[jamesrcole]

> a good citizen is more concerned with problems in his own country than elsewhere.

In practical terms it's hard to be personally concerned equally as much about what happens in every country on earth, but as a matter of principle I think what happens to people is just as important regardless of where they are. And in our globalised world, what happens in one country, especially a major country, can have implications for many other countries.

[golergka]

> as a matter of principle I think what happens to people is just as important regardless of where they are

Important to whom?

[jamesrcole]

To me, and obviously I think it is the appropriate attitude for others to have, too, but of course I'm not trying to force that on anyone.

[golergka]

So, your own well-being, as well as well-being of your closest relatives, is just as important as well-being of people on another side of the globe?

Clarification: I know that it's not what you meant. But if you answer "no" to this question (as any reasonable person would) then I can show that from that, it logically follows that well-being of people in your own country is more important to you - because those people can affect you and people close to you more than people on another side of the globe.

[jamesrcole]

I think people are equally important.

But if you're asking specifically what I would do, well, the question you've posed is very abstract so it's hard to get clear what you're really asking.

What sorts of scenarios, where it's my close relatives vs people on the other side of the world, are you thinking of?

It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown.

.

Regarding your clarification, I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries. I'm open to you suggesting some possible scenarios.

[golergka]

> It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown.

It's never zero-sum, and it's never full cooperative either.

> I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries.

Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of living" goes down X, while someone else on another side of the globe gets that job, and his standard of living goes up 2X. (It's not zero sum, yes). Would you be happy over such an outcome?

[jamesrcole]

> Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of living" goes down X, while someone else on another side of the globe gets that job, and his standard of living goes up 2X. (It's not zero sum, yes). Would you be happy over such an outcome?

Why did they lose their job? Is it because of freer trade? If was something like that then I would be ok, because I think that ultimately that's likely to make things better for everyone including the people in my country and including my relatives and descendants.

(and why does helping your relative out have to be at the expense of those other people overseas? Perhaps the best way to help them is for them to receive funding to get retrained to be more competitive in another area?)

I'm against the idea of blocking things with long-term gain, for the purposes of short-term gain.