It might even be the smart move. depending on the good Samaritan protections in your jurisdiction, you might be open to liability if you try to help.
Now, you, personally - if you were watching a toddler obviously drown in a fountain, would you walk away?
California has decent good Samaritan laws to protect people trying to help from civil liability, and some narrow situational protections from criminal liability.
>In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby.
The parent comment would still be correct though, and billionaires are just filling a power vacuum, nothing wrong about that. I genuinely believe U.S. is also just filling the power vacuum & mostly has done nothing wrong, similar to other superpowers. There's nothing inherently wrong about letting the child drown unless you are the child & can protest about your own drowning, and there's nothing wrong with filling the power vacuum, because the universe has determined that someone ought to do it sooner or later. And we cannot do anything about this.
I define problem/issue/similar words in the following way: a thing that, if deemed existent by me, is also my own fault & realistically fixable by my self.
I was highlighting systemic disincentives that punish potential help.
For example, About 15 years ago restaurants stopped feeding the hungry and poor because they could be sued, and locking up their dumpsters due to liability.
In NSW, the Civil Liability Act 2002 provides protections for good samaritans assisting in good faith. Other states and territories have similar legislation.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla20021...