Politics Discussion Thread February 2013

OrphanWilde

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

One represents a belief in an inviolable positive right to life and health, the other represents a belief that life exists solely at the discretion of society/authority.

Note that I distinguish between single-provider/government-provided healthcare and universal healthcare. Somebody who wants government in charge of healthcare isn't necessarily someone who believes in universal access to it.

One represents a belief in an inviolable positive right to life and health, the other represents a belief that life exists solely at the discretion of society/authority.

These are not the only possible intentions behind these policies, and not all support or opposition to them is based on those particular intentions.

In particular I suspect most of the supporters of universal healthcare think of it as a positive right to life/health, whereas most of it's opponents think of it as a issue of governmental power.

Similarly, I suspect supporters of drone strike... (read more)

2Jack13y

First, the actual policies that aim at providing universal healthcare including cost-cutting measures of one kind or another. These measures, by their very nature, involve restricting what kind and how much medical care a person can receive and when they can receive it. The politically loaded term is "rationing". The State is going tell you what you can and cannot buy with their money. The politically loaded term is "death panel". Neither of which I, personally, see anything wrong with. But since policies designed to establish universal health care tend to involve taxing people I can certainly see how some would see it as a expansion of society's discretion regarding life and health. Second and more important: these aren't symbols for abstract ideas about political philosophy. They are actual policies that are created by real governments and implemented by actual people. Any justification for either of them --regardless of one's terminal values-- will involve a complex synthesis of information from a wide set of domains. A position on universal healthcare, for instance, involves thinking about incentives for individuals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals etc. E.g. what happens to prices when the person receiving the good isn't footing the bill and what happens to behavior when the actor isn't paying for the consequences of that behavior. If there are cost lowering measures: how do you determine what to pay for or who do you trust to determine it? What will the effect of these measures be on experimental procedures and will this harm innovation? If the country needs to borrow to pay for health care what will the effect be on the country's economy? What about all the other ways to spend that money? Drone warfare involves different complex questions like: what counts as a combatant in an unconventional, asymmetrical war? Does killing terrorists decrease terrorism or increase it by making more and angrier terrorists? To what extent does judicial review unde