What is Philanthropy; C. LaDow

CHARLES R. LADow What Is PHILANTHROPY? SINCE THE STATE has, in our time, assumed the status of the chief philanthropic institution in the nation, it is well that we should reexamine the roots of the word, philanthropy. Casual inspection of any dic tionary gives us a definition: "Love for mankind; good will to all men ;-opposed to misanthropy." The source is, of course Greek: philos (loving) + anthropos (man). Older Webster Interna tionals gave "human being" as an alterna tive to the generic sense of "man." Indeed, the Greek origi nators of the term used it either generically, or in the individual sense, as we do, from Homer on ward. Liddell and Scott's Greek English Lexicon informs us that Homer even used anthropos in re ferring to the dead. In consider ing philanthropy, it is important Mr. LaDow, of San Diego, recently retired as a teacher of social studies in high school. 526 that we should distinguish be tween our use of the term, man, in the generic sense, or as indicat ing the individual; or as a collec tive or distributive noun. Do we mean, by philanthropy, "the love of mankind," or "the love of hu man beings 1"

This is no quibble. Technically speaking, Latin scholarship has demonstrated that ens (some thing) and unum are interchange able terms, which may be predi cated of one another, Le., "one is something, or something is one." To put it in ordinary words, any thing which is not individually distinguishable may be imagi nary; but it is not real to human perception. Not to keep this in mind is to make communication impossible. We don't know what we are talking about. Only God, or his chosen ministers, could love mankind in the purely generic sense.

1974 WHAT IS PHILANTHROPY? 527 Common sense also validates this truth. None of us ordinary mortals can realize love which is unapplied to individuals, whether it be God, self, another person, or any number of individuals. To love "mankind" is to be out of touch with reality, as far as human af fairs go. Any affection must have an object. Of course, it is possible to love a principle, such as humaneness or godliness, and one may fasten love upon anything imaginable. Anything possible to the mind of a person may be a real object of love - to him. But here we reach into the ineffable. Tragic though it may be, this must be a lone1y vigil. It is out of the concourse of human philanthropy. Look to the Individual Practical philanthropy must look upon anthropos (man) as a distributive noun. In so doing, it cannot look upon people as mem bers of classes, races, or any other form of collective entity, except in an accidental sense. For this very good reason, the Goddess of J us tice is blind. Justice is even-hand ed. Each person must stand, equal and alone, before the bar. Quotas or class discriminations have no place here, pro or con. Genuine philanthropy requires that each individual receives the love and treatment he deserves. To do otherwise is to rob the more de serving.

One must be blind indeed not to recognize the difference in quality of persons. Also, he must see that such differences exist without re gard to race, class, sex, or any other generic classification. Dis crimination with regard to such individual differences is the first requirement of survival. One should not marry a murderer or employ a thief, regardless of what other categories might fit such persons. It is unlikely that one could love without the capability of hatred, or even know the differ ence. The viability of any society rests on the quality of discrimina tion shown by its citizens. By shunning the evil and rewarding the good and productive, they edu cate one another. Where this proc ess works well, the need for police is minimized. Citizen acts of terrorism (ex treme misanthropy) are inevitable signs of ubiquitous government. When the state absorbs moral con trol, the moral controls of society become powerless. Most persons do not care, nor do they dare, to intervene in a drama in which they are not cast. People· only love and tend a society of their own voluntary making, as demonstrat ed by the widespread decline of patriotism. Even the resort of the young to communes is part of this 528 THE FREEMAN September alienation. Lack of respect .for parental and other authority, in cluding business leaders, is func tionally connectable to their ac ceptance of the state as patron.

Although the vigilante spirit and lynch mob are not unknown to self-policing society, the inevi table arising of terrorism in the police state, apparent worldwide today, is vastly more terrible and destructive of the philanthropic spirit. The Greeks Had Two Words Collectivizing anthropos did not begin with Karl Marx. As pointed out, the ancient Greeks were some what ambiguous with the term. Plato's leaning toward the Spar tan model is well known. Para doxically, Marx admired Aristotle, who was systematically critical of Plato's collectivist system of "ideas." Such disparate thinkers as St. Augustine and Rousseau contributed to the intellectual col lectivization of man. But, in the past hundred years the process has accelerated to the point where very few intellectuals seem to un derstand clearly that a person is an individual. Hence, the bio-chem ist, Roger J. Williams has found it fitting to remind us, in his re cent book: You Are Extraordinary.

Since this mental aberration has spread worldwide, it is difficult to find living examples of a society of responsible indi vid uals larger than a household. The ultimate excuse for the pol iticization of philanthropy is that society has grown too complex for individualism to be counted. As Leonard Read has pointed out, this· argument is false, both in fact and logic. The division of la bor in industrial society has placed burdens of responsibility on the individual beyond any comparison in history. Likewise the part which each individual plays in the economic world is vastly simpli tied by business organization, up on which government is mainly parasitical. Whenever the political managers get sufficiently fouled up in sharing-the-wealth programs and directing our lives, they indi cate that they know where the skills are by calling businessmen to Washington to straighten out the me~s .. Anyone should know, by now, that politicians are the last persons who should be allowed to control an economy, especially in the name of philanthropy. The in creasing complexity and differen tiation in the ways people ex change goods and services indi cate a need for greater decentrali zation; not for further centrali zation of power. Big business rec ognizes this by increasing resort to sub-contracting factors in pro duction. Government, on the other hand, becomes more centripetal by 1974 WHAT IS PHILANTHROPY? 529 the hour, in power and function.

The hoary nineteenth century fear that corporate monopoly must inevitably destroy opportunity for the individual entrepreneur is still parroted by charlatans and the ignorant; but anyone who troubles to look at the facts will see that small business flourishes as never before. Government, itself, is the one true monopolist. Hence the whole antitrust machinery of gov ernment, aside from cases of real fraud, is counterproductive, rep resenting a needless ultimate add ed cost to the consumer and tax payer. This imposition is vastly aggravated by the failure of poli ticians to apply the same stand ards to labor unions in "restraint of trade" which are so grievously, if unevenly, applied to corporate business. In this, as in the whole field of government control of pri vate exchange, politicians can lay no claim to philanthropic function. The bill for their power-struggle is an onerous burden placed on the fundamental anthropos: the con sumer. Together with government made inflation, this is clearly re flected in a galloping rise in the price structure: a strange philan thropic outcome!

The System at Fault It should be needless to point out that these strictures on the heartlessness of government "giving" are not intended to apply to any particular member of the bu reaucracy. Truly philanthropic in dividuals may be found in any sys tem. No doubt there are humane guards (so far as they are allowed to be) even in Russian prison camps. However, there is a basic misanthropy in any non-discrimi nating system of collectivism. Not to recognize the uniqueness of the individual is a mark of indiffer ence, if not hatred. As any observ ant cowboy can tell you, there are even personality differences in a herd of cattle. This writer has also encountered members of the bu reaucracy discussing among them selves its heartlessness toward beneficiaries. There is no way in which gov ernment. can be philanthropic in the distributive sense. Abjured by the most basic rule of law that public funds may not be appropri ated to private benefit, it must see that its beneficences are only ap plied on a categorical basis. One must fall within the parameters of an abstract class in order to enjoy anyone of the benefits. Since, in real'life, few persons fit into neat categories, either in their needs or deserts, anyone who has dealt with the public bureaucracies has felt the twinge of their uneven per formance. Even necessary crimi nal laws often present the face of inj ustice in their enforcement.

530 THE FREEMAN September This may be borne; but heartless philanthropy is a contradiction in spirit which must be offensive to anyone with sensibilities. Since the whole charade of government philanthropy has been built upon the assumption that private char ity is demeaning, it is an exercise in futility. In private charity, one is, at least, looked upon as an in dividual. Furthermore, he knows that any gift is voluntary and not wrested from someone else by force. Health Care Intervention Governmental intrusion into health care is another example of philanthropic futility. Coincidental with the development of Medicare and Medicaid have come skyrock eting costs of medical services. Anyone acquainted with the law of supply and demand will know the relation of the former to the latter phenomena is causal. Public goods have the attraction of free goods and invite over-consumption of scarce resources. As it hap pened in England, liberal politi cians now are urging a national health program. Having made health care too expensive for the average citizen, government now considers taking the whole respon sibility out of his hands. Not only would this hamstring individual judgment and genuine philan thropic action in one of our finest professions; but the quality of service and cost to the ultimate consumer would fall and rise (re spectively) in dramatic fashion.

The costs might be hidden in taxes or inflation; but they would be there to all but the indigent. In quality of care and other costs of living, even the indigent would suffer from such an un-philan thropic move. The economic sham bles of England's welfare state should be warning to us in follow ing her march toward totalitarian controls. Since Protagoras and Aristotle, realistic philosophers have agreed that "nothing exists apart from particulars." So, in philanthropy, they have recognized that there must be a particular giver and a particular receiver in any real philanthropic act. Of course phi lanthropists may act in concert, and may even be enclosed as the "fictitious individual" of incorpo ration. However, private philan thropy, however organized, has the magic ingredient of. free and will ing donation. Each individual vol unteers his contribution to the benefaction. Each person who ben efits may know it as a freely given gift. Just as there is no love but particular love, there is no philan thropy but the private kind of free and willing exchange. Widespread recognition of this truth is evi denced by the happiness with 1974 WHAT IS PHILANTHROPY? 531 which private philanthropists go about their work and the gen erally gratifying nature of all their relations. The dreary bu reaucracy of public charity stands in sharp contrast, as it always has.

He who loves everyone, in truth loves no one. No institution is, of itself, capable of love. It seems un necessary to point out such evi dent matters. However, the recent lack of sophistication concerning ontology and etymology often finds one in a state of wonder. As Albert Jay Nock noted so many decades back, people are losing touch with reality. They can be convinced that government can be philan thropic, even when its record is documented with the grossest swindles, inequities, and downright absurdities. As Nock point ed out so simply, "No nation can afford to support all its . idle peo ple." By putting us into huge debt and inflating the currency, our politicians have attempted to do just that. At the same time, phe nomenal growth of private philan thropy indicates the failure of their efforts. (Were they success ful, it should be "withering away," like capitalism, in the Marxist model.) That private philanthropy is still so robust is an earnest of the spirit of the American people.

There is no doubt of their wide spread philanthropy. Let us order our politicians to giv~ philan thropy back to the people. Only they know how to use it. Only they can even exercise it. ~ IDEAS ON $ LIBERTY A Meaningless Attempt IF WE NEED LAWS to make people treat men of other faiths and races as friends; if we need the police power of the secular state to take money from men for human need; if it is believed that the only hope of a city of God is to seek the alternative of a collectiv ized mass leveled to the lowest common denominator of mentality and ability - if all this be the limit of our hope for mankind, then even such activity is sheer futility, for even if such an effort could be achieved it would have no meaning at all for mankind. This rejection of personal responsibility would prove only that it is possible to make men live like whipped dogs, and the proving of it would be hell.

RUSSELL J. CLINCHY. "Charity: Biblical and Political"