General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

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.


They're never-ending only because there are those that insist the founders
meant something other than what they wrote.

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

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:38 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

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.

I don't mind being taken to task on any turf. But, the categorization
of libertarianism on the spectrum of political ideologies as
"anti-government" (along with anarchists, nihilists, etc.) is from the
text we use in our Intro to Political Science course, "Understanding
Politics" by Thomas M. Magstadt.

Your characterization of libertarianism is partially correct, but
overlooks some of the basic positions of the Libertarian Party.
Certainly the aspects about reducing taxes, eliminating government
programs that could be done by the private sector and individual
responsibility are reasonable.

But look further into their stance on drug abuse, for example. (Don't
want to get into a drug war discussion here.) They assert that
removing all laws against "victimless crimes" will be effect because
people are inherently wise enough to not do the wrong thing. Certainly
that fits the mold of less laws, but I doubt that it is a prescription
for a better society.

Libertarians defend the right of citizen's to print and distribute
pornographic materials, no matter the level of obscenity or repugnance
to society at large--even beyond the minor restrictions that have been
placed on our First Amendment of things like child porn. The oppose a
draft, assuming in time of national crisis, the good in society would
recognize the need for sacrifice--somehow I doubt that. They oppose
legislation for public safety or aid/security for the elderly.

Clearly, they take free market economics and self-reliance to the next
level. No "compassionate conservatism" for them.

As for libertarianism being a "guiding principles upon which our
nation was founded," I think that Madison, Montesquieu, Locke,
Hamilton, Jay and even the anti-Federalist Jefferson would have
difficulty with that. Even Hobbes "Leviathan" was certainly not
libertarian.
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.