Skip to main content

Evil Kant

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.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Universal Slavery

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...

Anything You Want to Do

If you conceive of freedom as somehow the *right* to do anything you want , or the *right* to do anything you want with no ill consequences, then the entire reasoned structure of rights disintegrates into just another philosophy of might makes right.    Take the example even of a  desert island. Even there, a single person can not 'do anything they want' - not in the context of: *and continue living* or *continue living with comfort or security.* Reality itself dictates that the human being must spend of his/her life time acting based on reason to secure values necessary to continue living and live with any kind of comfort or security. How a human persists in conscious existence - what is necessary for that to occur - is dictated by the real nature of a human - his physiology - his physical needs - and the means (reason) - by which he must secure values in the existence in which he finds himself. Here are some conclusions from the  example: ...

Inflation

From Mises "Human Action" terms inflationism and deflationism, inflationist and deflationist, signify the poIitica1 programs aiming at inflation and deflation in the sense of big cash-induced changes in purchasing power. The semantic revolution which is one of the characteristic features of our day has also changed the traditional connotation of the terms inflation and deflation. What many people today call inflation or deflation is no longer the great increase or decrease in the supply of money, but its inexo- rable consequences, the general tendency toward a rise or a fall in com- modity prices and wage rates. This innovation is by no means harmless. It plays an important role in fomenting the popular tehdencies toward in- flationism. First of all there is no longer any term available to signify what inflation used to signify. It is impossible to fight a policy which you cannot name. Statesmen and writers no longer have the opportunity of resorting to a ter- minology accept...