Recently, a politician announced that (unlike his opponent) he supported a major government initiative that would bring money and jobs to my area. If the initiative passed, my life would almost certainly improve. The rest of the country, however, would be worse off, because the plan is mostly pork spending that wastes money. At first I thought I should vote for the candidate who opposes the initiative, because that would help the most people. But on the other hand, our political system seems to be designed expecting citizens to vote in their interest. Our congress, for instance, is elected on a state-by-state basis, implying that each congressperson should have a special concern for their state. What would be the responsible way to vote?

Does Rawls consider inborn abilities an important determinant of social status? I haven't read his entire text in A Theory of Justice, but when he mentions the veil of ignorance, is he considering social status more or less a matter of fate?

(First question here:) If our world were to become a world without borders, would that necessarily be a good thing or a bad thing?

I work for an organization for which the buzz word "compromise" has great appeal. However, I am not a fan of compromise - I feel that it should be used as a last - very last - resort. I think that operations generally run more smoothly if the person with the better idea gets his / her way. However, in my organization almost all differences are "resolved" by compromise even where difficult people who disagree as a matter of course are involved - on the simple belief that compromise is always the best option. However, I feel that compromise can be used as a means of control, as a way of ensuring that the other person cannot win, etc. What is your opinion?

Does the great size of the population give me an out, since my contribution, say one in 150,000,000, is neither here nor there, when it comes to,say, voting, recycling garbage, paying taxes? Of course, if "everybody did it", it would be a problem. But everybody, in fact, isn't doing it, so there is no actual problem. My failure to co-operate has a minimal impact. And, my keeping quiet about my non-co-operation further minimizes the minimal impact.

Recently in politics the word 'elitist' has been used in bad connotations; as if it is bad to be elite. Why shouldn't our leaders be elitists?

Does a citizen of a democratic country have a duty to vote?

Is it morally acceptable for the rich to use their wealth to hoard an *essential* resource (such as housing) in order to make a profit?

Is it fair to require Muslims born in Britain and brought up under Sharia law to accept as universal, laws which are underpinned by and reflect Western values utterly at odds with Muslim beliefs?

Should there be a human right to freely move where people want to, including crossing over into other sovereign territories, provided that this right does not infringe on the rights of others?