When it is said that everyone should live primarily for others, what is the specific course to be pursued? Is each person to do exactly what any other person wants him to do, without limits or reservations?, and only what others want him to do? What if various persons make conflicting demands? The scheme is impracticable. Perhaps then he is to do only what is actually "good" for others. But will those others know what is good for them? No, that is ruled out by the same difficulty. Then shall A do what he thinks is good for B, and B do what he thinks is good for A? Or shall A accept only what he thinks is good for B, and vice versa? But that is absurd. Of course what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.
What kind of world does the humanitarian contemplate as affording him full scope? It could only be a world filled with breadlines and hospitals, in which nobody retained the natural power of a human being to help himself or to resist having things done to him. And that is precisely the world that the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way. (pp. 241)

THE GOD OF THE MACHINE BY ISABEL PATERSON
http://mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf

A complex economy necessitates the political simplicity of free contract. The imposition of political power over production instantly begins to reduce the economy to primitive methods, and correspondingly to lower the optimum population. On the other hand, a high production society emerges from the regulated Society of Status by proclaiming liberty, which requires the abolition of political control over economic activities (pp49).

In a settled and productive society, leadership is completely impracticable, because continuity is necessary, with the time-space factor in economics (pp79).

THE GOD OF THE MACHINE BY ISABEL PATERSON
http://mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf

There is no collective good. Strictly speaking, there is not even any common good. There are in the natural order conditions and materials through which the individual, by virtue of his receptive and creative faculties and volition, is capable of experiencing good. Let it be asked, is not sunlight a common good? No; persons do not enjoy the benefit by community, but singly. A blind man cannot see by community. The same degree of sunshine may induce sunstroke in one person while another derives benefit from it; although incidentally, it will not even be the same ray of sunlight which falls on both.
Alexander the Great, with the power of empire at his command, asked Diogenes: "Is there anything I can do for you?" Diogenes replied: "You can stand aside from between me and the sunlight." Man as an individual is capable of experiencing and inflicting both good and evil, having choice, and also incidental liability to error in judgment. Allowing for error, good is obtained by reception and mastery of the forces of nature, and through voluntary association of individuals in equal free choice. But even in such voluntary relations of individuals, it is possible for one person to receive pleasure while another experiences pain; there is no collective sum or equation of good. (pp- 89-90)

THE GOD OF THE MACHINE BY ISABEL PATERSON
http://mises.org/books/godofmachine.pdf