On 12-27-97 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> FM> That's far too facile, John, don't you see?  Bismarck in the 19th 
   
        [snip] 
  
 FM> JB> Perhaps, however, because he wasn't viewed as a "ideological 
 FM> JB> socialist" doesn't mean he wasn't. 
   
 FM>    I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have been so "reserved."  I can assure you 
 FM> he was NOT an ideological socialist.  For this you need only "look it 
up." 
   
  From "Free to Choose" page 97,98: 
 
        The first modern state to introduce on a fairly large scale 
        the kind of welfare measures.........."Iron Chancellor" 
        Otto Von Bismark.  His [Bismarks] motives were a complex 
        mixture of parternalistic concern for the lower classes 
        and shrewd politics.  
        It may seem paradoxial that an essentially autocratic 
        and aristocatic state such as pre-World War I Germany 
        ----in today's jargon, a right-wing dictatorship----should 
        have led the way in introducing measures that are generally 
        linked to socialism and the Left. But there is no paradox 
        ----even putting to one side Bismark's political motives. 
        Believers in aristocracy and socialism share a faith in 
        CENTRALIZED rule, in rule by command rather than by 
        voluntary cooperation.  They differ in who should: rule 
        whether an elite determined by birth or experts supposedly 
        chosen on merit.  Both proclaim, no doubt sincerely, that 
        that they wish to promote the well-being of the "general 
        public," that they know what is in the "public interest" 
        and how to attain it better than the ordinary person. 
        BOTH, THEREFORE, PROFESS A PATERNALISTIC PHILOSOPHY. 
        AND BOTH END UP, IF THEY ATTAIN POWER, PROMOTING 
        THE INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN CLASS IN THE NAME OF THE 
        "GENERAL WELFARE." 
  
  So, Milton Friedman thinks that BISMARK was a idelogical 
socialist with regard to CENTRALIZED rule. He says and I 
quote again: 
 
        But there is no paradox----even putting to one side 
        Bismark's political motives.  Believers in aristocracy 
        and socialism share a faith in CENTRALIZED rule, in rule 
        by command rather than by voluntary cooperation.   
 
  I don't expect you to agree and perhaps for us to argue 
this point (perhaps through you "looking up" a source), but 
after having "looked it up", I come to the conclusion that 
your statement of "I can assure you he was NOT an ideological 
socialist" lacks the assurance it says it supposed to give. 
  
 FM> JB> One could make the statement, slave owners -weren't- viewed as 
 FM> JB> racist. Does this view make them not racist? 
   
 FM>    They, indeed, embraced it.  Surely you have heard of the famous 
 
  Of course they did, but notice by the standards of -the day- 
the slave owners were NOT viewed as racist. 
  
        [snip] 
  
 FM> just be flat wrong.  But there is absolutely no connection between 
 FM> this and the political motivations of Bismarck. 
 
  You missed the connection.  You made the point, "Bismark wasn't 
viewed as ideological socialist" and I used "Slave owners [analogous 
to Bismark] weren't viewed as racist [ideological socialist]." 
  The point, just because it is "viewed" doesn't make it so. 
Now, I am not trying to equate Bismark to racism as racism 
is not what is important here as I could have chosen another 
topic, e.g. global warming, etc.  
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------