General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the
French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How
many
WWII veterans have done that?

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?

Walt

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Libertarianism, for example.

Or Constitutionalism.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of
the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the
state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the
tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush,
for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:35:48 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Most assuredly. While many dictatorships exist, most are authoritarian
rather than totalitarian. They simply don't have the resources to get
to the level of control required by totalitarianism.

Libertarianism, for example.

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government. Certainly privatization
is gaining favor and individual responsibility remains a touchstone of
one branch of American politcs, that is a long war from
libertarianism.

Or Constitutionalism.

And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world. I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

MPS, Auburn Univ (at Montgomery) 1978
MSIR, Troy State Univ (European Exension) 1981

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

No one has said they were.

Steve Swartz


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/7/04 9:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time

I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

As is made painfully clear in Amar's brilliant tour de force on constitutional
interpretation in his "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" Yale University press or Rakov's
superb Pulitzer Prize winning " ORIGINAL MEANINGS" published by Random House.
The discussioins and arguments of what the founders had in mind on any given
issue is never ending.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Jeeze Ed, none of the libertarian platforms I have ever seen- nor have any
of the various tomes written BY libertarians ABOUT libertarianism- have
*ever* classified libertarianism as being "against government" NOR have they
ever claimed any kind of faith at all in anything remotely resembling "the
inherent goodness of man."

Indeed, one of the (admittedly few) *legitimate* roles of government under
libertarianism is a STRONG legal system, with courts and police to enforce
court rulings. This is precisely because libertarians recognize that people
are evil and stupid- but libertarians do NOT choose "Prior Restraint" as a
premise of civil society. You *do* need a strong, enforceable court system
to redress wrongs, however.

One of the major differences between libertariansim and current "Social
Democracies" is that libertarians believe in citizens being made whole only
*after* they are wronged- libertarians do not believe in any kind of
"playing field leveling" so popular under current practicces of prior
restraints.

Sorry about hte diatribe, but you presented a gaping misunderstanding of
libertarianism right off the bat. Couldn't let it go unchallenged. I
suggest (particularly if yoiu are going to be teaching Political Science)
that you read up a,ittle bit more on the alternative political theories,
including libertariansim (which is, after all, the guiding principles upon
which our nation was founded).

My apologies for taking you to task here, especially on your "home turf,"
but your misrepresentation of libertarian philosophy was somewhat notable.



"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:35:48 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Most assuredly. While many dictatorships exist, most are authoritarian
rather than totalitarian. They simply don't have the resources to get
to the level of control required by totalitarianism.

Libertarianism, for example.

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government. Certainly privatization
is gaining favor and individual responsibility remains a touchstone of
one branch of American politcs, that is a long war from
libertarianism.

Or Constitutionalism.

And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world. I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

MPS, Auburn Univ (at Montgomery) 1978
MSIR, Troy State Univ (European Exension) 1981

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

No one has said they were.

Steve Swartz


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government.


You don't find many on the left who's goal is less government.



Certainly privatization is gaining favor...


Is it? Not so long ago private sector airline passenger and baggage
screeners were federalized.



And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world.


The Constitution can be adjusted only by the amendment process provided for.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism.


Many of us in the USA don't care at all for these not so little bits of
socialism.



Don't try to take away our Social Security or Medicare.


No! Do take them away! Please!

I have to chuckle when defenders of these programs claim they are popular
with Americans. If they're so damn popular why are we forced to
participate?



Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.


The only limit on any individual's freedom should be another individual's
freedom.