The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action

What can one human being actually do for another? He can give from his own funds and his own time whatever he can spare. But he cannot bestow faculties which nature has denied nor give away his own subsistence without becoming dependent himself. If he earns what he gives away, he must earn it first... But supposing he has no means of his own, and still imagines that he can make "helping others" at once his primary purpose and the normal way of life, which is the central doctrine of the humanitarian creed, how is he to go about it?

If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help "Humanity", the wholfe of humanity must be in need. The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people... positively do not want to be "done good" by the humanitarian... Of course what the humanitarian actually 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.

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 or to resist having things done to him. And that is precisely the world that the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way... There is only one way, and that is by the use of political power in its fullest extension. Hence the humanitarian feels the utmost gratification when he visits or hears of a country in which everyone is restricted to ration cards. Where subsistence is doled out, the desideratum has been achieved, of general want and a superior power to "relieve" it. The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action.

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), pp. 240-42

While one could obviously argue that the humanitarian has good intentions in his heart one should also not dismiss the resulting consequences in the world where the humanitarian(s) control the political machines of a nation. Perhaps they mean well but the results are consistent in showing that the world in which they desire does not and cannot work without bringing everyone down to the level of needing their help. Unless that is the goal of humanitarians then they must realize that using force to achieve benevolent ends helps no one and enslaves everyone.

I am a person who loves to help others when I have the opportunity but that is the key points; I only help when I am able. Sure many people would like to give hand-outs while others prefer to teach a man to fish. But when either is done through force the liberty of each individual is stripped away.

you said it man.

helping someone is noble when you can but when you force that upon anyone that is nothing but tyranny.

they walk a fine line with their morality.


and the modern day version with the government forcing people to help other people that creates the dependency that they need in order to survive.

its the arguement of charity vs. entitlement charity is a choice entitlement is not.

and too many people in this country today have no concept of the word charity but they know all to well that word entitlement because they think someone owes them something and they never fathom the idea that someone else earns that what is given to them.

something given to someone is more often than naught taken from someone else and that needs to stop

and let people decide and let them make that choice.

reply to post by Misoir


What a completely retarded interpretation of a humanitarian...