Responsibility is synonym to payment. If you are responsible, then you should compensate. It doesn't make sense to be responsible, don't change anything, then send thoughts and prayers.
The problem is that making things better has a cost, which either society is willing or not willing to pay. It's not just flowers and rainbows and let's make everything better. Plus, the definition of "better" is also questionable. Better for whom? How? Your argument is pretty basic here.
It's pretty simplistic on purpose, because to go into any detail requires far more of a wall of text to do any one thing justice. If you want to focus down, be more specific.
Making things better absolutely has a cost. Aren't we always going on about how much better, richer, more productive, etc, etc, that our glorious Western nations are compared to other countries across the world? Kinda feels like we could pay that cost if we wanted to. Which is why it comes back down to
wanting to, and all the ways that "making things better" is demonised as some kind of blood money payment to people who don't need it, or something.
We should make things better, and we should therefore use some of our GDP to achieve that. "better" is "better". It's not questionable. It doesn't come at a cost to anybody except those doing the choosing. If a government says they have no magic money tree for policies that would make live better for poor people, but then magically find hundreds of millions of pounds for policies they want to pursue, at no cost to tax or inflation . . . that's a choice. There
is a money tree. The government just don't want to shake it for the aforementioned policies that would benefit poor people.
And at the end of the day, if your argument against things that affect taxation or inflation are "I don't want to give up a tiny percentage of comfort to make the world a better place", then just make that argument. If your argument isn't that, then let's delve into the things that taxation could solve? I don't get the argument of "making things better has a cost". Yes, and?
It's stuff like this that make the OP so, so worth it. The banality of individuality mapped onto a greater society where everything is transactional, and nothing is for the greater good. That's why another world war is probably inevitable, in my opinion. Because everything has to be quid pro quo. There's no faith, no mutually-assured success. Politics is increasingly cutthroat and people are out to get as rich as possible, as fast as possible. These are the material conditions that lead to conflict, and not continued "peace" (not that the current world is really that peaceful).
So calling people buddy and bay-bee is how you show off mutual respect. And by calling their argument puddle-deep I guess you definitely didn't want to express disdain. Regarding silos, no. I wanted to express that probably if someone else wrote what I wrote you wouldn't have been this aggressive.
It's actually my idiolect bleeding through. The fact that you're taking it as condescension, or disdain, is definitely not something I want, but also something I can't control without going fully-formal with my typing. It's very much a guessing game. Like, I edited "baby" to "bay-bee" so you'd get the pronunciation, and hopefully assume I therefore didn't mean it
literally. I was wrong, and that's something I'll bear in mind when discussing things in future with you.
All of this is quite funny though. How much care should I take to avoid unintentionally offending you? Perhaps you have more in common with us woke-y lefties than you would normally admit to?
Your argument is so incorrect and is based on misinformation that it constitutes an inter-generational sin for which normally the writer and his/her offsprings should pay for centuries. Here, I'm only expressing my view on your argument, not on you as a person.
Cool. How is it incorrect? What misinformation is it based on?
Going back to the topic. In short, the US-led system has much more positives than negatives and even if there are challengers they don't have a vision to sell to the rest of the world. I don't see this changing systemically anytime soon and as such I think WW3 is quite unlikely.
This argument is pretty basic too. See the problem with keeping things short?
What "vision" would convince you that there is a worthy challenger to an apparently US-lead hegemony? How are you, as a person, convinced of something?