Philanthropy vs Altruism

Philanthropy is a moral volitional act. It is moral precisely because it is volitional. The donation could be monetary, equipment or art; it could be voluntary service to a cause deemed worthy by the individual. The cause may be to feed the poor, or help battered woman, build a library or museum, or it may be a donation that benefits a civilized organization or business.  The choice belongs to the benefactor.

Groups that fundraise or solicit donations for specific causes may or may not be moral in action. This is for the benefactor to decide based on his or her values and preference. If a group raises funds by expounding the merits of a cause, expounding the merits of the beneficiary, and those merits align with the benefactor’s ethos, by all means, this is a moral endeavor. However, if the soliciting group uses guilt, intimidation or force to obtain the donation, this is immoral. For example: “What do you mean you won’t donate to the poor victims of the Katrina Hurricane tragedy. What are you selfish?” or “What do you mean you won’t donate to The United Negro College Fund, what are you an Uncle Tom?” Likewise philanthropy should not be confused with the religious doctrine of self sacrifice, often hiding behind the guise of charity. Philanthropy is moral; self sacrifice is not.

 If philanthropy is your bag, by all means do it, but do it at your own expense, don’t collectivize the rest of us in an act of sacrifice for what the collective perceives as a moral pursuit. This will only result in the sacrifice of some men for the benefit of other men, the enslavement of productive men, to be sacrificed for those whom cannot or will not produce for themselves. This ladies and gentlemen is beyond immoral; this is altruism.

 Altruism is an immoral lie masquerading as philanthropy. We have been taught in public schools for generations that morality lies in the act of selfless giving. This opens the floodgates for a creed of self sacrifice, the creed of altruism. This is written in scripture; it is the commanding doctrine of religion. This same doctrine has been adopted by government and enforced by the omnipotent power of the state. However, instead of conformity by guilt which is the credo of religion, the state demands compliance at the point of a gun. This begs the question: if the benefactor doesn’t choose who or what is worthy of their selfless giving then who does? The collective decides who is to benefit; the state decides who is worthy of their patronage, a patronage extorted from the wealth of the masses, under the disguise of moral righteousness. The state tells us that the recipient of our sacrifice is always worthy, and we the benefactors are bound by moral duty to sacrifice.

 There is nothing moral about confiscating personal wealth in the form of taxes to distribute to any social cause the state deems worthy. There is nothing moral about forced servitude into a government program the state considers just. There is nothing moral about seizing personal property, destroying the individual rights of man, sacrificing them on the altar of altruism for any capricious notion the state desires. There is no poor, no victim class, no environmental catastrophe, no social burden here in the states or in the world at large that can justify the seizure of individual wealth, properly, and the rights of free men.

For decades, progressive government has twisted our language, perverted our nomenclature, obscuring the definitions between philanthropy and altruism in a con-game, trying to convince the masses that altruism is moral. This is the greatest hoax perpetrated upon man since the dawn of civilization. The state has corrupted charity, corrupted philanthropy, corrupted that which was and still is the moral pursuit of individual men. They have monopolized altruism for the benefit of the state, empowering themselves as politicians, growing their bureaucracies to unsustainable proportions, enriching themselves, their families and constituents, by sacrificing the common man for those “Moral Purposes” they, the chosen few, feel it is our obligation to serve.

 The insidious consequence of altruism is the notion that if mans duty is to sacrifice for others. If this is what’s moral, then mans right to live for his own benefit is immoral. Man has no right to live for his own purpose, for his own productive nature, for his own happiness. If mans moral duty is to sacrifice and die for others, he has no right to live for himself. This is philosophical suicide; this is the immoral creed of sadists, of Attila’s, of fascist, and socialist, this is the immoral creed of socialist democracy in America today.


One Response

  1. Your article is spot on and most eloquently stated. Unfortunately I cannot cite your work in my university thesis on altruism because my liberal professor would most likely flunk me. I’ll just turn in some regurgitated progressive PC horse crap and graduate with an A. Maybe I’ll join the good fight after graduation. Rock on with the truth!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: