Irish Bill at The Standard writes:

One of the things I like about being left wing is how often the best moral decision is also the best economic decision.

Take economic stimulus for example. In a recession it’s the most vulnerable such as beneficiaries, low paid workers and youth that are hit worst because they are the ones least likely to have any financial backstop. The good thing is the best way to ameliorate the effects of a recession on society as a whole is to help these people out.

Irish Bill here insinuates that only left-wingers support giving to the poor and right wingers do not. The problem is that this claim is false. As I pointed out here, evidence suggests that religious conservatives actually give significantly more money to assist poor people than secular liberals do.

The difference between the left and right is not about whether or not financial assistance should be provided to the poor. Contrary to the false moral superiority (and slander) propagated by left wing activists, the difference is that the left primarily believe in taking other peoples money by threats of violence and giving it to the poor and in practice they give very little of their own money voluntarily. Conservatives, on the other hand, give generously of their own money and take others by force only when as a last resort.

The Standard can con themselves into thinking that the former is the more moral stance, but I think that is fairly questionable.

A friend recently e-mailed me a link to this article.

It points out that religious conservatives give more money to charities that assist the poor than liberals do. If the data is correct, it highlights an issue I came to realise several years ago.

Consider two situations (a) and (b). In (a) my neighbour is in need, I take out my chequebook and give him some money; in (b) my neighbour is in need I take out a gun put it at another’s neighbours head and say to him, give that guy your money or else.

As a Christian, I advocate the former. Those on the political left, while claiming to support the former, frequently support the latter (the gun being the force of the state and the means taxation).

These two are clearly not the same, the first is generous, voluntary giving the second is violence against others.

However, so often in discussing this issue with other evangelicals (a) and (b) are conflated. I am told that because we have a duty to give charitably to the poor we have a duty to support socialist welfare programs. This is a non sequitur. Failure to be attuned to this distinction means that genuine desire to assist the needy is misguidedly thrown in behind acts of state-sanctioned violence and threats against innocent people.

Surely, the real test of virtue is what you are willing to do with your own money in the absence of a gun being held to your head and not what you want the state to force others to do with theirs.