[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a rich understands economic better DOES NOT mean he will care about others.
Ok so he understand economics, what makes you think he will actually care about the poor?
Thats why its better for everyone to have a vote instead of a small intelectual elite.
Now if you are advocating a goverment in which good and smart ppl make the calls then thats a whole different story, but if it only takes IQ to vote then that is really really scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going to sound weird, but it's true, and it's worth thinking about. No one cares about "the poor." No one person can even comprehend what "the poor" is, let alone have a valid emotional reaction to it. "The poor" is a statistic, a number encompassing billions of people. We don't have the mental capacity to know even a fraction of that many people on an emotional level that could be considered caring. This is demonstrably true; in the time that it has taken you to read this, I'd guess nearly a dozen people have died, some quite probably in horrible tragedies that have devastated their families. Do you care? Of course not. And it's a damn good thing too, because if human beings were wired to care every time a tragedy struck somewhere in a population of 6.5 billion, we'd all be mentally crippled. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Actually caring about the poor means that you get up off your ass and do something about it. Liberals simply disguise the authorizing of a government to forcibly confiscate the property of the productive citizens and redistributing it to the unproductive as "caring for the poor."

Unproductivity is not in the best interests of the greater good; natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is true to a point.

Like you, I agree that it is human nature and common practice for individuals to act in there own interest locally - in other words, even though I occasionally give change to homeless people and donate money to charities and so on, the major theme of my life is that I am trying to get a good quality of life for myself first, defined according to my tastes.

I also understand your point about not being able to "care" about the many people who I have never met and will never meet who are living what I would consider to be pretty terrible lives (work not rewarding, not having a lot of choice about where to live or what to eat, lots of stress). I would prefer it if they weren't suffering. I don't care for them the way I care for my family, but I'm not totally indifferent to their unhappiness.

Does that mean I don't care for them? I suppose you could say that. I don't quite agree with your statement that since I am not "getting up off your ass and doing something about it" to help them then I must not care. If I tried to help everybody who was in need of help individually, I would have no time to sustain my own life. I have no illusions regarding that - I am looking out for number 1 first.

I do what I actually can do - I vote for governments that will "help the poor" as you say. It's what is in my power to do locally to try to enact global changes because I can't make global changes through my individual actions. The government is a tool under which the individuals can make global changes by pooling individual actions that would otherwise not achieve anything.

I would find it more convincing if you were arguing for private institutions that mimic the actions of governments without being forcibly inclusive, rather than saying that nobody cares under your definition of "care".