And the greatest of these

George Will has a column here that breaks down a new book, by Arthur C. Brooks, asserting that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

I resist putting people in boxes, but let's assume the data is essentially correct (Will does not say whether or not conservative giving includes giving to churches, which shouldn't be considered full charity - churches do a lot of good, but a lot of that money goes to pay people's salaries that often aren't directly related with helping others).

If forced to categorize people, I'd rather use a two-dimensional plane than a one-dimensional continuum. The two axises are personal (or social) freedom and economic freedom.

A classic "liberal" view is that government should stay out of people's personal lives but strictly regulate the economy. If people don't have health insurance, it's government's job to provide it.

A classic "conservative" view is that government should stay out of the economy (free markets) but regulate people's behavior. This is why many conservatives are in favor of marriage amendments, against the legalization of drugs, for a strong FCC, ect.

NOTE: In using the word classic, I mean the mainstream, in contemporary America, of either side. I don't, for instance, mean classical liberalism - which is much closer to libertarianism, which I discuss below. Again, I resist labels and categories that sweep so broadly over a population. Real people are far more complex.

The so-called neo-con movement has, unfortunately, failed to maintain an economic conservative approach. Many conservatives who support the President on social issues (and military ones) are aghast at the spending increases over the last 7 years.

Fascists take the conservative view to an extreme, communists take the liberal view to an extreme. My own opinion is that fascism and communism eventually lead to totalitarianism: government control of everything (i.e. restrictions on speech in the former soviet empire).

My leanings are that of a libertarian, who thinks freedom should abound on both axises. Government should have minimal interference. Extremism on my end would be called anarchy.

To wit, this article certainly makes a lot of sense, but shouldn't be ammo for anyone. If one group of people think government should take care of others, and one group thinks its their own responsibility, then of course the latter is going to give more to private charity.

Let me be clear: This should not be taken as reflection of the kindness or empathy of either group. Instead, its just a natural result of two philosophies about philanthropy.

My feelings are thus: It is society's job to take care of society. Those who have lots should help those who do not. But the help should not be dragged out of people at gunpoint, which is what social programs funded by the tax role does. Society IS NOT Government. We have responsibility to love others, but taking money from someone else, on the threat of jail, to provide charity is outside the measures of good government.

For further reading, I'd suggest this wonderful parable (I don't know if its true) about Davy Crockett.

Also, Frederick Bastiat's The Law, available here.