What are the arguments for and against a universal health care system?

I am a Zimbabwean student studying in South Africa and like many, am distressed quite deeply by the events of Zimbabwe's recent past. I am particularly opposed to the blinding lights of patriotism and nationalism-and the inextricable fetters it places upon human thought. However, at the moment I feel that much of my disgust and my desire for change in Zim is motivated by that very patriotism I tend to abhor. Is nationalism ever justified? Or does it always form the pretext for the ideologies of hate that grip the world so voraciously? Also, is the use of force justified in opposition to the government's fierce crackdown on civil protest? Is civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi's brand the only justified response to tyranny?

The rulers of country X are dictators in every sense of the word. Due to their repressive policies, living conditions of the inhabitants of X have dropped to pathetic levels. The rulers of X, because they have the money and wealth, decide to send their children to a country C which has better living conditions than X. Is it just for the rulers of C to deport these children back to X?

I've been thinking about how people generalize all the time when trying to figure out if something is moral. Let's say I enact some form of vigilante justice, like shooting some criminal at large whom I know will repeat heinous acts if unstopped. Naturally I would find myself on trial and would face some variation of the argument: so do you believe, then, that everyone should take the law into their own hands? It seems that this generalizing argument/question flows naturally from the demands of logic. But I think it's a perversion of thought and distortion of morality. Why would Justice be so limited a concept that it must bow in all instances to some simply statable, spiffy sounding, ostensibly proceeding from almighty logic claim like the generalizing one? I feel that I can answer "no" to this question without surrendering my belief that what I did was right. It shouldn't involve me in any contradiction (nor would it be a huge deal if it did) to claim: what I did was right, but I don't believe...

What place does social welfare have within the larger context of the social contract? In other words, is there a philosophical connection (and/or basis) between social welfare and the ideas and principles inherent within the social contract? Stated in its most elementary form, the social contract requires human beings to give up some of their natural rights in order to receive certain protections that government provides under the social contract. The question therefore is whether or not social welfare constitutes one of these "protections"? Did John Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes ever speak of social welfare as an inherent aspect of the social contract? Is it logical or illogical -- on a strictly philosophical basis -- to suppose that social welfare is a natural product of the social contract? Are there any other authors/works that might be cited that deal with this philosophical investigation?

There is this field of philosophy called "social and political philosophy." I have a difficulty distinguishing "social" from "political." How does "social philosophy" differ from "political philosophy"? I think this is significant; otherwise, the field should be simply called either "social philosophy" or "political philosophy."

1.) Would you label free market/vanilla capitalism (however you choose to answer) as moral or immoral? Now, is it more or less moral in comparison to its alternatives, such as socialism and all its variations? 2.) Is it moral/immoral to infringe upon property rights in the name of the "common good"? Thank you for your time. I am a student with a strong interest in governmental philosophy and appreciate the concise answers your website provides. Sincerely, Alexander C. R.

Do affirmative action programs make sense in a free market society? Affirmative action programs seek to create equality of opportunity. Free markets seek to reward the best ideas/practices (and hence create inequality). Are the two ever reconcilable then (where one creates equality, the other undoes it)?

In my country, and for at least dozens of years, many people evade taxes, especially in some professional groups. Tax evasion is recognized as a common behavior, even if accepted only in private (or at least not too public) conversations. There are some rough calculations about how big tax evasion is. This has had many consequences: a) Tax rates are a bit higher than they would be if there were no evasion; b) Unions agree on salaries knowing that their members will have to pay for these hight tax rates or, on the contrary, that they will be able to evade taxes; c) Professionals charge for their services knowing that they will be able to evade taxes; d) Some professionals and corporations evade taxes because, if they wouldn't, they wouldn't be able to compete with low prices; e) People who do not evade taxes, although they could, know that many other people do, and they do not evade either because they think that is the right thing to do, or because they are affraid that they are caught. Do you think...

Rawls defines justice as fairness. But it is not clear to me how justice differs from fairness in the first place. Dictionaries do not help because they all indicate both terms as synonyms of each other. Could anyone point me out how the two are distinct? THANKS!!!