General US Politics

[Tryhard]

someone should explain why the possibility of clinton being involved in minor corruption (this isn't even corruption it's negligence wtf) is so much worse than trump's goal being to literally tear down a lot of the best things we have going for us

including the foundations of our democracy, and our constitution, apparently

edit: alternatively they should link to a funny satire article because that would probably be more coherent

the most worrying thing about clinton to me is her stance on syria. almost anyone of note thinks that it is a shit idea including military generals who said that a no-fly zone in syria could lead to an escalated war with russia, and in clintons private speech with goldman sachs she admitted a no-fly zone in syria would "kill a lot of syrians". and it's fairly obvious that clinton wants this. you know when you're making trump seem like the reasonable one with his stance, even though he probably only does so because it's in opposition to his opponent, you've fucked up.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Tryhard

[euklyd]

the most worrying thing about clinton to me is her stance on syria. almost anyone of note thinks that it is a shit idea including military generals who said that a no-fly zone in syria could lead to an escalated war with russia, and in clintons private speech with goldman sachs she admitted a no-fly zone in syria would "kill a lot of syrians". and it's fairly obvious that clinton wants this. you know when you're making trump seem like the reasonable one with his stance, even though he probably only does so because it's in opposition to his opponent, you've fucked up.

this is pretty fair criticism, and yeah it worries me as well

[XeKr]

Here’s an interesting long piece (from NYT, even) that explores how she became so hawkish http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

Maybe it’s more political calculation (not being seen as “weak”, because she’s a woman) but I think she’s really a true believer.

Obviously Obama disagrees (and he’s certainly “of note”) but I think the foreign policy establishment aligns more with Clinton though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

edit: to clarify, I personally (still) think Clinton is too hawkish, but I don't think it's fair to characterize her position as some crazy opinion she alone holds. The Washington experts regardless of party, for better or worse, seem to support her.

Edited October 30, 2016 by XeKr

[Tryhard]

this is pretty fair criticism, and yeah it worries me as well

her warhawk nature is far more worrying to me then her negligence in her emails. it's so abysmal and is up to par with trump's seeming complete disregard for democracy.

Here’s an interesting long piece (from NYT, even) that explores how she became so hawkish http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

Maybe it’s more political calculation (not being seen as “weak”, because she’s a woman) but I think she’s really a true believer.

Obviously Obama disagrees (and he’s certainly “of note”) but I think the foreign policy establishment aligns more with Clinton though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

edit: to clarify, I personally (still) think Clinton is too hawkish, but I don't think it's fair to characterize her position as some crazy opinion she alone holds. The Washington experts regardless of party, for better or worse, seem to support her.

unfortunately so. I was thinking of Obama as one of those who thinks it's a terrible idea. but neoconservatives and neoliberals like herself are all too eager to join hands for the same purpose. of course, she's received vast amounts of money from defense companies like lockheed martin (that benefit from the ideas she's trying to push) that manufacture warplanes for the government, so it's likely corporate sponsored business as usual. still doesn't mean it's any less shit.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Tryhard

[André The kid]

Although I'm not American (Thank god I live in Europe), i have been somewhat following the elections, and from what i've seen, neither of them are competent enough for the job.

As we Know, things aren't very well in the Middle east, and However you decide to look at the issue, George Bush IS to blame, since he allowed Saddam to be killed, and left Iraq in the state it is now, ran by terrorists, in amidst a brutal civil war, and with Isis on their sleeves.

Trump Can't be trusted, out of the Two, he's just the dumbest. Just because there are extremist Muslims, that doesn't mean that all of them are. in Fact, less then 10% of the Muslims are terrorists. But he still talks about Expelling them all.

Didn't he study any of the 10 ammendments? It says on the first ammendment that you can't discriminate anyone by their Race, Religion or Gender.

And Besides, people want to trust (arguably), the best armed, and strongest (military wise) army in the world, with full ability over Nukes to a guy like that? I'd Rather give them to Hitler, at Least he would know not to fire them.

Hillary on the other hand, doesn't seem good enough for the job.

Measures need to be taken, and although Trump's way is too risky, hers is just stupid. Again, she wants to ignore the problem exists and move forwards, and we here in Europe, now have to eat the bullshit of Terrorist attacks and a refugee crisis, created by America.

I'm not saying not to help the refugees, i actually defend hole-heartedly that we should help them, but America should come to reason and understand they are at fault.

Whoever you vote for, Please, remember!

America is the "Police" of the World. Your Vote does not only influence America, but Also Europe, Asia , and.... You get the point.

That's all i wanted to say.

[XeKr]

her warhawk nature is far more worrying to me then her negligence in her emails. it's so abysmal and is up to par with trump's seeming complete disregard for democracy.

unfortunately so. I was thinking of Obama as one of those who thinks it's a terrible idea. but neoconservatives and neoliberals like herself are all too eager to join hands for the same purpose. of course, she's received vast amounts of money from defense companies like lockheed martin (that benefit from the ideas she's trying to push) that manufacture warplanes for the government, so it's likely corporate sponsored business as usual. still doesn't mean it's any less shit.

The argument usually goes like this: America has survived hawks like Clinton. America might not survive Trump (and the fact that it’s in question is…something).

Some (far from exhaustive) highlights of Trump foreign policy include: “bomb the shit out of [iSIS]” (nice bravado, but what about civilians? And the diplomatic concerns..), “take the oil” (actual colonialism again?), “You have to take out their families” (uhh…), “torture works… we should go much stronger than waterboarding” (uhh…….), and of course “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

His utter cluelessness is also problematic. Why indeed do we selectively announce some offensives in advance? Maybe a modicum of critical thought can explain. What Putin’s already in Ukraine? Are we supposed to pretend not or did he not know?

And of course, Trump has already been shown to fall for the most trivial of baits. If elected, we will have to trust him to be rational with nukes.

Clinton is low variability. As bad as her policies could possibly get, we’ll survive. otoh, even in the best case, she won’t fix many of our inherent problems such as income inequality. Most probably, she preserves the status quo of incremental progress. Maybe Trump will break the system in the best possible way as his supporters hope. But his worst case is an existential threat.

(this argument is independent of whether he is a racist sexual predator or not. If that matters)

Probably worth reading: There’s a few pieces on how Trump is unprecedented and why many previously neutral are speaking out, but here’s a foreign policy view since we’re on the subject. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/09/foreign-policy-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-of-the-united-states/

edit; Also for curiosity's sake, what would you do regarding Syria?

Edited October 30, 2016 by XeKr

[tuvarkz]

i think this inaccurately depicts the job of the president. it isn't the president's duty to close loopholes, in fact a president must help enforce the law. (that is the primary function of the executive branch in government.) the most any president could do is urge congress to make changes to the law, and either veto/sign if the changes are unacceptable/acceptable. moreover, trump is not a lawyer and likely has very little knowledge of the laws associated with any loopholes. he must depend on congress--which means more than likely loopholes will not be dealt with (at least during the his term(s)).

having different duties and responsibilities does not change the kind of person you are. this is why we have corrupt people in government. having more power does not make one more honest. the old adage does go, "power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Hm, upon further research, I was wrong about executive orders and the POTUS can't do much without the Congress's permission, and I'll concede that point. However, given that Trump has at least probably gotten some degree information from his lawyers regarding what legal loopholes his businesses exploit to maximize their profits which means he should know enough to try and do something about it.

Also, regarding that adage, history shows that there are enough exceptions with the existence of absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people. Power can corrupt but it won't happen every single time.

Trump Can't be trusted, out of the Two, he's just the dumbest. Just because there are extremist Muslims, that doesn't mean that all of them are. in Fact, less then 10% of the Muslims are terrorists. But he still talks about Expelling them all.

Didn't he study any of the 10 ammendments? It says on the first ammendment that you can't discriminate anyone by their Race, Religion or Gender.

Except that Trump has never said anything about deporting/expelling muslims. He initially talked about a temporary ban on muslim immigration until there was clear information on the situation in the Middle East, and then there's been mention of it instead being a block from the affected regions rather than of muslims.

Also, chances are, a ban on muslim immigration might still be constitutional. And honestly, the US doesn't need to keep acting as the world's police.

The argument usually goes like this: America has survived hawks like Clinton. America might not survive Trump (and the fact that it’s in question is…something).

Some (far from exhaustive) highlights of Trump foreign policy include: “bomb the shit out of [iSIS]” (nice bravado, but what about civilians? And the diplomatic concerns..), “take the oil” (actual colonialism again?), “You have to take out their families” (uhh…), “torture works… we should go much stronger than waterboarding” (uhh…….), and of course “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

His utter cluelessness is also problematic. Why indeed do we selectively announce some offensives in advance? Maybe a modicum of critical thought can explain. What Putin’s already in Ukraine? Are we supposed to pretend not or did he not know?

And of course, Trump has already been shown to fall for the most trivial of baits. If elected, we will have to trust him to be rational with nukes.

Clinton is low variability. As bad as her policies could possibly get, we’ll survive. otoh, even in the best case, she won’t fix many of our inherent problems such as income inequality. Most probably, she preserves the status quo of incremental progress. Maybe Trump will break the system in the best possible way as his supporters hope. But his worst case is an existential threat.

(this argument is independent of whether he is a racist sexual predator or not. If that matters)

Probably worth reading: There’s a few pieces on how Trump is unprecedented and why many previously neutral are speaking out, but here’s a foreign policy view since we’re on the subject. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/09/foreign-policy-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-of-the-united-states/

edit; Also for curiosity's sake, what would you do regarding Syria?

Bombing the shit out of ISIS and civilians: The 'civilians' that travel with ISIS, given their indoctrination, might as well be military support staff at this point. And it's not like Obama's drone strikes have been any efficient at reducing the chance of civilian casualties. Diplomatic concerns? The US remains largely untouchable, as there is no realistic way of enforcing any penalty imaginable upon the country. Taking out their families, point to potential issue of them being already indoctrinated; and international pacts should only really apply when both sides agree on it. Torture is an iffy subject, but ISIS has crossed the line hard and have committed monstrosities.

Colonialism? Honestly, if it ends up with a stable, secular government it may actually be the better solution if the Middle East can't be pacified otherwise.

And regarding Clinton-if she escalates with Russia and it becomes a war, it needs not become nuclear, but there are significant chances it might be quite draining for the US, particularly if China notices that it can strike a sort of balance of power with Russia being on the board as a military power, but without it China can do little to stop the US's hegemony in the field-and the way to prevent that is obvious. On the other hand, if Trump goes for war, it's going to be in at worst neutral relations with Russia and at best as direct allies, and there's no other existing power that could stand against the two countries if they ally forces.

Edited October 30, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Time the Crestfallen]

Hm, upon further research, I was wrong about executive orders and the POTUS can't do much without the Congress's permission, and I'll concede that point. However, given that Trump has at least probably gotten some degree information from his lawyers regarding what legal loopholes his businesses exploit to maximize their profits which means he should know enough to try and do something about it.

Also, regarding that adage, history shows that there are enough exceptions with the existence of absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people. Power can corrupt but it won't happen every single time.

Perhaps, but the question is would he do it if he ever had the opportunity? Do you really think Trump, who has exploited these loopholes in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future, would be willing to do anything to fix them? It comes back to the logic of "we're sick of big businesses buying out politicians and messing with the system, so we're going to vote in the big businesses to do something about it" that always leaves me shaking my head.

Edited October 30, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Life]

Perhaps, but the question is would he do it if he ever had the opportunity? Do you really think Trump, who has exploited these loopholes in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future, would be willing to do anything to fix them? It comes back to the logic of "we're sick of big businesses buying out politicians and messing with the system, so we're going to vote in the big businesses to do something about it" that always leaves me shaking my head.

Here's a question. Do you prefer someone who is upfront about the fact that he's going to exploit those rules or someone who is going to pretend like she hates them... and still takes advantage of said loopholes?

[Lord Raven]

Here's a question. Do you prefer someone who is upfront about the fact that he's going to exploit those rules or someone who is going to pretend like she hates them... and still takes advantage of said loopholes?

The loopholes are tax loopholes - and the Clintons have paid 33% income tax, because they released their tax returns.

Trump has admitted he exploited these loopholes sometimes, and he still hasn't released his tax returns because he doesn't want to admit whether or not it was all the time. Clintons have released their tax returns.

I don't know what you think you're talking about.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Here's a question. Do you prefer someone who is upfront about the fact that he's going to exploit those rules or someone who is going to pretend like she hates them... and still takes advantage of said loopholes?

In addition to what Raven said, here's a question for you; how does being 'upfront' about something somehow make someone better? I'd rather have someone who doesn't do it at all to be quite honest.

[Life]

The loopholes are tax loopholes - and the Clintons have paid 33% income tax, because they released their tax returns.

Trump has admitted he exploited these loopholes sometimes, and he still hasn't released his tax returns because he doesn't want to admit whether or not it was all the time. Clintons have released their tax returns.

I don't know what you think you're talking about.

ONLY 33%?! THAT'S NOT A FAIR SHARE! THE CLINTONS SHOULD PAY 80% AS PER WHAT PIKETTY SAYS!

Honestly, I think it's fine that he's exploited the loopholes because I don't think that government should play a hand in the economy in the first place.

[Time the Crestfallen]

ONLY 33%?! THAT'S NOT A FAIR SHARE! THE CLINTONS SHOULD PAY 80% AS PER WHAT PIKETTY SAYS!

Who's to say they shouldn't? We're not talking about that right now.

Honestly, I think it's fine that he's exploited the loopholes because I don't think that government should play a hand in the economy in the first place.

Please explain this.

[Phantom037]

Bombing the shit out of ISIS and civilians: The 'civilians' that travel with ISIS, given their indoctrination, might as well be military support staff at this point. And it's not like Obama's drone strikes have been any efficient at reducing the chance of civilian casualties. Diplomatic concerns? The US remains largely untouchable, as there is no realistic way of enforcing any penalty imaginable upon the country. Taking out their families, point to potential issue of them being already indoctrinated; and international pacts should only really apply when both sides agree on it. Torture is an iffy subject, but ISIS has crossed the line hard and have committed monstrosities.

Let's play spot the war crime. How do you know that the civilians and families are "basically indoctrinated"? how far away from ISIS do they need to be before they aren't considered terrorists? What if an ISIS member's family has no knowledge of their relative's occupation, are they still indoctrinated? Flying into a village and bombing the thing to rubble because you think there are some terrorists there sounds like a better way to make enemies than anything I could come up with. As hawkish as Hillary's foreign policy is, I'm glad she at least has never openly advocated for war crimes.

[Lord Raven]

ONLY 33%?! THAT'S NOT A FAIR SHARE! THE CLINTONS SHOULD PAY 80% AS PER WHAT PIKETTY SAYS!

Given how much they make and the highest tax bracket is 35%, I'm pretty sure 33% is exactly correct for their income tax. I'd have to check their salary and crunch the numbers but you've actually missed the point entirely.

Honestly, I think it's fine that he's exploited the loopholes because I don't think that government should play a hand in the economy in the first place.

This is irrelevant. If everyone else is paying taxes and one person is abusing loopholes, then it's an issue that he is exploiting the loopholes.

Please explain this.

He did about 5 pages ago. Nothing like watching someone repeat "taxes are theft" ad nauseum.

Let's play spot the war crime. How do you know that the civilians and families are "basically indoctrinated"? how far away from ISIS do they need to be before they aren't considered terrorists? What if an ISIS member's family has no knowledge of their relative's occupation, are they still indoctrinated? Flying into a village and bombing the thing to rubble because you think there are some terrorists there sounds like a better way to make enemies than anything I could come up with. As hawkish as Hillary's foreign policy is, I'm glad she at least has never openly advocated for war crimes.

I'm actually curious about something - how comparable is this to how Osama was hiding in some random town in Pakistan? I know ISIS is probably not exactly hiding in some random town, but if we bombed Abaddabad instead of doing what we did then we'd undoubtedly involve a ton of innocent people, that were quite clearly innocent. Edited October 31, 2016 by Lord Raven

[XeKr]

He did about 5 pages ago. Nothing like watching someone repeat "taxes are theft" ad nauseum.

Just be glad no one is at the "taxes are rape" level yet. (I think, I skimmed) >_>

Not even going to quote tuvarkz, but I guess it's great that once we kill them all, and pacify the Middle East, we'll be allied with a dictator (or a few) and have alienated other western democracies. Come on, at least be more subtle.

And that doesn't even begin to address the core point of the original argument, which regards the high variability of (questionably) rational, well-informed actions of a Trump presidency. Thanks for taking us down the logical path you envision for Trump's proposals (if that's a favorable case, then.....), but the point is that potentially bigger concerns lie elsewhere.

edit: can'ttype

Edited October 31, 2016 by XeKr

[Phoenix Wright]

Hm, upon further research, I was wrong about executive orders and the POTUS can't do much without the Congress's permission, and I'll concede that point. However, given that Trump has at least probably gotten some degree information from his lawyers regarding what legal loopholes his businesses exploit to maximize their profits which means he should know enough to try and do something about it.

Also, regarding that adage, history shows that there are enough exceptions with the existence of absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people. Power can corrupt but it won't happen every single time.

would you trust me for professional medical advice for asthma because i'm asthmatic and have been to the hospital many times (and have been told much about it by doctors)?

sure it won't. but typically those rulers didn't have filthy records like trump does (not paying employees, committing sexual assault crimes, etc.)

[Rezzy]

Whoever you vote for, Please, remember!

America is the "Police" of the World. Your Vote does not only influence America, but Also Europe, Asia , and.... You get the point.

That's all i wanted to say.

This may be the de facto truth, but I honestly wish America would cut back on policing the world. There's no real reason to still have troops in Europe, and perhaps we should let South Korea take over defense of their own border. Both of the two main party candidates will likely continue the same policy that Obama and Bush have had.

Of course, I'm just a filthy libertarian who's going to vote third party. So, I end making both sides hate me.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Rezzy

[Life]

Given how much they make and the highest tax bracket is 35%, I'm pretty sure 33% is exactly correct for their income tax. I'd have to check their salary and crunch the numbers but you've actually missed the point entirely. This is irrelevant. If everyone else is paying taxes and one person is abusing loopholes, then it's an issue that he is exploiting the loopholes.

He did about 5 pages ago. Nothing like watching someone repeat "taxes are theft" ad nauseum.

First point was clearly a joke.

I'll summarize the "taxes are theft" argument easily.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Realize the need for publically funded military, police force, court system and government to keep those three branches working. Don't tax for anything else.

I just realized something about the FBI's decision to reopen the case.

Put aside my bias for a second, I think this theory has some credence.

Comey just tanked his career. He had to know that he would tank his career by doing this. It's not in his personal gain to tank his career unless it was one of the two options.

1. That he had a personal axe to grind against Hillary and that his original decision not to press charges was calculated. To me, this theory sounds not that credible because this grudge would have to be very deep and personal.

2. That he found something actually significant on Hillary on the device of Huma Abedon when investigating Anthony Weiner.

To me, the second theory makes a lot more sense. We know that Weiner is under investigation for sending nude pictures to 15 year olds. And his connection is the fact that his now-estranged wife is Hillary's top aide and some 650,000 emails pertaining to the original Clinton investigation were found on a personal device in Abedon's home. Abedon lied under oath. She claimed that every single device had been turned over. And not only that, but the Clinton campaign (and Trump's) has been talking about only 30,000 emails.

This is over 20x that number. You don't just pull out a number like that out of thin air.

This might just be really significant in the future of the US.

EDIT: If you want what I really think, I think it's a child-sex trafficking ring of some sort at the forefront. I could be completely off base with this and I have no evidence to back this up but this is my gut call without any evidence. I base it off of conjecture.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Life

[Life]

EDIT: Doublepost. My bad.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Life

[Time the Crestfallen]

First point was clearly a joke.

I'll summarize the "taxes are theft" argument easily.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Realize the need for publically funded military, police force, court system and government to keep those three branches working. Don't tax for anything else.

Really? Because I distinctly remember your argument being that taxes are theft because they're 'enforced at gunpoint'.

In addition to that, why should the government fund those things, but not anything else? What's the qualifier for something to be worthy of spending tax money on?

[Life]

Really? Because I distinctly remember your argument being that taxes are theft because they're 'enforced at gunpoint'.

In addition to that, why should the government fund those things, but not anything else? What's the qualifier for something to be worthy of spending tax money on?

All taxes are enforced at gun point but ask me to voluntarily agree that they are for the better good. The Hank Rearden trial in Atlas Shrugged explains this perfectly.

What qualifies those things is that they ensure my freedom. A military force keeps me safe from other powers. A strong police force is able to protect me from crime. A legal system allows the law to be applied fairly to everyone who is convicted. And the government's role is to oversee these institutions but is answerable to the public. The classical view of a republic.

Everything else is simply meddling for a federal government at the very least.

[Time the Crestfallen]

All taxes are enforced at gun point but ask me to voluntarily agree that they are for the better good. The Hank Rearden trial in Atlas Shrugged explains this perfectly.

I'm not touching the taxes are theft thing again, first of all. I've made my thoughts on that well known. Second of all, I'm not going to read an 1100+ page novel that doesn't interest me just to gain a better understanding of the points of someone I'm debating with over the internet. If you're trying to make a point, you make it yourself, or shall I start putting you in the same category as the 'it's not my job to educate you' crowd?

What qualifies those things is that they ensure my freedom. A military force keeps me safe from other powers. A strong police force is able to protect me from crime. A legal system allows the law to be applied fairly to everyone who is convicted. And the government's role is to oversee these institutions but is answerable to the public. The classical view of a republic.

Everything else is simply meddling for a federal government at the very least.

So hospitals and the like aren't a necessity? Should everything else other than those three be privitised? Is the government allowed to have a say in what those private entities do, or is that 'meddling'? You're not offering very comprehensive answers.

[Life]

I'm not touching the taxes are theft thing again, first of all. I've made my thoughts on that well known. Second of all, I'm not going to read an 1100+ page novel that doesn't interest me just to gain a better understanding of the points of someone I'm debating with over the internet. If you're trying to make a point, you make it yourself, or shall I start putting you in the same category as the 'it's not my job to educate you' crowd?

So hospitals and the like aren't a necessity? Should everything else other than those three be privitised? Is the government allowed to have a say in what those private entities do, or is that 'meddling'? You're not offering very comprehensive answers.

Ok. Regarding Atlas Shrugged, the reason I said "pretty much that" is that it articulates my opinion a lot better than I can do myself. I have no problem trying but I don't feel that I have a more clear way of articulating my position on the matter than what Ayn Rand did.

If you get down to the root of it, a hospital is not a necessity. A doctor could work out of his own house if he so wished. Hospitals simply allow more people to get medical care at the same time. Rather than everyone line up to see one doctor, a hospital can accommodate more people at one time.

The question is if people have a right to health care and if a doctor is morally obligated to help patients for less money than he could charge. That's the argument regarding privatization vs. public at its core. I don't think that the right to health care exists. I think that it's a privilege. Same goes for businesses, entitlements...

It is not the role of government to make life fair for everyone. They are there simply to make sure that everyone's individual freedoms are being protected.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Life

[Lord Raven]

lol if you can't make an argument on your own terms then you shouldn't participate in an argument. If you can't formulate an argument yourself then maybe you don't understand what you're arguing for. You also didn't make a relevant counter to my argument that, REGARDLESS OF YOUR STANCE ON TAXES, if he's not paying the taxes in accordance to the tax code and is instead exploiting loopholes to keep from paying taxes that others in his tax bracket or lower are paying then he is personally avoiding responsibility. Taking loopholes others cannot afford to take is scummy at best, and it shows a sense of arrogance that they are above what the proletariat has to do.

Hospitals or basically healthcare in general are a necessity because people get sick. People do not have the time, resources or any of that to cure themselves. The point of hospital care is to have a bunch of resources on the fly and getting second opinions - doctors can't nearly as easily work out of their own homes (and aren't as trustworthy either) because there aren't regulations to ensure that the equipment works and is fit for healthcare in general.

The question is if people have a right to health care and if a doctor is morally obligated to help patients for less money than he could charge.

That's actually not the public vs private argument. The public vs private is about who pays for healthcare, it has nothing to do with how much a doctor charges. As it stands, you keep bringing up a bootstraps argument but if a kid in a poor family is very sick and can't get health care then he's in an incredibly tight spot completely out of his control. What say you to that? Are they to be denied the right to healthcare because their family is poor, even though they are the ones that have to deal with the long term effects?

It is not the role of government to make life fair for everyone. They are there simply to make sure that everyone's individual freedoms are being protected.

Making life fair is a form of freedom seeing as if everyone has access to the same opportunities from birth (something that is 100% bullshit by the way; your birth and upbringing is a very significant factor in how you turn out) then they are free to choose a career that they can sustain themselves with. You're wording it as if literally the only thing the government should do is arm a military and police, but why can't people privatize military and security to protect their own rights? This is really selective anarchy.

Also, if you're going to engage in a taxes are theft argument, go back a few pages and address people. Don't start this shit up again from scratch, because if you do then you better damn well be prepared for me to ignore everything you say and just literally spring up naked quotes.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Lord Raven