Bogus Philanthropy’s Betrayal of Liberty

Bogus Philanthropy’s Betrayal of Liberty

“Beneficium accipere Libertatem est vendere.

To accept a favor is to sell one’s liberty.”

Publilius Syrus 1st Century B.C.

“I have observed that the philosophers in order to insinuate their polluted atheism into young minds systematically flatter all their passions natural and unnatural.

They explode or render odious,

or contemptible that class of virtues which restrain the appetite. These are at least nine out of ten of the virtues.

In place of all this, they substitute a virtue they call humanity or benevolence. By this means their morality has no idea in it or restraint, or indeed of a distinct and settled principle of any kind.”

Edmund Burke to Chevalier de Rivarol, 1791

Toxic charity and crippling pity have long worn the mask of humanitarian aid and bogus philanthropy riding the horse of universal plunder. Edmund Burke (1729-1797), is joined by French Statesman, Economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), Herbert Hoover, Margaret Thatcher, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Jason L. Riley and multitudes of recipients of crippling bogus philanthropy in nations across the globe, who echo the title of Riley’s book: “Please Stop Helping Us: How the Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed.” [for anyone to succeed]

This is not about ethnicity, this is about well intended charity that has become a way of life for the middlemen, the religious mission pundits, politicians, liberals, and the crippled millions whom do gooders have ruined by removing the need that develops faith, families, marriages, minds, muscles, perseverance, innovation and success.

It takes focused attention to develop a memory trace and it takes focused attention to develop individuals capable of self-governing under God. Liberty is not possible for the dependent minded. Bastiat knew this. So, we continue with The Laws, 1850.

“Here I am coming up against the most popular preconception of our age. Not only do we want the law to be just, we also want it to be philanthropic. We are not content for it to guarantee each citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties as they apply to his physical, intellectual, and moral development; we require it to spread well-being, education, and morality directly across the nation.

This is the seductive side of socialism.

However, I repeat, these two missions of the law are contradictory. A choice has to be made. A citizen cannot simultaneously be free and not free. M de Lamartine wrote to me one day, “Your doctrine is only half of my program. You have stopped at freedom; I have reached fraternity.”

I replied to him, “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

And in effect it is totally impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. It is impossible for me to conceive a fraternity that is enforced by law without freedom being destroyed by law and justice trampled underfoot by law.

Legal plunder is rooted in two things: the first we have seen, is human selfishness, the other bogus philanthropy.

Before going any further, I think I have to explain myself as to the word plunder.

[Property to Plunder via Force or Fraud]

I do not take it to mean, as is only too often the case, something that is vague, undetermined, approximate, or metaphorical; I am using it in its properly scientific meaning, and as expressing the opposite idea to that of property.

When a portion of wealth passes from the person who has earned it, without his consent and without compensation, to one who has not created it, whether this is by force or fraud, I say that property is undermined and that there is plunder.

I say that it is exactly this that the law should be repressing everywhere and always.
If the law is carrying out the very act that it should be repressing, I say that there is plunder nonetheless and even, socially speaking, with aggravating circumstances. Only in this case it is not the beneficiary of the plunder who is responsible for it, it is the law, the legislator, or society; and that is what constitutes the political danger.

It is unfortunate that this word has offensive overtones. I have tried in vain to find another, for at no time and still less today do I wish to cast an irritating word into the cauldron of our disagreements. For this reason, whether you believe it or not, I declare that I do not intend to query either the intentions or the morality of anyone whomsoever.

I am attacking an idea that I consider to be false and a practice that appears to me to be unjust, and all this is so far beyond our intentions that each of us takes advantage of it unwittingly and suffers from it unknowingly. It is necessary to write under the influence of the party spirit or out of fear to cast doubt on the sincerity of protectionism, socialism, or even communism, which are only one and the same plant at three different stages of its development.

All that can be said is that plunder is more visible in protectionism because of the three systems socialism is still the most vague, the most indecisive, and consequently the most sincere.

Be that as it may, agreeing that legal plunder has one of its roots in bogus philanthropy is obviously to exonerate its intentions.

This being understood, let us examine what the popular ambition that claims to achieve the general good through general plunder is worth, where it comes from, and where it will lead.

Socialists tell us, “Since the law organizes justice, why should it not also organize labor, education, or religion?”

Why? Because it could not organize labor, education, or religion without disorganizing justice.

[College and Career Ready Fed Led Ed aligned with Career Councils, Chambers of Communism, Faith Based Initiatives and Nonprofits feeding at the taxpayer funded Social Justice trough; Voucher participating religious schools forced to fraud via voluntary compulsory curriculums leveraged by fed aligned formative assessment tests of “accountability” for the metrics mongers….bogus philanthropy to posit this is school “choice.”]

Note therefore that law is compulsion, and that consequently the domain of the law cannot legitimately exceed the legitimate domain of compulsion.

When the law and compulsion hold a man in accordance with justice, they impose on him nothing other than pure negation. They impose only an abstention from causing harm. They do not interfere with his personality, his freedom, or his property. All they do is safeguard the personality, freedom, and the property of others. They remain on the defensive; they defend the equal rights of all. They carry out a mission whose harmlessness is obvious, whose usefulness is palpable, and whose legitimacy is uncontested.

The aim of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning.

But when the law, through the offices of its essential agent, compulsion, [Force], imposes a way of working [STEM laborforce], a method of teaching [Fed Led College and Career Standards] or the contents of the latter [Curriculum coerced via tests for cash, favors, grants, exemptions, credits, scholarships, aid, ESEA title funding…], a faith [tolerance, values neutral, The STATE as provider] or a creed [multicultural environmental religious syncretism]…it is no longer acting negatively but positively on men.

[Can we say behavioral conditioning of Pavlov and B.F. Skinner…treat men like dogs for doggie treat rewards, favors, insect authority, administrative positions, cash, connections, power, false security.]

It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own will. Their role is no longer to question themselves, make comparisons, or plan for the future; the law does all that for them.

Intelligence becomes a superfluous attribute; they cease to be men and lose their personality, their freedom, and their property.”

[Cradle to corpse, digitally monitored, mastered and managed.]

Robin Eubanks, attorney, researcher, parent, author of Credentialed to Destroy, How and Why Education Became a Weapon, and blogger had a recent post alluding to this with real-time evidence and insightful comment:

“Sorry for such a graphic metaphor, but somehow reading all the plans to “transform the world to better meet human needs” made me think we have a global class of politicians and cronies, at every level of government, who actually view ordinary people and poverty as their excuse to be in charge and live at our expense in the 21st Century.

Human needs and poverty are just excuses for Power where “change in the management of our economies” is the new rationale for Fascism. It prevents at every level ordinary individuals from making their own choices about what they want and what they value. Back in December 2014, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued the Post-2015 Global Marching Orders Governments at all Levels are now going about fulfilling. The report is called “The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet.”

Robin’s hot on the track of the globalist intent to use those of good intent, those of selfish intent, and those who have no intent, for bogus philanthropy and servitude.

Sir Edward Gibbons (1737-1794), author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote tellingly of the collapse of Athens, which is noted as the birthplace of democracy. [and why the United States was founded as a Constitutional Representative Republic]

Gibbons judged that, in the end, more than the Athenians wanted freedom, the Athenians wanted security. Yet, they lost everything—security, comfort, and freedom.

They wanted society to give to them. The freedom they were seeking was freedom from responsibility. It is no wonder then that they ceased to be free. * 

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty.”

2 Corinthians 3:17

In the fullness of time, the means for freedom, and liberty would arrive….our heirs need not be slaves….unless we choose to sell them out for a bowl of bogus porridge.   Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

[emphasis and bracketed comments, mine]

* Margaret Thatcher, The Moral Foundations of Society, November 1994 Hillsdale College

Robin Eubanks, Attorney, Researcher, Parent, Author Credentialed to Destroy, How and Why Education Became a Weapon, and blogger

Kenyans, Nigerians, and most African representatives verbalize the damage that crippling charity has wrought on the people of Africa.

on Jason L. Riley’s Courageously Truthful expose’ of who must help themselves….and who needs to stop their humanitarian, “benevolent” self serving toxic charity and crippling pity.





This entry was posted in Culture, Education, Faith, Family, government, History, Parenting, psychology, social emotional "learning", Technology, Values and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s