This article is a great way to combining social issues with Christmas!
I love the line, "Progressive activists do not care about charity; they will take nothing less than a total renunciation of fundamental Christian beliefs. However, these activists misunderstand the nature of these beliefs and how they influence volunteerism. Let’s examine how this perceived bigotry effects the production of charitable goods."
It's fascinating how the perception of organizations effect the amount of volunteers they receive. Hopefully one day conservatives have a strong pull like this.
Thank you, Paris. Conservatives would benefit greatly from taking economics seriously. Statists, typically progressives, think that their actions have no costs. They think that the present level of charity can be preserved while also accomplishing their progressive ends. This is not a robust way of thinking. Moral and ideological commitments are connected to charitable decisions; they are not mutually independent. Restricting or punishing those commitments penalizes charity and threatens the welfare of the poor. This seems to fit with the typical progressive tendency to care about intentions rather than actual consequences. Of course, this demands some more attention and perhaps an empirical inquiry, but that is a little much for a blog post, but the argument I present stands as is. I wish the best to you and hope you have a merry Christmas.
This article is a great way to combining social issues with Christmas!
I love the line, "Progressive activists do not care about charity; they will take nothing less than a total renunciation of fundamental Christian beliefs. However, these activists misunderstand the nature of these beliefs and how they influence volunteerism. Let’s examine how this perceived bigotry effects the production of charitable goods."
It's fascinating how the perception of organizations effect the amount of volunteers they receive. Hopefully one day conservatives have a strong pull like this.
Thank you, Paris. Conservatives would benefit greatly from taking economics seriously. Statists, typically progressives, think that their actions have no costs. They think that the present level of charity can be preserved while also accomplishing their progressive ends. This is not a robust way of thinking. Moral and ideological commitments are connected to charitable decisions; they are not mutually independent. Restricting or punishing those commitments penalizes charity and threatens the welfare of the poor. This seems to fit with the typical progressive tendency to care about intentions rather than actual consequences. Of course, this demands some more attention and perhaps an empirical inquiry, but that is a little much for a blog post, but the argument I present stands as is. I wish the best to you and hope you have a merry Christmas.