Topic
Doctrine
About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: McGee as discussed by the authors made some general statements regarding Christian doctrine on the ethics of tax evasion and the views of some Popes on tax evasion, and a doctoral dissertation that was written in the 1940s.
Abstract: One hesitates to make general statements about “Christian” views on anything, given the fact that Christians of various sects have persecuted and even killed each other (not to mention Jews and Muslims) over the centuries because of doctrinal disputes. Nevertheless, I will attempt to make some general statements regarding Christian doctrine on the ethics of tax evasion. The literature on this topic is scant, or at least was scant until recently (McGee 1998 ). Therefore, I will necessarily be limited in my discussion to some Biblical passages, a few recent articles ( Pennock ; Schansberg ; Gronbacher ; Smith and Kimball ; McGee 1994a ) , the views of some Popes, and a doctoral dissertation that was written in the 1940s ( Crowe ).
101 citations
•
01 Jan 1961
TL;DR: The history of the advocacy of the laissez faire doctrine has been studied extensively in the literature as discussed by the authors, with a focus on the logical or rhetorical nature of the arguments by means of which exponents of the theory have attempted to win converts to their cause.
Abstract: WHAT I propose to do in this lecture is to discuss the logical or rhetorical nature of the arguments by means of which exponents of laissez faire or of marked movement in its direction have attempted to win converts to their cause. My lecture will be focused not on the inherent merits or defects of laissez faire as social doctrine, but on the logical character of the case that its adherents have presented in support of it. My examination will be critical in large part, and in one major respect will not be judiciously balanced, since I would in many instances be even more critical of the arguments with which laissez faire has been attacked, but will not similarly examine these arguments. It does not add much, however, to the inherent strength of a doctrine that some deplorably bad arguments have been used against it. It is really not the laissez faire doctrine as such, but the art of persuasion as used in social thought, which it is the purpose of this lecture to explore. I have chosen the history of the advocacy of laissez faire doctrine as the particular field in which to observe the art of persuasion at work, partly because it is a field with which I have some familiarity, and partly because the doctrine has legal and political and ethical aspects as well as economic ones, so that it is a subject of discourse more appropriate to the present occasion than would be a lecture on a narrowly technical economic issue. If in my wandering outside the boundaries of economics, I mishandle legal, political, or ethical concepts, I beg of the experts present to temper their judgments of my misdeeds in the light of the innocence of my intentions. I will carefully avoid using the term laissez faire to mean what only unscrupulous or ignorant opponents of it and never its exponents make it mean, namely, philosophical anarchism, or opposition to any governmental power or activity whatsoever. I will in general use the term to mean what the pioneer systematic exponents of it, the Physiocrats and Adam Smith, argued for, namely, the limitation of governmental activity to the enforcement of peace and of "justice" in the restricted sense of "commutative justice," to defense against foreign enemies, and to public works regarded as essential and as impossible or highly improbable of establishment by private enterprise or, for special reasons, unsuitable to be left to private operation. Both the Physio* [The second Henry Simons Lecture given at the University of Chicago Law School, November 18, 1959.-THE EDITOR.]
101 citations
•
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, Colonel Robert Cassidy argues that this protracted struggle is more correctly viewed as a global insurgency and counterinsurgency, and proposes a distilled analysis of al-Qaeda and its associated networks, with a particular focus on ideology and culture.
Abstract: Since September 2001, the United States has waged what the government initially called the global war on terrorism (GWOT). Beginning in late 2005 and early 2006, the term Long War began to appear in U.S. security documents such as the National Security Council's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and in statements by the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the JCS. The description Long War-unlimited in time and space and continuing for decades-is closer to reality and more useful than GWOT. Colonel Robert Cassidy argues that this protracted struggle is more correctly viewed as a global insurgency and counterinsurgency. Al Qaeda and its affiliates, he maintains, comprise a novel and evolving form of networked insurgents who operate globally, harnessing the advantages of globalization and the information age. They employ terrorism as a tactic, subsuming terror within their overarching aim of undermining the Western-dominated system of states. Placing the war against al Qaeda and its allied groups and organizations in the context of a global insurgency has vital implications for doctrine, interagency coordination, and military cultural change-all reviewed in this important work. Cassidy combines the foremost maxims of the most prominent Western philosopher of war and the most renowned Eastern philosopher of war to arrive at a threefold theme: know the enemy, know yourself, and know what kind of war you are embarking upon. To help readers arrive at that understanding, he first offers a distilled analysis of al Qaeda and its associated networks, with a particular focus on ideology and culture. In subsequent chapters, he elucidates the challenges big powers face when they prosecute counterinsurgencies, using historical examples from Russian, American, British, and French counterinsurgent wars before 2001. The book concludes with recommendations for the integration and command and control of indigenous forces and other agencies.
100 citations
•
100 citations