"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
> > "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
just
> >>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
to
> >>> mind.
> >
> >> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
> >> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
> >
> > That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?

That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". Now, different
peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.

In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
"solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.

When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. Humans are too rational to
"fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Post a reply to this message