Homepage
Newsletter
Search
Updates
About
Adler
Dolhenty
Adventures
Philosophers
Critiques
Glossary
Quotations
Mini-courses
Aquinas
Essays
Philosophy
Politics
Religion
Education
Science
Media
FAQ
Ask
Guestbook
Forum
Bookstore
Emporium
Newsstand
Calendar
Subscribe
Feedback
Tell a friend
Votecaster
Cartoons

Politics Resource Center

Essays, Opinion, & Commentary

Something to Think About Index

Politics Resource Center Main Page


Books about Politics and Current Events in The Radical Academy Bookstore
Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices

Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources


Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy

Bookstore
Magazine Outlet
Music Store
Video Store
DVD Store
Computer Store
Camera & Photo Store
Computer/Video Games
Software Store
Outlet Store
Cellular Phones
Toys & Games
Tools & Hardware
Outdoor Living
Consumer Electronics
Kitchen & Housewares
Baby Superstore
Apparel & Accessories
Gourmet Food
Sporting Goods
Jewelry & Watches
Health & Personal Care




Something to Think About

 

Facts and Philosophy

by Gordon Francis Corbett

 

If we depend exclusively on facts when we argue, each arguer will cite his facts and sources, and will decry his opponent's. Only frustration and futility can result.

If, instead, we let facts illustrate our philosophy, we can win.

The philosophic study called ethics covers right and wrong. Ethics spawns politics. Politics studies the sanctioned use of force.

Our philosophic opponent is collectivism, which comprises socialism and fascism. Socialism advocates that government own the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Fascism recommends that government control them.

How can they justify that from the standpoint of ethics?

Philosophic arguments begin with basic assumptions called, "premises."

Collectivist theory asserts that only the collective has rights, and that government should enforce them. Hitler's collective was the German "Volk" (pronounced "folk"), or racial group. Marx's was the poor.

Theoretically, Hitler wanted to abolish private property and have his National Socialist German Workers' Party run Germany dictatorially to benefit Aryans. Marx wanted to abolish private property and have government run countries dictatorially to make everyone economically equal.

In both situations, theoretically, government would eliminate injustice (racial for Hitler, social for Marx), and thereby create justice.

Democratic collectivism is cleverer than the dictatorial variety. Because a dictator seizes power by force, few support him willingly. A "democratic" leader, though, often uses electoral tricks to legitimate his "winning" and ruling.

In both cases, one's participation in the economy depends on one's pleasing the bosses.

Collectivism is bosh. Although groups' individual members have rights, the groups themselves have none. Therefore, individual's rights give rise to all proper governmental power, and constitute the antidote to collectivism.

Individual's rights found our Republic. Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights protect those rights.

No wonder our opponents want to ignore it!

 


Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events...

Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine...


Something to Think About Index

Politics Resource Center Main Page



-- Top of Page --

[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]

Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.