The term "liberal" originally stemmed from the human quest for free inquiry and the study of the liberal arts. Aristotle explained that the greatest pleasure a free man could possess is to have the economic means to indulge himself in the study of nature, books, science (philosophy) — and the liberals arts, rather than to be forced to labor endlessly with no free time for leisure and the contemplation of life.

The State by Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943) was recommended to me years ago by friends as a Libertarian classic of political science. However, having just finished this tome, I now suspect that some of them did not actually read the book, but instead only read passages from it.

It has come to my attention some letter writers in The Telegraph and posters at Macon.com, have taken umbrage with the use of the word “socialism” in describing the worsening state of affairs in our nation today — from exorbitant, crippling regulations and taxation to abuse of the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution.

In Part I of this article, I discussed a concept that is always on the mind of the socialist planner and that is "social utility." To fully understand this concept one has to understand the socialist philosophy, if it can indeed be called a philosophy — in general, philosophies are analytical.

One characteristic of the collectivists is that when a particular term becomes unpopular, such as the word socialism, they create a succession of more socially friendly terms. For example, in the 1800s they did not shy away from the term socialism, but as people began to understand that socialism was a form of social control and engineering, they dropped the term for more acceptable terms such as liberalism, progressivism and collectivism. The socialist promoting a government-run health care system did likewise.

The "Right" versus "Left" convenient but capricious political arrangement came from the seating position of delegates to the National Assembly during the French Revolution, but it is at times a confusing concept and too often subject to media and academic bias and even misinformation. I have found it easier to have a political spectrum based on degrees of government control.

From 1876 onward, after the North recovered its fortunes and the South was unburdened by the end of Reconstruction, the nation was ruled by laissez-faire capitalism, and freedom flourished for most (not all) of the nations' citizens. The rapid pace of the Industrial Revolution brought about an exemplary standard of living but also new problems for the rapidly developing nation, and socialistic or progressive "reforms" appeared in this country for the first time.

Most of us who have examined the managed care system have spoken about the evils of “corporate medicine.” We have done this because the managed care system is set up, to all intents and purposes, as a corporation. But, a recent article appearing in Transaction Social Science and Modern Society changed my thinking about this most important subject.(1) The article was written by Caroline Poplin, a graduate of the Yale Law School as well as a practicing internist.

Dear Editors,
"It has been well said that the chief trouble with the contemporary generation is that it has not read the minutes of the last meeting." After this quotation from Richard Weaver, Dr. Russell L. Blaylock proceeds to blame the liberals, particularly the Fabian intellectuals for the distortion of the truth and the consequent state of disarray of the American society at present.

Dear Editor,
Dr. Blaylock's history of the socialist movement in America filled in many gaps in my understanding ("Managed Truth: The Great Danger to Our Republic," Medical Sentinel Nov/Dec 1998). I would like to correspond with him and ask him a question concerning the article. You listed his "snail mail" address, but didn't give an e-mail address. Do you have his e-mail address and, if so, could you give it to me?

Enjoying your publication,
Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Weinberg
Denton, TX

Introduction

Now that the Republicans with Tea Party assistance have won the House of Representatives by a landslide, we are hearing a lot of cries from the Democrats and their minions in the media about the need for ending "gridlock" and establishing bipartisan consensus!

Kudos to State Rep. Allen Peake for his valiant efforts and much-needed proposal to eliminate the increasingly burdensome property taxes in the state of Georgia. No one should be surprised that Mr. Frank Gadbois is against it! His aversion to individual freedom and free market capitalism is well known. Instead, Mr. Gadbois is for "progressive taxation," confiscatory, class warfare socialism first enunciated by Karl Marx in the second plank of his Communist Manifesto (1848), in which he called for "a heavy, progressive or graduated income tax."