The question is the base line. Would everything be perfect if not for some oppressing group. So everyone would rise to prosperity and happiness if not for the group keeping them down. Or is the natural state of people being down and so when one group rise you see something unusual that must be due to some kind of inner strength.

That is my thought about different forms of Marxism that attribute the idea that all people are not prosperous to discrimination. 

Wherever England has touched, you find economic prosperity, higher standards of living than anywhere else

Wherever England has touched, any place that was a colony of England, you find economic prosperity, higher standards of living than anywhere else;- civilization, tall building, clean streets, people cooperation.

The USA, Australia, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Israel. You can not see that with anyone else.
What is it about the English?

You can possibly say it is one clause in the Magna Carta. No free man shall be fined, imprisoned or ruined in any way without a due process. That is, --the due process was not the judgment of the king or even the Parliament, but of a jury.

98% of the population were English. But were free. So even though the barons and lords were Norman, this was for the people, not just the rulers.

The strange thing about this is that you find the exact opposite effect with Socialism. Any place it touches, where there was once prosperity, high standards of living you then find everything falling apart.  

w47 G Major  same piece but in midi format same piece but in nwc format

Foundational-ism is something that Hegel goes against. That there are some ideas that one starts with that are beyond reproach or correction. That is not the same kind of foundational kind of belief that Michael Huemer starts with.  With Huemer, you start with prima facie evidence. And if afterwards new evidence comes to light that shows you have to bring corrections to your beginning belief, then you do so. And how do you know which is more likely? That is by probability.
I do not see that Hegel would have disagreed with this.
Hegel never went into the question rationalism as opposed to empiricism in the first place.
Nor did he think he could derive all science by pure reason with no empirical input. [You gave to see John McTaggart to see these points. It is hard to see them in Hegel himself.]

E Flat Major index #w46

There is a verse that is often taken to mean something it does not say. אתה הראתה לדעת כי השם הוא האלהים אין עוד מלבדו. "You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there is none other besides Him." Which means: There is no other god besides God, the First Cause. The reason I say this is two fold. One is simple grammar. If the words "אין עוד מלבדו" would be by themselves in the verse, then that would perhaps be different. However in the context of the verse, the meaning is the Lord is God, there is no other god besides Him.

The other reason I say this is in the actual meaning of the verse. In that verse in Deuteronomy Moses is talking to Klal Israel and telling them you were shown at Mount Sinai to see and to know something. What was that? That was that the Lord is the true God and there is no other gods besides Him. That is the simple explanation of what Israel saw at Mount Sinai. Not that there were shown that there is nothing. 

The basic idea of the Torah is that God created the world from nothing. Ex Nihilo. And all Rishonim agree that that is the point of Torah.

There is an argument between almost all other Rishonim and the Rambam concerning the question if one grabs a doubt.  The Rashba is usually in the side of the other rishonim in this kind of argument but in this case he brings a case for the Rambam and the Gra also.
The issue comes from a Gemara in Bava Metzia . R. Hanania said to Raba: there is a braita that supports your view that says the doubts go into the stall to be taken for the tithe. So if a kohen would grab a doubt and we would not take it out of his hand then one would be taking tithe by the money of a kohen.
The Rashba says that  that is only in the case of the first born of an ass which is at first owned by the Israeli. That is the status of the first owner causes us to say we would take it out of the hand of the kohen.

This comes up in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach in laws of acquisition 3 law 9. I mean to go into this in a little more detail.