John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Lance A. Brown<la...@bearcircle.net> 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?
Straw man.
I understand why that question makes you uncomfortable. It makes me
uncomfortable too. It is extremely difficult to answer in a way
consistent with the ethics of many people. Still, I am interested to
hear how others who advocate more and larger wealth-redistribution
policies might answer.
John--
This is an old kind of argument that is usually used
to support not taking action. It asks "How can you
worry about A, when B is so much worse?"
My answer is, "Why we'll work on both problem A and
problem B at the same time." In this context, that
means spending some resources inside the country,
and sending some outside to help problems there.
I support some humanitarian aid abroad, and feel that
most people do. We may well disagree about how MUCH aid
to send to the Third World, of course.
---David
(I've also seen the same argument used against doing
anything to improve animal rights.)
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
