconduct -- and maybe was too
stupid or arrogant to realize it. Not the same thing at all, and I find it
interesting the sorts of specious comparisons people will drag in out of left
field.
2) Rooney was suspended for expressing a viewpoint that isn't "politically
correct." Pure and simple.
3) The idiocy that high profile is equivalent to the power to "incite to
riot" is the most outrageously dangerous theory I've ever heard. Under this
theory \anyone\ with a radio, TV, or syndicated platform who expressed \any\
opinion possibly offensive to anyone for any reason is to be deprived of their
freedom of speech because someone, somewhere might decide to react with
violence.
We are skidding toward the pit much faster than even I imagined.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 162 Fri Feb 16, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 18:24 EST
Inciting to riot is statist bullshit. They pull it out anytime someone is
effective enough to overthrow their power base. Inciting to riot is an excuse
to limit freedom of speech? That's what it's \for\.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 171 Sat Feb 17, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:26 EST
You see the dilemma. Once you allow the advancing of opinion to be limited in
any respect, everyone has someone they wish silenced. Everyone has a "but what
about ...".
When they come around to denying you \your\ say, don't look to the
libertarians to save you: we will be too few far too late. You will bury us
as too extreme, too "hobbled by consistency," too "impractical for
realpolitik" ... and when there is no one who defends free speech on principle
and you see your speech taken away one small compromise at a time, it will be
too late and the tyrants will have won again.
WAKE UP, DAMMIT!
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 173 Sat Feb 17, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 21:12 EST
Made a mistake in hiring? For many years, Rooney was one of the main reasons
\60 Minutes\ owned its Sunday night time slot. They couldn't promote him
enough, including spinning him off into his own specials.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 175 Sun Feb 18, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:52 EST
Giving an opinion is not acting; it is talking. They are two UTTERLY
different things.
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 180 Mon Feb 19, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 00:04 EST
R.BAILEY20: Your belief is wrong. Free speech for all, forever!
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 189 Mon Feb 19, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:21 EST
Janice, good for you! Civil libertarianism is halfway there ...
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 196 Sat Feb 24, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 23:19 EST
L. Neil Smith's \Their Majesties' Bucketeers\ (Del Rey, 1981).
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 208 Tue Feb 27, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 04:51 EST
Janice, any value placed on liberty puts you in danger of being persuaded by
libertarian arguments. All we have to do is show you where your own premises
lead if you take them seriously enough to be consistent about them ...
------------
Category 2, Topic 7
Message 219 Wed Feb 28, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 02:18 EST
For Christ sake, I'm not using this topic to convert anybody to anything! I
was trying to pass along a compliment according to my standards. If you don't
feel complimented by it, go back to your card game!
------------
*****************************************************************
************
Topic 8 Wed Sep 06, 1989
SF-ASST [Stephen] at 00:16 EDT
Sub: The "War" on Drugs?
President Bush last night proposed a $8 billion program to fight drugs.
Comments, observations . . . What's the best approach?
109 message(s) total.
************
------------
Category 24, Topic 8
Message 94 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:36 EST
Well, since the last message in this topic was almost four months ago, this
topic is a ghost town anyway. So let's see if anyone reads the following:
------------
Category 24, Topic 8
Message 95 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:37 EST
NO RIGHT TO "JUST SAY NO"
Anyone who discounts the libertarian insight that the sole purpose of the
Drug War is the totalitarian control of the individual by the United States
government should consider that the same U.S. government that imprisons people
for possession and use of "destructive" drugs may \also\ drug them against
their will once they are imprisoned -- and with drugs that are at least as, if
not more, destructive than the drugs they were imprisoned for using or
selling.
On Tuesday February 27th, the United States Supreme Court gave prison
officials wide authority to force prisoners to be "treated" with mind altering
"antipsychotic" drugs which can result in \tardive dyskinesia\: permanent
uncontrollable and disfiguring muscle twinges in the face, arms, trunk, and
legs.
In a 6-3 decision written by "Justice" Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled
that the state of Washington did not have to go to a court before prison
officials could poison an inmate with these drugs.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice William Brennan and
Justice Thurgood Marshall, said the "liberty interests of citizens to resist
the administration of mind altering drugs arises from our nation's most basic
values."
The case involved Walter Harper, serving time on robbery charges, who
sued the State to halt the use of antipsychotic drugs on him against his will.
The drug Harper was given can induce catatonic-like states, alter electro-
encephalographic tracings and cause swelling of the brain. It can also
include drowsiness, excitement, restlessness, bizarre dreams, hypertension,
nausea, vomiting, losss of appetite, salivation, dry mouth, headache, blurred
vision and muscle spasms. Harper said he would rather die than take the drug
again.
The Bush administration -- which is spearheading the so-called "Drug War"
-- and the American Psychiatric Association -- which proved itself once again
exactly the sort of technocratic monsters Anthony Burgess warned us against in
\A Clockwork Orange\ -- sided with prison officials, arguing that the prison
shrinks should make the decision, rather than the poor slob getting this junk
shoved in their veins.
Welcome to 1990 -- 1984 was only a warning.
--J. Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 8
Message 104 Fri Mar 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 19:12 EST
The concept of retribution -- which is a religious concept -- needs to be
trashed because discussion can be rational. Victims have a right to
restitution, or the closest approach possible in the real world. (What's the
restitution for killing a child? Impossible.) People have the right to
defend themselves against invaders. But the entire eye-for-an-eye bit has got
to go, unless you want what we have now: a society of one-eyed people.
"Rehabilitation" or "psychological reconstruction" of "criminals" is a vicious
fraud, wherein licensed quacks con the public into thinking that their witch-
doctoring can protect them from criminals -- to let them have some criminals
for psychiatric vivisection.
If there's anything lower than a slavemaster, it's the human trash who think
their "degrees" give them the right to play God with other people's brains. I
am opposed to capital punishment, but I will make an exception for these
lobotomizers.
------------
Category 24, Topic 8
Message 109 Sat Mar 03, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 00:29 EST
Goddammit, is there one of you self-honest enough to deal with ideas rather
than making ad hominem attacks? Jim Munson, you know better than this! So
don't give me any crap about my methods or motivations.
I am sick of the philsophical relativism which infects this society. The moral
cowardice of people who don't see any difference between swallowing a drug and
forcibly sticking it down someone else's throat.
This is a black-and-white issue. If psychoactive drugs have beneficial
effects, it is up to the person who will sustain those effects to decide to
take them; no technocratic elite has the right to decide for someone else.
Or are the lot of you "beyond freedom and dignity"? If so, stay there; I
want to find some island somewhere free from this misbegotten race.
------------
*****************************************************************
************
Topic 14 Fri Sep 15, 1989
J.NICHOLOPOU at 22:57 CDT
Sub: Libertarianism and SF
Science fiction seems to attract people with a libertarian bent - that is,
those who believe in a severely limited government, and self reliance. Why?
112 message(s) total.
************
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 56 Fri Dec 08, 1989
SOFTSERV at 01:38 EST
Amazingly--having been around this RT for the last couple of years, annd being
fairly well-known as a libertarian--nobody told me there was a libertarian
discussion topic. No, I don't use Rand or Heinlein as the touchstone of
libertarian gospel (though I have learned a great deal from both, enjoyed
reading and re-reading both); I've found a lot to disagree with in both their
writings--annd, in fact, my last argument with Ayn Rand ended with her telling
me, "I despise all libertarians--including you." Oh, well. Everybody's got to
be excommunicated from the Church before they're done or they're just not
<RETURN>, <S>croll, <Q>uit ?s
_trying_. I find the extensive discussion of _Starship Troopers_ in this topic
fascinating, especially because I don't know a single libertarian out of the
hundreds I know who consider it in any sense a libertarian book. Yes, there is
no question _Starship Troopers_ represented Heinlein's personal viewpoint.
Yes, it's true that Heinlein called himself a libertarian (at one party, he
introduced me to a friend saying, "Neil and I are libertarians"). But if you
want to discuss Heinlein's libertarian moods, you'll find them more in _The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ than _Starship Troopers_. Where other libertarians
fundamentally differ from Heinlein is on "expected outcome." Heinlein
believed that it was possible that a government could be formed, without the
consent of many who would be bound by the government's decisions, and still
produce a libertarian outcome; most libertarians would disagree. The _primary_
questions that libertarians ask about government are never dealt with at all
in _Starship Troopers_, which has as its premise that government service is a
condition of franchise without ever dealing with the fundamental LIBERTARIAN
question of whether sovereign individuals who choose to remain unfranchised
are bound to the decisions of the franchised voters--i.e., must non-voters pay
taxes & custom duty, be liable to be dragged into a statist court they don't
accept as having jurisdiction over them, etc. If the damn government agrees to
leave me alone and stay off my property I don't care how they run it; if they
insist on imposing their rules on me without my consent, the fact that I can
"join" them and get one vote out of millions seems to me to be a con game that
Ponzi would have been proud of. It's like, "Your neighbors all voted to evict
you from your house-- but you have to go along with it because you had a
chance to vote on it and got outvoted fair and square." Statist rubbish! I
never got the chance to argue points like these with Heinlein the way I wanted
to, even though he was a good friend. He was too busy all the time by the
time we met and the age difference was a barrier; I respected him too much to
take off the gloves, so to speak, the way I would do with a contemporary (the
way he did with John Campbell back in the 40's for example; see GRUMBLES FROM
THE GRAVE).
As for my own libertarian gospel ... I write the stuff myself. Probably some
of you have read some of it, even if you haven't agreed with my point of view.
(I must speak for at least some libertarians; they've voted to give me the
Prometheus Award for best libertarian novel twice). If anyone is looking for
some more libertarians to argue with, look for the Tanstaafl Cafe in the new
SoftServ RT in a few days, as soon as I'm finished setting it up. Neil
Schulman, Sysop, SoftServ RT
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 58 Thu Dec 07, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
Janice:
No, I am NOT saying that if you disagree with me you didn't understand
me so I'll say it in more detail.
Perhaps I AM saying that you can't possibly make the statements you
make about libertarians and understand the first thing about it.
Analogy: if you said that Jews eat Christian babies, and a Jew said
that you don't know the first thing about Jews or Judaism, would you
then say that the Jew is merely disagreeing with you?
I am a libertarian--have been for twenty years, have won awards for
libertarian writing. I'm a goddamned EXPERT on the subject and if
you think libertarianism is a recipe for bullying, you are as
ignorant about it as those who think Jews eat Christian babies.
Libertarianism is all versions accepts as axiomatic that the
initiation of force is wrong--that force is only proper (if at all;
some but not all libertarians are pacifists) in defense.
Would you please tell me by what conceivable twist of logic this
becomes an apology for bullies running things?
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 65 Fri Dec 08, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
Wow, have I been missing things. I didn't even KNOW there was a discussion of
libertarianism in another category here! Susan, I don't know what FOSFAX is
either, so I don't know whether they're "good" libertarians or not. Lawrence,
I most emphatically do not agree that anarchy will automatically generate into
"bullying." I do concede, however, that historically anarchy hass
dengenerated back into what we already have: statism. Anarchy, at worst, would
be a vacation from the "bullying" which is the status quo. Sure, there are
disagreements among libertarians. As Stephen points out correctly, this is
true of _any_ point of view.. C.S. Lewis spent a good deal of time telling
Christians to stop wasting time in doctrinal disputes and instead find a
"mere" Christianity that ALL Christians could agree on--then set up a common
front against the really lost sheep (perhaps "against" isn't the right word in
that context). I agree with Lewis on this strategy: libertarians have indeed
spent too much time focusing on doctrinal disputes; this does not mean,
however, that there isn't a "mere" libertarianism that all libertarians can
agree on. A "mere" libertarianism would start with a basic agreement that
society-- however it is organized--must take into account the right of the
individual not to be bound by the will of the group merely because the group
is bigger. Another way of saying that is all social relations must
fundamentally be voluntary. For an example of a "mere" libertarian doctrine, I
suggest downloading a copy of the "New Covenant" which I uploaded into the
Public Forum RT library. Neil
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 66 Fri Dec 08, 1989
SOFTSERV (Forwarded)
In reading back, I noticed a couple of statements I missed responding to.
Lawrence, libertarianism does not have as a necessary assumption that human
beings need to act "rationally" in order to have a libertarian society. This
common misperception is true only of that small segment of libertarians who
"started with Ayn Rand" (to paraphrase the title of a book). Lot's of us
started elsewhere; I got into libertarianism through reading Heinlein--his
short story "Coventry" in particular--later, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
It's usual for people who propose social improvements to be labelled utopian
in intent--that is, accusing them of demanding "perfection" of human character
in order to achieve a better society. The thing I find strange is that
libertarians are accused (often in the same breath) of demanding that human
beings act rationally (the utopian heresy) and at the same time demanding that
human beings act like rampaging idiots who place their simple self-interest
above' all else. It seems to me you have to accuse us of one or the other;
they are mutually exclusive. My own view is close to Heinlein's: No one is a
villain in their own eyes. People make choices according to the set of
alternatives they perceive as possible. Of course libertarians are as prone
to make this error as anyone else--I've heard the vulgar sort of libertarian
wondering why the poor don't seek to better themselves; it doesn't occur to
the questioner that those who do not seek self-betterment DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS
POSSIBLE. Sadly, this is often a self-fulfilling result--thus the
"unbreakable cycle of poverty" as social workers call it. As for who will
defend the undefended ... I will. A few days ago I was stopped at a traffic
light on Wilshire Boulevard. I heard, from a car stopped at the light in the
other direction, a woman screaming. Two men were holding her in the car as she
was trying to get out. My first thought--as I heard her screaming for help--
was that she was being kidnnapped. I pulled my car across the opposing lane of
traffic, stopping the car from moving, then got out. I didn't have to do much
more; the two guys stopped beating on her and let her out. (Yes I know--I was
lucky they didn't come after me.) The situation degenerated into a shouting
match between the woman and the two men, then fizzled as the men took the car
and drove away, leaving her alone. She didn't want anny further help, so I
left her there. I'm not telling this story to win brownie points for "bravery"
or "noblesse oblige" or any of that stuff; I'm making a simple rhetorical
point. You don't have to believe in letting people fend for themselves to be
a "good" libertarian ... and you don't need anything more than people being
willing to stand up for each other's rights to have a society that doesn't
degenerate into bullying.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 72 Sat Dec 09, 1989
SOFTSERV at 03:53 EST
There is indeed a libertarian heresy which I call "mononovelism":
those people calling themselves libertarians wo have read only one
book--ATLAS SHRUGGED. Of course as a competing deity, writing my
own libertarian novels, I may just be jealous of a god who sells
better than I do.
I find it amazing, in a twentieth century that has seen so many
revolutions in human society that it would be a Brave New World to
anyone from _any_ previous human era, that peopl still insist that
there can be no fundamental change in the organization of human
relations. We can see Africa go from British domination to African
self-rule. We can see the Russia go from, Feudalism to Democracy
to Communism to Stalinism to Social Democracy ... but we are supposed'
to believe that human society doesn't change.
I conceded that anarchy in the past has degenerated into statism.
(I do not concede that there is any additional "bullying" in the
process--only a change from the prior statist bullies to the latter
statist bullies, with anarchy as a brief respite between them.) I
do NOT concede that there is anny inevitability about this degeneration;
I merely state that the conditions for a stable anarchy have not yet
been achieved in modern times.
For anyone interested in thriving stateless societies, I suggest looking
at Ireland before the English conquered it (which took about eight
centuries--pretty stable, huh?) and Iceland during the same period
(the Irish were among the settlers and took their anarchy with them).
The conditions for a stable anarchy?
Among them: a widespread desire of people to forgo running other people's
lives so they are free to run their own. A prosperous economy (usually
requires a market society). Either an entirely homogeneous culture or
just the opposite: a society so hetergeneous that differences are
tolerated. And, most importantly, I think, is a sense of community
which is based on shared values, rather than forced association.
I describe a nascent libertarian society in my novel, ALONGSIDE NIGHT.
I also describe (briefly) a working libertarian O'Neill colony in
my novel THE RAINBOW CADENZA. L. Neil Smith (with whom I am often
confused) has a semi-satirical view of libertarian society in his
alternate-world series beginning with THE PROBABILITY BROACH.
F. Paul Wilson describes a working libertarian society in his
LaNague Federation novels. Proto-libertarian writers include
Eric Frank Russell (in his novel THE GREAT EXPLOSION) and C.M.
Kornbluth is his satirical THE SYNDIC, where the Mafia takes over
and is less oppressive that any previous government. And, of course,
Heinlein did a damn good job of describing working libertarian societies
in "Coventry" and THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS.
All these books are maps of lands that do not exist, of course. But
I find it strange criticism from people who grew up reading about
marvel after marvel in science fiction, before it happened in the
"real" world, that we are supposed to believe in technological
advance as possible and social change as possible ... but social
advance is to be written off as "utopian impossibility.""
The arguments by which libertarianism can be proved practical are
too extensive for this topic. For those who are seriously
interested (the rest can ignore the remainder of this message) I
would seriously recommend starting with Ludwig von Mises HUMAN
ACTION. It's tough going, but makes the definitive case. Follow
up with Murray Rothbard's POWER AND MARKET. Get ahold of RATIONAL
ANARCHY by Richard and Ernestine Perkins. Try Robert Nozick's
National Book Award-winning ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA. Anything
by black economists Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell. THE MACHINERY
OF FREEDOM by David Friedman, or FREE TO CHOOSE by his parents,
Milton and Rose Friedman. Anything by Thomas Szasz. Anything by
Robert LeFevre, but particularly THE PHILOSOPHY OF OWNERSHIP or
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF LIBERTY.
Or you can just get a copy of the Laissez Faire Book catalog (write
to Laissez Faire Books, 942 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103;
(415) 541-9780, and start ordering any of their hundreds of books that
make persuasive libertarian arguments in economics, philosophy, social
science, history, political theory, and current controveries.
Or, if you're suspicious of anything written this century, go back
and read Jefferson, Locke, Paine, Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, and
the papers of the Anti-Federalists.
Now can we leave Ayn Rand and her quirks out of it for a while?
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 75 Sat Dec 09, 1989
SOFTSERV at 20:22 EST
Louis, if a system can practice injustice, it ceases to be libertarian.
But since you don't know the premises which make what I'm saying
here little more than a tautology (if it's libertarian it isn't
unjust; if it's unjust it isn't libertarian) then may I suggest that
any _mainstream_ political novel might describe what you're looking
for: we started out with a fairly libertarian system here, which
has been degenerating for roughly the last two centuries.
Susan, "libertarian system" is not a contradiction in terms. In fact,
a libertarian system would also almost by definition have very strict
laws--since they are natural laws as mathematically provable as the
law of supply and demand. (I know you don't believe me; that's why
I suggest this discussion is fairly useless with anyone not willing to
read the libertarian economists, sociologists, and political theorists
I list in my previous message.) The premise with which libertarian
economics (also known as "Austrian School") economics begins is:
"Human beings choose means to pursue ends." Everything else derives
from that premise.
Is anyone here seriously interested, or are you all wedded to your
own notions?
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 79 Wed Dec 13, 1989
SOFTSERV at 02:38 EST
Sherwood, though I couldn't disagree strongly enough with the
"evolution in action" comment (if taken seriously; I saw the :) )
we ARE faced with an ontological (rather than a political) problem.
To wit: who has the moral right to hold a gun to someone's head, if
someone chooses not to "help"? In fact, who is to define adequate
or inadequate "help" for another--and enforce it at gunpoint? For
THAT is what we are discussing, IF we are NOT to allow individuals
to choose for themselves, without coercive force of law, how much and
in what manner they choose to help another, as well as who to help.
If someone willingly helps only the deserving who need help, are they
to be forced to help those they consider undeserving? If they help
only the neediest, are they to be forced to help those they consider
less needy? If they use ANY DISCRETION AT ALL in supplying "help"--
helping some but not others, according to their personal moral code--
are their decisions--and their personal moral code--to be overturned
by force of law?
The libertarian formulation is: each individual has the right to
decide, free from coercion, what sort of help, how much of it, and
to whom help is to be given. Interference with this right is not
only WRONG, it is impractical, because it turns "helping" from being
a pleasure into theft, and the recipients of the loot are despised
instead of empathized with.
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 82 Wed Dec 13, 1989
SOFTSERV at 23:27 EST
Sherwood: you like it in theory but not in practice? In PRACTICE
what do you see as a noncoercive alternative?
The following message (uploader forgotten--I wish I had the ability
to scroll back in this software!) was based on a number of premises
I find unsupportable--along them (1) the police are universally
accepted as being necessary, rather than part of the problem; (2)
that liabilities cannot be drawn across property boundaries; and--
most unsupportable of all--that the "social contract"--if it has
semantic content at all (I classify it with the sort of contracts the
Mafia puts out on people)--has been "agreed to." In fact, I have
signed a social contract: it's called the New Covenant, and you
can download a copy from the Public Forum library here on GEnie.
What social contract have YOU signed--and how does your signature
bind ME to a contract which I never signed?
Back to Sherwood: laws aren't "passed"; they are researched and
discovered. Legislation is a statist concept; libertarians start
with finding regularities in reality (called "natural law" by some--
others disagree even with this labelling) and proeed to define
further relations within the restrictions those realities offer as
possible. Politicians have been trying to legislate reality out of
existence for all history. Reality is still with us.
Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 85 Fri Dec 15, 1989
SOFTSERV at 04:02 EST
Sherwood, what's the optimum mixture of oxygen and cyanide gas? Natural laws
are very strict indeed. Steve, beg, borrow, buy, or steal my novel, ALONGSIDE
NIGHT. You can even get it from SoftServ in a few weeks or so (*plug*). It
should give you at least one scenario of how to get there from here--Neil
Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 87 Sat Dec 23, 1989
SOFTSERV at 14:01 EST
In my twenty years experience, I've known plenty of anarchists who are
moderates and minarchists (Jeffersonian limited government types) who are
extremists. So even this categoorization doesn't always hold.
As for using coercive means to "level the playing field"--no, that IS anathema
to all libertarians, since an opposition to coercion defines the term.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 90 Sun Dec 24, 1989
SOFTSERV at 04:46 EST
OK, awaiting reviews with baited breath.
Steve, why do you say I need a Mac in particular to buy your book? If you can
write to ASCII, Word Perfect, or MS Word, I can handle it. Neil
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 94 Wed Dec 27, 1989
SOFTSERV at 04:03 EST
Steve, I believe Mac MS Word can save to ASCII. If so, you can upload it into
the SUBMISSIONS library in the SoftServ RT and I can download it, without ever
releasing it. Free upload to you, since it's to a library. And even if MS
Word can't write to ASCII, Vic Koman has Word on his Mac, and he can convert
it for me.
SHERWOOD: Thanks for the compliments. True, I was younger and single when I
wrote Rainbow. I'm married now, no kids yet, but soon, hopefully. And 3/4's
of the libertarians I know are married with kids. But, sure, the "parenting"
in Rainbow was odd ... but consider the society Joan grew up in. How could it
NOT be odd?
Neil
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 95 Wed Dec 27, 1989
SOFTSERV at 04:06 EST
Steve: I'll open up the Submissions library in the SoftServ RT to you, if
you're interested. Let me know.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 98 Fri Dec 29, 1989
SOFTSERV at 04:26 EST
You got just one premise wrong: Alongside Night isn't a prediction ... it's a
PRESCRIPTION. Not saying it's going to rain--just telling people where to
find an umbrella if it does. Neil
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 100 Tue Jan 02, 1990
SOFTSERV at 03:18 EST
Does it have to be a MAJOR credit card?
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 101 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 00:02 EST
NO RIGHT TO "JUST SAY NO"
Anyone who discounts the libertarian insight that the sole purpose of the
Drug War is the totalitarian control of the individual by the United States
government should consider that the same U.S. government that imprisons people
for possession and use of "destructive" drugs may \also\ drug them against
their will once they are imprisoned -- and with drugs that are at least as, if
not more, destructive than the drugs they were imprisoned for using or
selling.
On Tuesday February 27th, the United States Supreme Court gave prison
officials wide authority to force prisoners to be "treated" with mind altering
"antipsychotic" drugs which can result in \tardive dyskinesia\: permanent
uncontrollable and disfiguring muscle twinges in the face, arms, trunk, and
legs.
In a 6-3 decision written by "Justice" Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled
that the state of Washington did not have to go to a court before prison
officials could poison an inmate with these drugs.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice William Brennan and
Justice Thurgood Marshall, said the "liberty interests of citizens to resist
the administration of mind altering drugs arises from our nation's most basic
values."
The case involved Walter Harper, serving time on robbery charges, who
sued the State to halt the use of antipsychotic drugs on him against his will.
The drug Harper was given can induce catatonic-like states, alter electro-
encephalographic tracings and cause swelling of the brain. It can also
include drowsiness, excitement, restlessness, bizarre dreams, hypertension,
nausea, vomiting, losss of appetite, salivation, dry mouth, headache, blurred
vision and muscle spasms. Harper said he would rather die than take the drug
again.
The Bush administration -- which is spearheading the so-called "Drug War"
-- and the American Psychiatric Association -- which proved itself once again
exactly the sort of technocratic monsters Anthony Burgess warned us against in
\A Clockwork Orange\ -- sided with prison officials, arguing that the prison
shrinks should make the decision, rather than the poor slob getting this junk
shoved in their veins.
Welcome to 1990 -- 1984 was only a warning.
--J. Neil Schulman
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 103 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 03:04 EST
Slave labor is a step up from brainwashing.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 106 Thu Mar 01, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 15:28 EST
Good riddance.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 109 Fri Mar 02, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 19:15 EST
Message 106 is an appropriate response to message 105. Rudeness must be
answered or it multiplies.
------------
Category 24, Topic 14
Message 112 Sat Mar 03, 1990
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 00:30 EST
Their footprints have been all over the yard for decades ... and I'm not so
sure about \your\ shoe size, either.
------------
*****************************************************************
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
