Tolerance, in the political and social sense, involves two components: 1. Finding others' beliefs or behavior wrong or, in some substantive way, highly objectionable. This fundamental disagreement must be present on issues that really matter, not on issues that are minor or trivial. 2. In the face of this intense disagreement, one refrains from resolving differences by violence or the threat of violence.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
I think everything you say and believe is immoral and disgusting. I shall try to eradicate your beliefs from the face of the earth. But, I shall express my disagreement only verbally and refrain from violence to suppress your point of view. Therefore, I am demonstrating tolerance.
by Tex in Tex February 07, 2008
Derived from the Middle English 'libertyn' meaning 'freedman,' which came from the Latin root 'liber,' which means 'liberty.' Libertine was a derogatory term which referred to someone who was a free-thinker or non-believer. Until the 19th Century, atheists or agnostics were considered beyond the pale of reasonable or civilized people. The term was extended to describe people who lacked moral self-restraint. Being a libertine was associated with living as an animal or an uncivilized person. John Stuart Mill's dictum, "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" applies as a condemnation of the libertine.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Fool: I am a libertarian. I smoke dope, watch pornography, and have sex with anything not nailed down. I love liberty as did the Founding Fathers.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
by Tex in Tex March 08, 2008
A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."
Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: "I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?"
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
by Tex in Tex June 17, 2008
Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Cognitive rationality is matching one's beliefs with reality. Instrumental rationality is choosing effective means to achieve one's goals. Achieving one's goals in the real world necessarily demands that one's beliefs be consistent with the independent reality that stands over against us. Teleological rationality is choosing the right goals as established by the objective moral order ordained by God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Logic can be rational in some cases and not others. Science can be rational in some cases and not others. The same with emotions, intuitions, art, and religious faith. Let's consider logic in this regard. Logic can clearly spell out the assumptions and the argument structure that lead people to the conclusions they are propounding. The clarity of these arguments can verify the truth of the claim one is making so that one has a clear and distinct idea of it. If there is an error in the reasoning, then the clarity of articulating the argument allows one to identify and correct the mistake. On the other hand, there are cases where the knowledge that is necessary to draw a conclusion is implicit, so that the premisses cannot be clearly spelled out. For example, as Michael Polanyi has observed, it is impossible to fully describe how to ride a bicycle. Much of what distinguishes expert from advanced novice levels of knowledge of a skill is unarticulable knowledge. In these cases, habit and intuition get at the truth more effectively than more explicit approaches to understanding. The reductionist approach in science runs into similar shortcomings. For example, if a scientifically knowledgeable young man tries to woo a young lady he is in love with by explaining very clearly how she affects his hormones and neurotransmitters, he is likely to be unsuccessful as well as failing to accurately describe the experience of falling in love.
It is not always rational to gain every extra bit of information before making a decision. Economists recognize this principle and term it "rational ignorance." The time and energy of gaining additional information past a certain point may not be rewarded with greater effectiveness in making the decision. In most cases, it is more effective to specialize in a few areas and then trust others to gain the necessary information to meet a range of needs that one is not meeting oneself. For example, it is more efficient to specialize in whatever one is interested in and talented in and then trade with others for what one needs. This principle is called "comparative advantage." The same principle is at work in faith in God. We have faith in our mechanic or doctor who is more able than we are, so it is with God. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Faith is not some mysterious power radiating out from the person, but rather simply trusting someone who is more able for a particular task.
Artistic expression can be rational since it possesses a systematic structure that can be delineated formally. More importantly, artistic expression can touch the viewers or hearers in a more immediate, intuitive way that more effectively communicates the intended message than more analytic expressions of the same truths.
Emotions themselves can be rational since we can judge people's emotional reactions as appropriate or inappropriate, e.g. if someone cries uncontrollably upon tasting a carrot, then we can immediately see that something is amiss in the person's emotional life. As Aristotle observed, the key to a balanced life is to feel the appropriate emotion, to the appropriate degree, and directed toward the appropriate person or object. Emotions motivate people to act, identify what is salient in their surroundings, and coordinates human actions. The last point is made by philosopher Allan Gibbard who argues that if each person acts on the apt emotion as they interact with one another, conflicts will be minimized. For example, if one person acts so that he violates another's rights, the victim will feel and express anger. As the aggressor senses the victim's anger, he will be motivated to remedy the wrong, otherwise there will be more severe actions taken by the victim to redress the wrong. The guilt and shame that the aggressor feels will restore harmony to the relationship.
Choosing the appropriate goals in life will make the person's life more fruitful and more satisfying. Choosing goals that are inconsistent with the objective moral order of the universe will lead to frustration and personal injury. Again, rationality is a matter of harmony between the individual, his social and natural environment, and God.
Listen to the voice of reason...it might be calling to you where you least expect it...Rationality is simply listening to reality.
by Tex in Tex February 06, 2008
People who feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Plural of those who subscribe to a humanitarian philosophy. Humanitarians feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex June 20, 2008