December 29, 2005

WRTA

Brown Shoes Diary

Charitable Thoughts

Jason High's thoughtful essay on charity (http://www.wrtanews.com/artman/publish/article_3421.shtml) prompts two thoughts of my own.

First, I think Mr. High has captured the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thinking, not just with regard to charity, but generally.  I'm immodest enough to alert him to McGinnis's Axiom on Political Outlook (MAPO), which makes his point more succinctly.  The axiom is that conservatives believe the end justifies the means, while liberals believe that the means justify the end.  As an example of the former, think of Richard Nixon who in the name of law and order thought of himself above the law and was ready to break any law if he deemed it expedient to do so.  (I would most strongly argue that Nixon was not a conservative, but he had ample support from that political camp.)  Liberals on the other hand are unable to admit their programs are manifest failures.  They mean well and that is all that matters to them.  As an example look only at the intractable poverty class produced by spending several trillion dollars on poverty programs which has not affected the liberal outlook in the least.

Second, I believe Mr. High is saying that the way to get government out of the charity business (where it most certainly is wasteful and counterproductive) is not through political means, but through increased giving from the private sector.  There are three big problems with this suggestion.  One is that it isn't practical to ask people who are having 40-50% of their income and wealth confiscated by government to dig deeper.  Two, even if it were practical to supplant government charity through private giving, there is no reason to believe this would shrink government's involvement.  Mr. High says that it's not political feasible to shrink government now so why would this change later?  Government and its proponents, both liberal and conservative, will always find reasons to upsize it and excuses to avoid downsizing it.

The third and biggest problem with Mr. High's proposal is that it avoids the most necessary truth that has to be promoted.  George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, and others recognized that government remains limited only to the extent that its citizens remain virtuous.  Allowing government involvement in charity of any kind is to abdicate one's own responsibility while allowing government to usurp one's own rights.  That is the war to be fought and winning battles that don't directly move us to victory in that war are going to be hollow victories indeed.