Humanitarian With the Guillotine - 2
Posted by mshupe 7 months, 2 weeks ago to Government
Chapter XX, Excerpt 2 of 3
The Humanitarian With the Guillotine
The fatal divergence occurs in failing to recognize the norm of human life. Ills are marginal. They can be alleviated from the marginal surplus of production. It should be noted that these enduring results derived from self-improvement; otherwise, nothing could be done. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that the producer exists for the sake of the non-producer, the well for the sake of the ill, the competent for the sake of the incompetent; nor any person merely for the sake of another.
But supposing he has no means of his own and imagines that he can make “helping others” his primary purpose and normal way of life . . . the central doctrine of the humanitarian creed. How is he to go about it? Lists have been created of the Neediest Cases, certified by charitable foundations which pay their officers handsomely. This is embarrassing, but how is the confession to be evaded? If the philanthropist could command the means of production, he could claim credit for production.
What kind of world does the humanitarian contemplate as affording him full scope? It could only be a world filled with breadlines and hospitals, in which nobody retained the natural power of a human being to help himself. That is precisely the world the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way. Of course, what the humanitarian proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.
The Humanitarian With the Guillotine
The fatal divergence occurs in failing to recognize the norm of human life. Ills are marginal. They can be alleviated from the marginal surplus of production. It should be noted that these enduring results derived from self-improvement; otherwise, nothing could be done. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that the producer exists for the sake of the non-producer, the well for the sake of the ill, the competent for the sake of the incompetent; nor any person merely for the sake of another.
But supposing he has no means of his own and imagines that he can make “helping others” his primary purpose and normal way of life . . . the central doctrine of the humanitarian creed. How is he to go about it? Lists have been created of the Neediest Cases, certified by charitable foundations which pay their officers handsomely. This is embarrassing, but how is the confession to be evaded? If the philanthropist could command the means of production, he could claim credit for production.
What kind of world does the humanitarian contemplate as affording him full scope? It could only be a world filled with breadlines and hospitals, in which nobody retained the natural power of a human being to help himself. That is precisely the world the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way. Of course, what the humanitarian proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.
I think that there are two kinds of "philanthropists": one set uses their own funds and the others try to use someone else's. Only the first can really be called philanthropists and that only if their efforts aren't just to try to control others with their money, eg. George Soros/Bill Gates types. The other ones are called progressives! ;)
Is there "love" without honor--and how is there honor in depriving a person of self-esteem that can only come from personal achievement in overcoming hardship or at least opposition encountered in problem solving?
There's an article in a recent Newsmax magazine by Ben Stein telling about the suicide of an adopted son, Tommy, for whom the Steins had done almost everything imaginable--only to see this person commit suicide by one of his many guns this past July.
If something went wrong in the Steins' case and countless others, perhaps it was simply "philanthropy"--the kind of "love" that denies honor and self-esteem.
Notice Stein's admission, "I was just putty in his hands," in the following discourse posted at a CNN website. "Putty in his hands" is precisely what a father can not be.
http://www.cnn.com/books/dialogue/980...
I have seen this at work. There was a woman going around claiming to need money for cancer treatments, and trying to get local churches to help her. A few did, but someone was looking out for the limited resources on hand and did a little research, revealing her as a fraud.
After that, word went out, and she was out of business, which probably means on the government dole.
Government is COMPLETELY the wrong outlet and should be out of the picture entirely. They've insinuated themselves into adoption and made it ridiculously costly and time-intensive with their mandates and programs. They've got a vested interest in the foster care system but should be paying for it - not implementing it. Same for welfare programs. There are some people who need genuine help but it is my firm opinion that private charities and religious organizations can perform those duties to a far higher degree of care and responsibility than any government one - especially if the government gets out of the way.
Case in point: insane asylums. They used to be run almost exclusively by religious organizations, primarily the Catholic Church. Then Democrats began regulating them out of existence and it is no wonder that crime has shot through the roof! Same thing with homeless shelters.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe there is a major court case being brought against Target for that exact reason. (Another one is likely "brewing" - pun intended - for Anheiser-Busch.
Two geniuses casting pearls and reaping clam shells.