Huh? Where did I indicate I want other people to pay the price? We live in a democratic society and I believe our government should use the money we give them via taxes to help take in refugees. If you disagree vote for a party that doesn't want to help. I'm not sure where you're from but if you're in the same part of the world as me you're not going to have much luck.
>> "That's the whole problem with this whole "social/ism" notion that it puts people in power to decide the fate and obligations of others."
Again - these people are voted into power to represent the views of the entire society. This is nothing to do with 'socialism'. If you find yourself consistently annoyed that your government is helping people instead of letting you keep your money (because screw everyone else, right) you're either living in the wrong place or you might want to take a look at what you place importance on because most of the people around you disagree with you, probably for a good reason.
This is not a zero-sum game, If government pays it via taxes they have to stop paying something else or increase taxes.
That is not what irks me most though. What irks me most is that we could help a whole lot more people, -and less fortunate people at that, if we applied the same resources in the neighboring countries instead of giving those resourceful enough to cross Europe "golden tickets".
I would be happy to pay a little extra tax for that, if I knew the money would be spent helping those poor souls that are now hunting cats in the ruins of those towns instead of the current golden tickets mostly to young men who leave their families behind,
That is literally the definition of a zero-sum game.
So, as a coercive state with guns, if I want to fund some program that costs $1M, I would need to tax much more.
Anyway, my larger point stands I guess.
Please understand that some people think that people that have "fled" through multiple safe countries might not be the ones who most desperately needs help.