weed_eater_guy said:
...but i'm throwing your idea of "take care of those close to you" back at you. It creates isolationism, leading to nasty things like poverty.
No, I don't think so. For one thing, you're assuming that the "someone" that we care for and are willing to help is someone close in miles, that's not necessarily so. I.e., I care for a person in Russia who I met in the Army over 30 years ago ...I'd be perfectly willing to help him if he were in need. That surely isn't isolationism.
A manufacturer in California, who uses raw material from a guy in Mexico, would, by necessity, be "close" to that man. And that would also lead to helping him in his hour of need. You might say that's selfish, but isn't all charity somewhat selfish? ...people throw money into the cups so they can say that cared, so they can feel good about themselves (even if they only gave a penny!).
But I'll also say that isolationism doesn't LEAD to "nasty things like poverty". I am curious how you came to that conclusion?
I think one of the issues that's difficult for people to grasp is that, while we, the United States, sent billions to the tsunami victims, millions of our own citizens were and are suffering from poverty and disease and lack of housing and lack of schools. If we EACH were to help those close to us, the world would be a better place. We have people right here who are so proud of sending money to the tsunami effort, but can't see and/or refuse to help those only a few miles away!! And we call that charity? We call that helping those in need? No, it's media frenzy and the selfish, feel good attitudes.
You help your friend Joe, I'll help my friend Mike, ....and if everyone did it, the world would be a much better place and by far more friendly.
Baron Max