Some people are born into privileged situations and some people into poverty. Do you think that those unfortunate enough to be in the second group can sometimes be justified in resorting to crime, say civil disobedience or theft, either through frustration or necessity? And if they were to resort to crime, is it fair to judge and punish them in the same way as more privileged people who might do the same things?

Is there a philosophical justification for democracy? It seems that it would have to be an argument from self-interest, but if we ask, "Whose self-interest?" then it would seem that a democracy isn't the best form of government for certain minority groups (e.g., a theocracy might be more in line with the interests of religious fundamentalists). And what if democracies are even downright harmful to, e.g., the elite? Also, a somewhat related question: is there a philosophical justification for taking from the rich and giving to the poor (which it seems is what socialism prescribes)? This question is 'somewhat related' to the previous question in that even if a democracy does benefit all, it certainly deprives certain groups of advantages they might otherwise have, and so, given a history, it cannot actually benefit all equally.

In the light of the recent sentencing of David Irving, is there still a philosophical - and perhaps general - importance of 'free speech' and the free exchange of ideas, or must we draw limits on what can be said and how it can be said?

The recent controversy surround the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mahommad has given rise to claims that Danes and others should break taboos and that freedom of the press and free speech are of a greater value than maintaining such taboos. Could the same claim be made around dialogue concerning the Jews and Nazi Germany?

Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)?

Should freedom of speech be absolute or should there be restrictions on publishing material that is offensive to religious sensitivities, particularly if publication serves no particular public interest?

Taking into account history, isn't it justifiable to resort to terrorism in the face of a vast empire?

Is it 'selfish', as is sometimes indignantly alleged, for an MP - I'm thinking of the UK parliamentary system - to vote on a Bill according to principle when that principle does not follow the party line?

Is it wrong to share copyrighted songs and video over the internet? I think the law should be changed to take away the protection of copyright. What do you think?

I may have too much access to philosophical materials to be considered eligible for this site, but I have not yet found a satisfactory answer to the following question: Why should an undemocratic country's sovereignty be accorded any moral significance? In other words, if a country is ruled without the consent of its governed, why should the fact that it is a separate country (as opposed to other political form) affect our moral calculus?