Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

It is true, the whole church revenue is not always employed, and to
every shilling, in charity; nor perhaps ought it; but something is
generally so employed. It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by
leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to
attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political
benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without
which virtue cannot exist.

(Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. L. G. Mitchell [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 103-4 [first published in 1790])

Note from KBJ: There are two ways to provide for the poor. One is charity. The other is coercion. Conservatives favor charity. Progressives favor coercion. When I am coerced into giving money to others, my act lacks moral worth. Suppose that charity does less for the poor than coercion would. Isn't that more than outweighed by the moral worthiness of the acts of charity? Do progressives not see this, or do they see it and not care?