Guilt of the 4 Isms

Original | 10-26-06 | Forest Glen Durland

[gonzo]

This is an impressive body of work, forest! It'll take some time to fully review. Thank you!

You are correct in remarking on Free Republic, and other sources available on the Internet.

Stay well armed and safe, old friend..................FRegards

[monday]

"Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable."

Actually it pretty much does. While starting from opposite ends of the political spectrum they both devolve into the same totalitarian government. Neither Fascists nor Communists can ever see this fact but that doesn't make it less true.

One could go on all day about the superficial theoretical differences between Communism and Fascism but in practical application they are identical, and practical application is all that matters to their victims. Just because the theoretical intentions of the Communists were higher, doesn't make them less deadly in reality.

[sure_fine]

now, don't go getting all fired up

I 'really do' appreciate your work, just a tad longer than something I usually see here and on other forums I visit

you done well, and I hope you keep it up

[CJ Wolf]

Ill believes in jisms.

[GSlob]

See Hayek's "Road to serfdom". In his footnotes he touches upon the common genesis and more general commonality between fascism and communism. Indeed, their relationship is similar to that of 80 proof vodka and 190 proof Everclear. One could argue that the fascism is communism diluted.
Re: "You are aware that they are very distinct ideologies...? "
The purpose of an [any] ideology is behavior modification. What particular mythologies, symbols, slogans, ceremonials, texts and doctrines are used to achieve this goal, is of tertiary, not even of secondary importance. Essential [and not superficial] identity of ideologies is to be established NOT at the textual level or the level you refer to, but at the level of their "target behavior".

[x]

A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments. I'm not so sure that it's so easy to isolate it in the ideologies you don't like.

You might be surprised at what governments and countries and individuals of all stripes are capable of. It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it.

One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders.

[Vicomte13]

This is the language you cited from an 1821 Supreme Court decision:

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 264, 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

It is obiter dictum.
The judge who wrote the opinion clearly thought highly of the Federalist Papers, and said so. Jolly good.
This is not law. It's opinion.
The only law in this decision is the holding in the case, which the above-cited language is not.

The Supreme Court has never incorporated the Federalist Papers into the Constitution of the United States. Nor has it ever held that the Constitution is properly interpreted through the Federalist papers. A judge sitting on the Supreme Court in 1821 said laudatory things about the Federalist Papers, and said they were persuasive authority (persuasive to him, and to the court of his time).
That's interesting.
But it's an editorial opinion.
It's not an incorporation of The Federalist into the Constitution.
That's never happened.

[forest]

I ran a search and did not find "society's" that you referred to. I do not wish to post poorly edited work.

Please copy the sentence containing the error and reply so that I can correct any mistakes.

[forest]

Well said. However, all kinds of people who love brevity will call me all kinds of liars without the lengthy documentation.

The statement of the problem is less than two pages. But without the backup, it is all hot air.

[Professor Kill]

That was in reference to an error in my own post.

[null and void]

It's always a balancing act. No net either!

;^)

[forest]

Thanks for the kind words. And your advice is well taken and in effect.

[null and void]

That's disturbing

[forest]

Well said. Thanks.

[forest]

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.

[forest]

Good explanation.

[TChris]

Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable. These terms mean specific things, and when you lump everything together that you find (correctly) objectionable, you lose all your credibility.

Well put.

[-YYZ-]

Sorry, but while this article may have some good points to make, it is a confusing and poorly organized and formatted mess (and looong).

[forest]

It reference to Post 26:

"A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments."

Fed Ps 10: The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.

It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax..."

FDR gave us withholding tax.

"... Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it."

Kuehnelt-Leddihn move to America and became a US citizen.

"One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders."

See Fed Ps 10

[forest]

Regarding Post 27:

By your own posting, a Scocus judge respects and refers to the Fed Ps. That is the important point in my paper. The Scotus justices check out the Fed Ps, and can be expected to continue doing so.

I can not point to any decision wherein the Fed Ps are integrated with Cotus, but IN PRACTICE they are. And "in practice" is what counts, not what you can not find. Future justices will be referring to the Fed Ps, so expect the Fed Ps to retain power in the interpretation of Cotus.