[Jeffery]

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.