No doubt you’ve seen lawn signs promoting a political candidate or point of view. Have you ever put one up?
Share why if you wish.
Category: Politics
Who Is Susceptible To Misinformation?
There are very skilled, well-financed groups attempting to spread misinformation across the world. Who is likely to be duped?
It can be very frustrating when someone you disagree with ignores logic and common sense. How can they believe something that is so obviously incorrect? They clearly are being fed a steady diet of misinformation, from politicians, news outlets, social media feeds, and so on. But why can’t they see it?
Of course, it is very likely they, or someone else who disagrees with you, is thinking the exact same thing. How is it possible, they ask, that you don’t see you are being lied to? They believe your social media feed is full of misinformation. The politicians you vote for deliberately tell lie after lie. News sources you follow are biased and don’t tell the whole story.
Surely both sides can’t be right. One side must be telling the truth, and the other is sadly deluded. And, of course, your side is the correct one. Theirs is the one filled with misinformation.
Need proof? Just look at the video clip of someone interviewing them, exposing how ignorant they are. It is sad they don’t see what has happened to them.
But again, those video clips exist on both sides of the political spectrum.
How can you be sure that your side is the correct one? What if it isn’t? What if the people spreading misinformation are not targeting just one side of the political aisle, but instead look to destabilize the entire system, left and right alike?
You probably believe the other side should be more skeptical of the information they are exposed to. But how skeptical are you?
Related questions: What is truth? How do you know who to trust? What beliefs do you have that might be wrong?
Should Health Care Be Tied To A Person’s Employment?
For many people, at least in America, health care is largely subsidized by their employer. Does that system make sense?
Health care is one of the more controversial topics in American politics. Millions of Americans get their health insurance, to pay for the ever-increasing cost of health care, from a plan offered by their employer.
It is easy to see how this situation evolved. In addition to salary, an employer may offer additional benefits as an incentive to take a job. These might include, among other things, generous vacation time, stock options, and yes, cheaper health insurance.
Indeed, that can be an attractive benefit, as health insurance is very expensive. This is due to the fact that health care is expensive. However, large companies that represent hundreds or even thousands of employees, can negotiate lower prices that would be unavailable to individuals.
One downside to this scenario, though, is that having health care offered through an employer means employees are put at a severe disadvantage. A worker might be unhappy with a particular job, but feels they are unable to leave because they can’t afford to lose the health insurance for them and possibly their family.
Additionally, an employer’s choice of plan could impact what medical procedures an employee is allowed to get, or even which doctor they are allowed to have.
So, which is it? Is subsidized health insurance a nice perk that comes with signing on with a big company? Or is it a tool that gives an employer unfair leverage over their employees? Should health care be tied to a person’s employment?
Related questions: Is health care a human right? Health care: private or public? What does it mean to be healthy? Is your sense of self tied to your job?
Why Do We Allow Poverty To Exist?
Poverty is a known, defined problem that we could end if only we had the will to do so. So why doesn’t that happen?
Think of a disease, like smallpox. At one point in time, we didn’t know much about smallpox. Then we learned what it was, how it was transmitted, and how it could be treated. Then it was a difficult, but straightforward, process to eliminate smallpox.
Like smallpox, we know what poverty is. We can easily separate out the people who live under the poverty line from those living above it.
We also know what causes poverty. And finally, we know how to “treat” it. It regularly happens that an individual or a family is raised out of poverty. We know what to do to erase it from someone’s life.
So why, then, haven’t we, as a society, taken the final step and eliminated it, just as we eliminated smallpox? We could rid the world — or at least our country — of food insecurity, unstable housing, lack of health care, etc.
Of course, eliminating something is not easy. We can treat other diseases, but not eliminate them.
For example, cases of measles are on the rise in some communities, even with an effective, cheap, commonly-available treatment. While the numbers are down significantly from its peak, we’ve never been able to eliminate measles.
And, of course, poverty and disease differ in many ways. The analogy is not exact, and it may be that the differences are telling.
But the point is that we know there are things that can be done to reduce poverty, like pay higher wages or increase affordable housing. However, we don’t do them. Why not?
Related questions: Can we end poverty? What is the purpose of money? What are our responsibilities to others?
Should The Voting Age Be Lowered To 16?
What are the pros and cons of lowering the legal voting age to 16? Is that something we should pursue?
Share why if you wish.