On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Trent Shipley<tship...@deru.com> wrote: > John Williams wrote: >> There are billions of people around the world with worse healthcare >> than virtually everyone in the United States. If the goal is to >> redistribute wealth to improve healthcare because of the belief that >> everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not >> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in >> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US? > > Why not? > > The basic reason is that people are both tribal and self-interested.
Would this be an accurate expansion of that? "It is ethical to take wealth from some people in order to help other people with less resources, but only if all of those people are in the same political boundary"? If so, then why is the political boundary more important than the fact that there are other people outside the political boundary who are much worse off than most of those inside? And when I say why, I am not looking for a sociological answer about tribes, but rather an argument about ethics. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
