Right wingers better people says research

[Cort Haus]

Though, Aeson was right too. Nice is often too simple an adjective to describe something as complex as a human personality.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

True, but we don't assess sources by saying "he's just like Ann Coulter."

That's an ad hominem.

We do all the time. You cannot live without making such inferences. He is, as far as I remember, a Coulterite. In other words, he's a hack who loves shoddy reasoning and slander.

Actually, that elevates his reliability in my eyes. Whether that comparison increases or decreases his reliability has to do with your political persuasion, which is why it's a poor measure. Reliability ought to be independent of your politics.

It's not a case of his politics, but his honesty. Ann Coulter is patently dishonest. Let's take Robert Nozick, who is a Libertarian. I disagree vehemently with his politics, but I would never accuse him of shoddy reasoning or dishonesty. Ayn Rand on the other hand, is not dishonest, but is a poor reasoner.

So until everybody else ponies up, liberals won't give a cent? Sounds like ol' Ebeneezer to me. Why should it matter what other people give before you choose to step forward?

Because it's a collective action problem. Charitable donations generate obvious positive externalities, and any economist is going to tell you that ceterus paribus that means a suboptimal level of funding. If we rely on voluntary donations, we'll end up with a lot less charity than people would like.

Citizens derive a benefit from the military that applies to everyone in the state. Parking fines are a violation of private property, if you choose to park there and break their regulations, they ought to be able to fine you.

Parking violations can also be a violation of public property.

How does someone benefit from welfare payments in the same way that they do from the military?

Both your examples show cases of this, but how is that also true in Welfare? The cases are not analogous. How does welfare benefit everyone?

I'd hoped you'd asked this. If more people understood, then there would be less griping about welfare.

It's fair to say that most people do not like poverty. There are various reasons for this, including direct effects on their welfare. For example, there are basically no homeless people in New Zealand (the few that are, are the ones the department of social welfare can't catch). In my whole life I have seen one homeless person in New Zealand. That means I can walk around without being hassled by beggars, walk down an alley being confident that no-one is sleeping there or has taken a crap there, and I don't have to be confronted with the spectacle of human degradation whenever I go downtown, a spectacle I find personally distressing. These are things that New Zealanders don't have to put up with, along with increased crime, because we have a functioning welfare system. The lack of homelessness is a good that we all benefit from.

Similarly, apart from a minority of extremely self-absorbed people, most of us are distressed at the idea that the elderly might have to eat dog food because they can't afford proper meals, or that they lose their dignity and independence by having to live off their children. Nor do most of us like the idea that some of our fellows, particularly children, may be living in squalor. Although, ameliorating such poverty does not directly benefit me, it is a preference I have, just as many of us have preferences for things that don't directly benefit us (I would prefer that no women were raped, for example, even if I will never know any rape victims).

Welfare is about securing these goods. The market won't generate an optimal level, just as it won't with the police or fire, because voluntary payment creates a collective action problem. If I give $1000 to charity to fight poverty, then everyone else benefits from my gift, because there is less overall poverty for everyone, not just for me. That means that other people will get a free ride.

Such as? Seems to me everyone wants and benefits from police and fire services.

Pretty much everyone benefits from reduced poverty.

WTF? No. The two are not the same thing at all. Churches have to pay for everything they do. The ONLY thing they are exempt from is property taxes on their buildings, that is all. They still have to pay for maintenance, utilities, etc, they pay to purchase the building and the land in the first place.

I'm sure lots of people would like their property taxes subsidized by the state.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Though, Aeson was right too.

Are you calling me a meanie-head? That's not nice

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ayn Rand on the other hand, is not dishonest, but is a poor reasoner.

That's rather part and parcel of being deceased.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
California, land of fruits and nuts eh?

What a nice thing to say.

Anyway, the OP fails the "I believe"/"I think" standard for objectivity. I'm also a bit curious to see how badly his data was skewed to fit his results.

And both Fun and Kid are right. There's plenty of nice people on both sides, but I've seen the niceness of the Right wing crowd fade pretty fast when it comes to non-whites, gays, or political disagreement.

[Impaler[WrG]]

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.

I'm familiar with this study and its results actually show conservatives desire to enrich themselves at the expense of the group while liberals will act to enhance the groups performance at the expense of their individual wealth.

The rules of the game are that 4 participants are randomly grouped together and each is given 20 dollars. They then play several rounds of the game and keep then accounts as an incentive. Each round each participant secretly records a quantity of their funds they want to allocate (puts money in an envelope). After all have made their decisions the quantities are revealed to all participants, the total amount contributed is then doubled and divided evenly between all participants, regardless of contribution.

The group optimal strategy is to always contribute all funds in each round to maximize the doubling effect and reap the largest total rewards. But an Individual can 'free ride' their colleges by not contributing while continuing to reap the rewards of the others contributions. The researchers found that participants started with full commitments but start to drop off as they accumulate more money, aka the players become conservative.

The researchers then altered the experiment by the addition of a new rule, after each round any player could spend a quantity of money to make another player lose 3 times that much money, all the money involved is returned to the researchers. The new rule dramatically reduces the free-riding and conservative nature of the later stages. Participants essentially police each other and force maximum contributions from each other and the groups make more money in total. In other words taxes are mandatory rather then voluntary and the participants behave more liberally.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I'm familiar with this study and its results actually show conservatives desire to enrich themselves at the expense of the group while liberals will act to enhance the groups performance at the expense of their individual wealth.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It seems that the original rules allowed for conservative behavior to go unpunished, and the addition of the new rule favored liberal strategies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Interesting that conservative behavior needs to be punished a better wordsmithing might be in order.

[Theben]

Needed to be punished in order for the group to further benefit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Funny that game being a net zero sum game and all.

[Aeson]

No OO, it's not.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Aeson

I stand corrected upon second reading (or actually a full reading ).

[Aeson]

Reading

[Ben Kenobi]

We do all the time. You cannot live without making such inferences. He is, as far as I remember, a Coulterite. In other words, he's a hack who loves shoddy reasoning and slander.

Again, guilt by association. I could just as easily say that all Marxists were thieves, and you would have to admit that is just as astute an analysis.

It's not a case of his politics, but his honesty. Ann Coulter is patently dishonest. Let's take Robert Nozick, who is a Libertarian. I disagree vehemently with his politics, but I would never accuse him of shoddy reasoning or dishonesty. Ayn Rand on the other hand, is not dishonest, but is a poor reasoner.

Coulter has her role. Her role isn't to sit on the sidelines and pick apart arguments, there are plenty of folks who do that. Her job is the quick and dirty, she likes to take the liberals tactics and use them on the liberals. Which, of course is very volatile.

Because it's a collective action problem. Charitable donations generate obvious positive externalities, and any economist is going to tell you that ceterus paribus that means a suboptimal level of funding.

According to whom? I would argue more dollars get in the pockets of those who need help through private charities. Less bureaucracy.

If we rely on voluntary donations, we'll end up with a lot less charity than people would like.

As opposed to the situation now, where the charity that is given is incredibly wasteful?

Parking violations can also be a violation of public property.

On public property, I would argue there is a good case for no parking tickets at all.

I'd hoped you'd asked this. If more people understood, then there would be less griping about welfare.

I'm sincerely curious, which is why I asked the question.

It's fair to say that most people do not like poverty. There are various reasons for this, including direct effects on their welfare. For example, there are basically no homeless people in New Zealand (the few that are, are the ones the department of social welfare can't catch). In my whole life I have seen one homeless person in New Zealand. That means I can walk around without being hassled by beggars, walk down an alley being confident that no-one is sleeping there or has taken a crap there, and I don't have to be confronted with the spectacle of human degradation whenever I go downtown, a spectacle I find personally distressing. These are things that New Zealanders don't have to put up with, along with increased crime, because we have a functioning welfare system. The lack of homelessness is a good that we all benefit from.

Similarly, apart from a minority of extremely self-absorbed people, most of us are distressed at the idea that the elderly might have to eat dog food because they can't afford proper meals, or that they lose their dignity and independence by having to live off their children. Nor do most of us like the idea that some of our fellows, particularly children, may be living in squalor. Although, ameliorating such poverty does not directly benefit me, it is a preference I have, just as many of us have preferences for things that don't directly benefit us (I would prefer that no women were raped, for example, even if I will never know any rape victims).

Welfare is about securing these goods. The market won't generate an optimal level, just as it won't with the police or fire, because voluntary payment creates a collective action problem. If I give $1000 to charity to fight poverty, then everyone else benefits from my gift, because there is less overall poverty for everyone, not just for me. That means that other people will get a free ride.

I've seen many things you haven't. I have to wonder on several fronts here.

1. Is the lack of homeless people due to the fact that you do not live in an area near where they are? Up until I was 19 I'd never even seen a homeless person ever in my small town up here, but in a few years down in Vancouver, I had seen quite a few. Is it because there is more welfare up in Prince George, or is it just because I was closer to where they were? I'm not sure.

2. New Zealand is isolated. They won't have significant numbers of people moving in from other areas in order to take advantage of the benefits. That isolation serves as a check on the number of people you have there, and also makes it easier for the state to follow up on people.

3. The welfare comes at a cost of the overall competitiveness. How is New Zealand going to deal with the demographic crunch that is coming up? Are they going to cut costs to remain solvent, or just keep things going as long as they can. I don't believe the current system is sustainable.

4. I noticed you dodged my question about the administration. What percentage of the total dollars collected for social services actually go to the people? What percentage of the dollars are consumed in welfare fraud by those who are not entitled to collect?

If you aren't going to answer I'll have to look them up myself.

I'm sure lots of people would like their property taxes subsidized by the state.

Oh sure, but then do they provide assistance to the community to compensate? This is what you don't see Agathon. There are so many private volunteer organisations including the church that provide for the poor. The problem with charging them property taxes is that the money comes directly out of the donations to the poor, and instead goes to the city coffers. It's not in the benefit of the city to take the money.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.act.org.nz/node/25550

This presents a less rosy picture then Aggie's utopia.