PDA

View Full Version : The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action




Lightfiend
04-02-2010, 04:42 PM
"If the philanthropist's justification for living is to help others, his ultimate goal requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help ‘humanity,’ the whole of humanity must be in need." (http://www.libertarianminds.com/the-humanitarian-in-theory-is-the-terrorist-in-action)

This article is on the late author and political philosopher Isabel Paterson, and her warnings on the implicit assumptions and dangerous consequences of so-called "humanitarianism." How do these ideas in her 1943 book, "The God Of The Machine," relate to current issues like the War on Terror and America's ever-growing welfare state?

Murray N Rothbard
04-23-2012, 12:03 AM
Bump. Possibly the most powerful piece of libertarian writing there is. Anyone who hasn't read it yet, should.

Working link: http://mises.org/daily/2739

Lucille
04-23-2012, 09:39 AM
"The slaughter committed by barbarians would not add up to one-tenth the horrors perpetrated by rulers with good intentions."

Huge Isabel Paterson fan here. :) Also enjoy her novels, which do not lack libertarian wisdom.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_God_of_the_Machine.html?id=Bgw2nKffTXMC

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/rose-wilder-lane-isabel-paterson-and-ayn-rand-three-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/

cheapseats
04-23-2012, 11:01 AM
Lest "we" unduly give ourselves credit or spare ourselves blame, bear in mind that ANYONE who applies rigid theory to the vagaries of life must resort to tyranny in order to make the theory "work" in practice.

bolil
04-23-2012, 11:06 AM
I believe she is to apologetic for those who do irreparable harm with "the best intentions". Good people can be identified by the means they employ and the ends they achieve. Intent is irrelevant.

cheapseats
04-23-2012, 11:11 AM
Good people can be identified by the means they employ and the ends they achieve. Intent is irrelevant.


Intent IS irrelevant in EVALUATING Ends. But Intent is VERY RELEVANT to punishments suiting crimes.

Ends are ALSO IRRELEVANT, if one believes. Even if one "only" believes in Righteousness. (Obviously, Ends are relevant to POLICY, notably to ADJUSTMENTS in Policy. I am talking about the realm of Principles, wherein Believers' salvation or condemnation lies.)

MEANS (pointedly defined as Method, not Money) are everything.

bolil
04-23-2012, 11:23 AM
Intent IS irrelevant in EVALUATING Ends. But Intent is VERY RELEVANT to punishments suiting crimes.

Ends are ALSO IRRELEVANT, if one believes. Even if one "only" believes in Righteousness.

MEANS (pointedly defined as Method, not Money) are everything.

I disagree, as intent is utterly subjective. I kill a man, I claim it was not my intent to kill him but only to scare him. No man or woman alive can prove this isn't the case. Means are not every thing, while I consent means can be ends in themselves once they are attained, they are nonetheless not everything. I do not believe the ends justify the means because it is usually an argument used to justify obscene ends. Means, besides, are ambiguous. I can use influence for good or evil. I can intend to use influence for good or evil. I can actually use influence for good or evil. Only the third possibility holds any water as regards other beings. Defining good and evil... priceless.

You've got good intentions? Good for you.

Lucille
04-23-2012, 11:36 AM
I believe she is to apologetic for those who do irreparable harm with "the best intentions". Good people can be identified by the means they employ and the ends they achieve. Intent is irrelevant.


The philanthropist, the politician, and the pimp are inevitably found in alliance because they have the same motives, they seek the same ends, to exist for, through, and by others. And the good people cannot be exonerated for supporting them. Neither can it be believed that the good people are wholly unaware of what actually happens. But when the good people do know, as they certainly do, that three million persons (at the least estimate) were starved to death in one year by the methods they approve, why do they still fraternize with the murderers and support the measures? Because they have been told that the lingering death of the three millions might ultimately benefit a greater number. The argument applies equally well to cannibalism.
http://mises.org/daily/2739

bolil
04-23-2012, 11:42 AM
Let me rephrase: Good people who, with good intentions, do bad things are not good people.

cheapseats
04-23-2012, 11:56 AM
I disagree, as intent is utterly subjective. I kill a man, I claim it was not my intent to kill him but only to scare him. No man or woman alive can prove this isn't the case.

Intent is NOT entirely subjective. You "simply" create an example where there IS subjectivity.

Dude walks into a liquor store, blows the owner away and empties the register, there is NO subjectivity about intent.



Means are not every thing, while I consent means can be ends in themselves once they are attained, they are nonetheless not everything.

They ARE everything in the spiritual win/lose/draw paradigm. INTENT counts, too, on Judgement Day...if one believes "Afterlife".



I do not believe the ends justify the means because it is usually an argument used to justify obscene ends.

Yep. Or cutting whatever corner, or screwing whatever person, or disregarding whatever principle.



Means, besides, are ambiguous.

Sometimes, especially if the Rationalizer WANTS them to be.

The aforementioned dude who shoots a shop owner in cold blood, prior to emptying the register? UNAMBIGUOUS means.



I can use influence for good or evil. I can intend to use influence for good or evil. I can actually use influence for good or evil.

Sure. But that doesn't establish AMBIGUITY once you make your choice.




Defining good and evil... priceless.

Defining Good and Evil . . . CHALLENGING, AND RELENTLESS.

Choosing Good . . . PRICELESS.




You've got good intentions? Good for you.

Good Intentions and a dime won't get you a phone call, even if you can find a pay-phone.

cheapseats
04-23-2012, 11:59 AM
Let me rephrase: Good people who, with good intentions, do bad things are not good people.


CORRECT.

bolil
04-23-2012, 12:05 PM
Thanks for the validation, now I'll rest easy. Perhaps the man went to the liquor store to buy some liquor, and upon finding his chosen liquor was not there flew into a rage. His stated intent was to inform the proprietor of his displeasure, not to kill the man... that was an accident. Prove his intent was not benign? In the case you mention the man is to be judged by the ends, something you claim irrelevant.

cheapseats
04-23-2012, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the validation, now I'll rest easy. Perhaps the man went to the liquor store to buy some liquor, and upon finding his chosen liquor was not there flew into a rage. His stated intent was to inform the proprietor of his displeasure, not to kill the man... that was an accident. Prove his intent was not benign? In the case you mention the man is to be judged by the ends, something you claim irrelevant.


You are playing "Devil's Advocate", in order to defend #MoralRelativism.

Have at it.

bolil
04-23-2012, 01:00 PM
Blowing right past words, you are putting theories into my mouth. I say judge upon reality, that which is demonstrable, being means applied and ends achieved. Intent is not reality.