Right wingers better people says research

[Japher]

This makes sense. Most Right Wingers are religious nut jobs, and the research shows that such zealots are dumb people in general. And, we all know dumb people are really nice, ala Forest Gump, Rainman, and Texans.

So,

[Tattila the Hun]

Otoh, aren't right-wingers often true believers?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178100

Chicken or the egg?

[Ben Kenobi]

Indeed, why would we be more jealous then people who want to redistribute wealth? It's surprising, when you are happy with what you have you don't tend to want what others have as much.

[Agathon]

You might want to look up the author of this piece. He's a notorious wingnut of the Ann Coulter persusasion, IIRC.

Again, there's an obvious reason why egalitarians aren't going to have as much faith in charity. They know it produces a suboptimal outcome. Barbra Streisand is actually being rational here: your money is better spent on trying to change the welfare laws than on futile acts of private charity. Private charity is subject to market failure. Left wingers are smart enough to see this. Right wingers, not so much, since they're usually dumber and have an aversion to government programs. So all this says is that right wingers are more likely to engage in their preferred method for alleviating poverty. The problem with their method is that it's stupid, like most of their other methods.

The following seems deranged:

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Duh... they are egalitarians. There's not enough information about the experiment here. One possible reason is that being egalitarians they care more about equality and are willing to give up some of their own money to prevent extreme inequalities, or the experiment was self evidently a game and this was an obvious strategy for winning. If I was playing it, I would purposely spend money to reduce the incomes of others because I don't like misers and money grubbers and enjoy watching them get all sad and pathetic.

If this mook wants to play science and politics, let him go read the academic literature on authoritarianism. It tells you more or less where the nazis, religious kooks and bigots cluster, and it isn't in contemporary liberal circles. In fact, there's a good case to be made that the left/right distinction in our societies is simply a crude approximation of the authoritarian/anti authoritarian scale.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
My conservative friends are far more likely to ... keep tabs on acquantances...

I bet they are.

[Ben Kenobi]

You might want to look up the author of this piece. He's a notorious wingnut of the Ann Coulter persusasion, IIRC.

Wow an ad-hominem from a philo prof. Stunning.

Barbra Streisand is actually being rational here: your money is better spent on trying to change the welfare laws than on futile acts of private charity. Private charity is subject to market failure.

So what you are saying is that right wingers are more likely to give their own money to people in need, while left wingers are more likely to give other people's money?

Thanks Aggie, I'm glad to hear you admit this.

Right wingers, not so much, since they're usually dumber and have an aversion to government programs. So all this says is that right wingers are more likely to engage in their preferred method for alleviating poverty. The problem with their method is that it's stupid, like most of their other methods.

Charity isn't perfect, but it's better then welfare for several reasons. First, it's voluntary. You aren't forcing people to pay into something they don't believe in. Secondly, it's less conducive to fraud. Surely, you don't see welfare fraud as a huge problem? Third, it encourages relationships between people rather then dependence on the state. Fourth, because it is decided by the market, it is more efficient in terms of dollars spent then welfare.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Sounds like a perfect experiment. Go read Harrison Bergeron, it is the wet dream of egalitarians.

If I was playing it, I would purposely spend money to reduce the incomes of others because I don't like misers and money grubbers and enjoy watching them get all sad and pathetic.

QFMFT!

If I were playing I'd give money to the other players.

If this mook wants to play science and politics, let him go read the academic literature on authoritarianism. It tells you more or less where the nazis, religious kooks and bigots cluster, and it isn't in contemporary liberal circles. In fact, there's a good case to be made that the left/right distinction in our societies is simply a crude approximation of the authoritarian/anti authoritarian scale.

Maybe they aren't Nazis, kooks or bigots, but they sure sound like thieves and wastrels.

[BeBMan]

Of course the research left out moderates, which are waaayyyy superior to whatever-wingers.

[Kidlicious]

This is all very stupid. Right wingers should be considered mean hearted by definition. Look at what they stand for.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Wow an ad-hominem from a philo prof. Stunning.

I hate it when people make this mistake. Ask yourself how far you would get in this world without making judgements about the reliability of sources.

Compare: "I'm not going to the psychic to cure my infection" or "I'm going to believe the consensus of established scientists, and not the wingnuts" with "I'm not going to take Ann Coulter seriously".

So what you are saying is that right wingers are more likely to give their own money to people in need, while left wingers are more likely to give other people's money?

Thanks Aggie, I'm glad to hear you admit this.

Nope. Left wingers would happily give their own money, as long as everyone else who was able to had to do the same. It's a small difference, but a big one.

Charity isn't perfect, but it's better then welfare for several reasons. First, it's voluntary. You aren't forcing people to pay into something they don't believe in.

Tough. Parking fines aren't voluntary either. Neither is paying to support the military. Sometimes voluntary payment produces worse results for everyone than coercive payment. It's called a collective action problem. In a modern society people want things that markets cannot fund efficiently. There are obvious public goods that benefit everyone, such as the police and the fire department. There are also goods that substantial portions of the population want, but others don't. Thus we have a social contract. Some of my tax goes to pay for churches (or to offset the tax breaks they get – same thing) that I don't like, and religious people pay some tax that supports state funding of conceptual art with naked lesbians, which I like.

Secondly, it's less conducive to fraud. Surely, you don't see welfare fraud as a huge problem?

No. Because it isn't. Tax fraud is a much greater problem.

Third, it encourages relationships between people rather then dependence on the state.

I'd rather it worked more efficiently to combat poverty than to foster relationships between people who could find better things to do.

Fourth, because it is decided by the market, it is more efficient in terms of dollars spent then welfare.

It seems you understand neither efficiency nor welfare if you say that. Welfare is an efficiency promoting institution. People don't consciously realize this, although their continued support for the welfare state shows that they understand it on some level..

If I were playing I'd give money to the other players.

I wouldn't. If I had to give it to someone, I'd find some lepers. It's what Jesus would do.

Maybe they aren't Nazis, kooks or bigots, but they sure sound like thieves and wastrels.

Look at the UNHDI. Look at the countries at the top. Look at how many of them aren't rich, but have developed welfare states.

[Lancer]

Re: Re: Right wingers better people says research

Originally posted by Cort Haus




They missed out the bit where liberals are statistically more likely eat babies and set fire to kittens.

The kittens may be totally screwed but as long as the liberals are getting $65 (or whatever it is these days) a pop the babies should be safe.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
You might want to look up the author of this piece. He's a notorious wingnut of the Ann Coulter persusasion, IIRC.

Because he got Michael Bellesiles fired for his sloppy work?

[chequita guevara]

So they're nicer? They work to maintain a system that is oppressive and exploitive. Adolf Hitler could have been the nicest mother-****ing person in history. That doesn't make him good.

[BeBMan]

Hitler liked his dog /Godwin

*hides*

[Felch]

Originally posted by Agathon
Look at the UNHDI. Look at the countries at the top. Look at how many of them aren't rich, but have developed welfare states.

Wikipedia article on UNHDI

I'm not looking that carefully, but I see a pretty strong correlation between wealth and the HDI.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch


Wikipedia article on UNHDI

I'm not looking that carefully, but I see a pretty strong correlation between wealth and the HDI.

While that's true, what's interesting are the poor countries that are in the upper-middle tier of development, like Cuba, which makes one of the biggest jumps.