From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.055019.1563@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.045948.24453@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.032716.29047@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)                 writes...
>>>In article <1992Nov5.220430.1@vxcrna.cern.ch> zeus@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
>>>>
>[deletion]
>>> 
>>>Might I remind you that Nazi Germany was a socialist state.
>>
>>In name only. And not even that after they were elected. Nazi Germany was
>>a Fascist state. Hitler made many speeches about how the evil menace to
>>the world was, you guessed it, communist Russia.
>
>It was not "in name only."  The people of Nazi Germany handed over a large
>portion of their income to the government in the interest of helping the aged,
>assuring education, etc.  Read the platform.
 
  This is sophistry.  Yes, you are right, Nazi Germany was a Socialist
  state.  It was a Socialist dictatorship, of course, but it was indeed
  Socialist in the roughest sense of the word.   Sweden is also a
  Socialist state (as has the UK been during different parts of its
  history).  Neither Sweden nor the UK have much resemblence to Nazi
  Germany.  Why?  Because both are democracies, not dictatorship.
  
  Socialism and capitalism are economic distribution systems. 
  Totalitarianism and democracy are two extremely different kinds 
  of power distribution systems.  There is a 2x2 matrix here, with
  Nazi Germany (socialist totalitarianism) at one end of the spectrum,
  the United States (some would say :-) (capitalist democracy) at
  the other end.  Many South American countries are totalitarian
  capitalists while Sweden and the UK and others are socialist
  democracies.  
>
>>[munch]
>>Whoa! Just who has tried to destroy such civil rights as Habius Corpus,
>>right of privacy (ie drug testing), freedom from unwarrented searches,
>>and seizing your property before the trail? You guessed it, the Republicans.
>>The Warren Court, a liberal court, expanded countless civil rights. The
>>Rehnquist court has eliminated countless. If you want to put this in a 
>>historical context then look at the conservatives in the 50's. The 
>>Puritans of America and England (they actually outlawed Christmas). 
>>
>I also tend to consider our current Republican party a soft-core National
>Socialist party.  Please name the rights that the Warren court expanded.

  How about the right to privacy?  The right to be secure from
  unreasonable search and seizure?  The right to be informed of
  your rights when arrested (Miranda)?  Freedom of the press
  (Girodius and Grove Press)?   Freedom from interference by 
  the state in religious exercise (stopping prayers in school)? 
  All of these are fundamental rights either granted in the
  Constitution or implied therefrom and the Warren court was
  the court that made almost all of these decisions favorably.
  The Burger and now the Rehnquist courts have systematicallly
  tried to dismantle these rights.  Sigh...

  Jon Rosen