Skip to comments.My conservative Quote of the day.
Posted on 01/27/2009 6:04:11 PM PST by TheHound
I am considering this project, to present a conservative quote of the day. This will be my first. Depending on the responses, You will determine how long. Here goes:
"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 whole 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 the 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. 240-42s
note my tagline..
Anyone whose "primary" objective is philanthropy will be broke tomorrow, since his own well being would by definition be secondary. He'd have a one day career in philanthropy. I don't know of anyone like that.
I do a lot of things for various charities. I don’t do so because I want people to need my help and therefor me, I do it because people do need help and I am commanded to by my Creator.
If all of a sudden people no longer needed my money or time I would be just as content spending it on my self. Heck I could afford an extra vacation every year.
But I do agree that there are “humanitarians” especially those who inhabit Hollywood, Georgetown, and Manhattan that only preform charitable deeds for publicity, good press, and a feeling of superiority and paternalism toward those they are supposedly serving.
But they are not the majority by far of people who volunteer or are philanthropic.
If I help my downstreet neighbor, have I not helped humanity in general?
My upstreet neighbor's condition is not germane.
HLM makes up quite a few of my quotes, so far accumulated.
A depression is a recession managed by the government.
“There’s nothing wrong with shooting people as long as the right people get shot” ~Dirty Harry Callahan, played by Clint Eastwood
Excellent project idea. My list isn’t sorted (perhaps sordid), unfortunately.
No you, by personal initiative and expense, helped your neighbor.
Although the primary objective is to drain the swamp, it becomes exceedingly difficult when you’re up to your ass in alligators.
Letting this Congress write legislation to stimulate our economy is like letting John Thain rescue Merrill Lynch!
Instead of my consevative quote for the day I have a better idea...
How about “My conservative ACTION for the day”?
Did you educate yourself today?
Did you write/call/talk to your congressman today?
Did you educate your family, friends, and neighbors?
Did you support the NRA?
Did you pray in a closet?
Did you fly the Stars and Stripes today?
Did you let the RNC know how disapointed you are?
Did you speak when most would remain silent?
Did you walk tall and carry a BF stick against tyranny?
Did you stand up in defense of Israel today?
Did you honor God and Neighbor today?
I only mention this because the only quote I can come up with is...
“Give me Liberty or give me Death”
Less is definitely more in this example.
Understood - perhaps its best to get out of the swamp and shoot the gators from the banks - alot of good men have been lost in the swamp.
In the context of your remark - could you explain to me the meaning of Liberty. Am I allowed to disagree with your list and still be free?
Ms. Paterson has stumbled upon the nature of philosophy: It’s always paradoxical. It is the two faces of being that merge into one if one reasons long enough. We reason in circles, and opposites are more alike than opposite. Things are most often exactly the opposite of what we think.
I think I get it. If pigeon crap has no value then it does, but if it doesn’t, then it does. You are so bright I bet your father called you sun.
This is fantastic. I just ordered the book. Thanks.
Of course. They’re just words... just like a quote. I’m just arguing that doing is better than saying. Now is the time for action, not words. We have enough words already.
You are most certainly allowed to disagree with my list and still be free. That was not the implication, but rather action over words. And I hope likewise that you don’t have a list that you expect me to agree with as well. If you did, then we would be standing at the abyss of equality.
My reference to “Give me Liberty or give me Death” was not realated to the previous portion of that post, but to the thread topic. I prefer simplicity to the inordinate complexity that reduces to the same precept. Liberty is all that I want, not equality. What about you?
First. Obverse? Unless you are trying to persuade a college professor that you deserve an "A", just say "opposite". I'm lazy. And old. I can't reach my dictionary without getting up.
Second. Your Conservative Quote of the Day reminds me of one of my old Philosophy classes where I was taught that the Scrooge that begrudgingly gave to charity out of a sense of obligation was "more moral" than the do-gooder that gave ten times as much because it was pleasurable. I always accepted that idea as basically true. Scrooge is a jerk who is nevertheless honoring a higher obligation. The Do-Gooder is a "good person" who really is just taking care of Numero Uno.
A charity might have a different point of view.
Which brings us back to your main point on an organizational level.
What I am trying to do with my "quotes" is present a little more (200 - 300 words)of what the author is saying than the quotes found on calendars and such, so as to, maybe, produce a little more cerebral musing than just the emotional shot generated by a one line quote.
Look up my other quotes.