Kant is evil because his epistemology divorced man's mind from an objective reality. Kant could have said anything at all on ethics and politics, the damage was already done. Since man had no 'real' objective apprehension of reality, it was laughable to proceed to prescriptive aspects of philosophy. His disciples, and those influenced by him, certainly fleshed this out into the destructive subjectivism and relativism that were and are the supports of collectivism. Kant's fairly juvenile reformulations of the ubiquitous golden rule are quite harmless and quite forgotten to the modern collectivist because they floated away, weightless, when Kant's metaphysics and epistemology severed man's mind from an objective assessment of 'what is', and therefore from any rational force in prescribing what man 'ought do.'
We all want people who need health care to get care, just as we all want the hungry fed, etc. In accomplishing this, however, it is immoral to revoke another human's right to the product of his mental and physical effort - his property. It is evil to steal from Bob and give to Jane, and this will always be the case, even if Bob is rich and Jane poor. (This may not have been true in the case of a rich feudal lord or monarch whose wealth came by forcible economic rape of the people, BUT, in American capitalism, wealth is CREATED by the producer of value through mental or physical effort. The value is in the created good or service. Men voluntarily trade monetary markers of value for that CREATED value. Except for those rich who became so and thrive by lobbying (bribing) the government to favor their company/interests with legislation, regulation, or the competition stifling tax code --- except for those evil parasites --- wealth in America is NOT come by through the oppressi
Comments