Humanitarianism is to do good things for humanity, society, the economy, the general welfare, charities, and anyone who is in need. The thing to keep in mind is there is no such thing as any of the labels above. Each is made up of individuals. There is no such entity as, for example, “society”.

 

We all know that Liberals are caring people. They care about the poor, they care about the economy and unemployed, about the income gap, and they care about social justice in general. Or do they?

 

Hillary Clinton, like most people, is very disturbed by the huge spill-over of immigrants in the world. It's a humanitarian tragedy for sure. Her solution declared in a recent speech :  to call an international conference "and make nations contribute to the immigration problem". What seems like a caring statement is actually grotesquely harmful. To "make" is the language of force, while to "contribute" is a voluntary act. The intent is to disguise the use of force in the language of voluntarism. The intent is to appear to be advocating humanitarianism, when in fact it is compulsion that is being advocated. To make someone contribute is a contradiction in terms.

 

President Obama knew this technique by "asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes and contribute to those who have less." Obama knew that he was pressing for a law forcing individuals to contribute, and once law, the refusal to obey would make a person that refused to be robbed of his money, a criminal. Clinton and Sanders have adopted the same terminology.

 

Humanitarianism enforced by law, unmasked, is brute force.

 

Bernie Sanders says that if he were elected "we will ask the wealthy to pay substantially more in taxes" to pay for free education for everybody. Now let's be perfectly clear about this, Sanders is not asking but advocating a law that would take money (92% of the wealthy's money, in Sanders proposal), and if they refuse they will be criminals who violate the law; and as such will be confronted by police and arrested, tried, and sent to jail for not doing what our leaders "asked" them to do.

 

In the end, it is a gun that will be drawn if you dare say "no". This is the end result of the humanitarianism of the liberals. It is compassionate to help people, but what political humanitarians are arguing is to be compassionate not through their own voluntary efforts and charitable contributions, but by forcing others to do so by doing "the right thing".  After all it is for the good of “society”. Slavery was once argued as "good for the economy" for just that reason.

 

Another example: for the "general welfare" of our society we condone eminent domain laws that allow the government to take a person's home away. If the homeowner refuses to leave his home he is branded a criminal of the State - and in rare cases, homeowners that try to defend their home with a weapon are shot dead.

 

The "right" of eminent domain is not confined to Democrats; it is shared by Republicans and most Americans. Donald Trump was criticized in a recent debate for using eminent domain for his own personal gain. Jeb Bush chastised him for it, but defended the right of the government to do so in the name of the "public good" – not the private good. So, it's theft when you take a person's home for private gain, but not theft when the government takes it? Eminent domain is theft no matter who does the stealing.

 

Young men were put in prison for refusing to fight in wars in the past. Muhammad Ali refused to go to war; true, he finally won his point in the Supreme Court, but he lost his prime years to the humanitarians of his day. Republicans and Democrats alike bought into the principal of the draft, which forced young men into battle or made them into criminals if they refused to obey. Ali fought that law and won in his own case. And by the way: Ali was also taxed 92% of the money he made boxing at the hands of those humanitarians who claimed they had more of a right to his money than he did. And you wonder why Ali felt America was a land of injustice, losing his money and his livelihood because as liberals like to say, "It was the right thing to do".

 

In all the above examples it was a matter of the individual versus the state. Does an individual have a right to the money he earns or is it the property of the state who can determine how much he gets to keep? Does an individual have a right to own his home, or can the State confiscate it for its own use? Does a man have the right to his own life or must he sacrifice it in war or become a criminal for refusing to fight? Do rights reside with the individual or does the State have the final say?

 

And here we are again today arguing whether Apple should give up company secrets for the good of society, or should its CEO, Tim Cook, become a criminal for refusing to comply with a court order compelling him to do so. The question is: does the government have the right to compel an individual to take action for the good of the society. If so, there is no such thing as unalienable rights in this country. Many Republicans and Democrats are arguing that “rights are determined by need”.

 

In a free society, the government can ask, they can persuade, they can even bribe an individual to take action, but in no way can they compel anyone to do anything. The government can prevent individuals from taking certain actions, but they cannot force them to do so. With few exceptions, this was the law of the land in this country until 1913. That was the beginning of end of individual rights. Prior to 1913 people lived for themselves, their family and their friends; since then, they have been forced to sacrifice themselves for everyone else and whatever cause is popular at the time.

 

The idea of Tim Cook going to jail for not thinking for the benefit of the FBI -- giving up his mind, his creativity, his independence and turning over his company’s secrets and violating a contract between his company and his customers, or become a criminal of the State -- is right out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which projected just such a deterioration of rights back in the 1950’s.

 

When "need", becomes the standard by which law is imposed, freedom is lost. When the voting majority can pass a referendum that takes the property or natural rights away from the minority we have turned to mob rule as a substitute for unaliable rights. Either an individual has the right to his life, his liberty, and his property -- or he does not.

 

Just because someone needs money, needs an education, needs the use of a bridge or a roadway, needs people to fight and defend him, needs the information to accomplish goals, does not give him the right to grab what he needs from someone else. It is not the so-called "right thing to do". It is brute force, plain and simple.

 

In the name of the sanctity of the individual and his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…this must stop.

 

Paul Nathan

Paulnathan.biz