My takeaway from this is: great news for the big boys in the game, primarily Google.
Link Tax: Most news sites need Google more than Google needs them. They will waive the charges for Google or see traffic plummet. Google's less-well-known competitors, though... perhaps not. You wanna launch an aggregator as a competitor to Google News, expect to have to pay a lot more for content than Google does.
Meme Ban: Google has the economies of scale that will allow it to afford the investment that complying with the regulations requires without simply blanket-banning anything containing any copyrighted content. Google's competitors... not so much.
it's just an expensive supply of water to make drinkable
Not really. Tons of the stuff literally falls out of the sky in drinkable condition. That's actually sort of the problem. The UK gets so much rain that it's never really been worthwhile to invest in the infrastructure to capture and store more than a tiny fraction of it. All this article is really saying is that as the population grows, that tiny fraction will need to increase. Which is hardly a startling revelation.
Factually untrue. There was a referendum, and more people voted to leave than remain.
the majority didn't vote
Also factually untrue. Turnout was 72.2% - which is higher than turnout at any US Presidential election since 1900. Are those all invalid too?
Putin's illegal propaganda funding
...is a convenient excuse for people who want to ignore the result. How little do you think of the people of Britain that you think that the activities of a few trolls on the internet are enough to decisively swing the result?
stop Brexit with a real vote
What do you define as a REAL vote? Do you seriously think that a second referendum would magically be "cleaner" than the first one? I don't think you do. I think you just want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want, and democracy be damned.
For what it's worth, I voted Remain. I think leaving the EU is a terrible decision. But the precedent that would be set by ignoring the expressed will of the public because you don't like the result is more frightening to me than the worst chaos Brexit might bring.
Food would all be imported from the third world if we didn't have central ministries of agriculture centrally planning
And the problem with this would be...? Higher employment rates leading to higher wages in the third world, lifting people out of poverty there while delivering cheaper food here? And a world less likely to go to war since the potential disruption to the food supply makes the prospect more dangerous to governments? How terrible.
Anyway, the subsidies you're talking about refer to NATIONAL food supply planning, not city-level.
SimEnergy and SimWater, sure, but SimFood? You'd end up with a generation of people who think it's a good idea for a city's food supply to be centrally planned. Enjoy your breadlines.;)
"You are exaggerating here. Who is talking about taking control of everything?"
You're saying a government-run ISP is not the government taking control of internet provision? Or are you just taking my "everything" too literally? Fine, I'll rephrase: "the more things are handled by the government, the less fine-grained control people have over the decisions that are made on their behalf." Happy now?
"And what can you do if you live in an area where there is NO other choices?"
"No other choices" is literally the exact situation you're in when it comes to your government, too. So, in your worst case-scenario (no other competitors, which incidentally I don't believe is actually true anywhere when you consider other options like mobile internet), you are in effectively the same position with regard to ISPs as you are with governments. Except then, to change ISP you may have to move to a different town; to change governments you'd have to move to a different country altogether.
If Comcast starts throttling my Netflix, can I elect a new CEO?
On the other hand, if it's Trump who starts throttling your Netflix, can you actually elect a new President? Do you honestly think that THAT issue, among all the millions, is the one on which the country will be making its electoral decision? What if at the next election your choice is between someone you agree with on economics, foreign policy, health and defence, but they want to throttle your internet, or someone who offers you the best internet imaginable but will also trash the economy and start a load of unnecessary wars?
The underappreciated value of NOT having the government take control of everything is that it gives more fine-grained control - different people make the decisions about different things.
And no, you can't elect a new CEO of Comcast, but you can switch to a different service provider a lot more easily than you can switch to a different government.
Also, fossil fuels are not forever. The best time to switch to alternatives is when they are still cheap and reliable.
How do you figure? Surely logic dictates that as fossil fuels become more scarce, their price will rise; and as alternatives continue to be developed, their price will fall; therefore the BEST time to switch is the time when the cost of the alternatives is less than the cost of the fossil fuels?
Even if you don't believe in climate change wouldn't it be nice to enjoy cleaner air and purer water?
Yes, it would. It would also be nice to own a Rolls Royce. The question isn't "is it nice?", it's "is it nice enough that it's worth the cost?"
Get this straight: there is nobody who is against improving the environment. There are simply those who believe it's worth the cost, and those who don't. Which group you're in seems to be largely a matter of... a) How high you think the cost will be to actually fix the problem b) Whether or not you consider yourself to be part of the group that will end up actually footing the bill
"that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet"
Are you sure about that? Exactly how much of a profit do you think the algorithm calculates anyone making if everyone is dead? I'm sorry, this is just intellectual laziness on display here. We get it - you don't like corporations - but can you at least try to stop that from leading you into spouting nonsense?
So, according to your rule, physics and chemistry, which are the "hard sciences" aren't actually science. Good to know.
Well, no - neither "Physics" nor "Chemistry" feel the need to add "Science" to their title. We don't talk about "Physical Science" or "Chemical Science", because to do so would be redundant - physics and chemistry are both so obviously science that it's not necessary to SAY they are.
I think that's GP's point. Perhaps you've heard the saying "Being in power is like being a lady: if you have to tell people you are, you aren't."? Or if you prefer your quotes to come from Tywin Lannister rather than Maggie Thatcher: "Any man who must say 'I am the King' is no true king."
Anyone have any information on why it's called Zuma? It seems unlikely that they're trying to honour South African President Jacob Zuma, so what gives?
Yes, this is clearly the number one demon facing the internet, once facebook has protected us from this scourge we will all be able to rest easy again. Thank you for saving the internet facebook.
Yes, god forbid that people make improvements to non-critical things, eh? Puts me in mind of this comic.
"you're giving that away for FREE to people and organizations that don't give two shits about what's good for you"
Small correction: no, you're not giving it to them for free. You're giving it to them in exchange for being allowed to use Facebook. It's a pretty straightforward deal: They give you a piece of software which makes it easy to communicate with your friends, and you give them some information. Quid pro quo.
The real mystery is why people think that just because no actual money changes hands, that makes something "free".
No, second hand smoke is proven to be a cause of cancer. I should not be required to increase my risk of cancer to go to a club, simple as that. Your analogy is plain stupid.
Nope, that's just your basic reading and comprehension skills failing you there. In the text you quote, I said "IFit's just a matter of annoyance..." and then in the next paragraph went on to say that since it's NOT just a matter of annoyance, and health risks are involved, the arithmetic changes.
So, I gave a hypothetical in which there are no health risks, and you called me "plain stupid" because there are health risks. Brilliant. No wonder you're an AC.
There's a certain kind of mentality that drives some people to see vaping as just another form of smoking, which they also consider to be evil... Such things are driven by emotion and ideology rather than any serious concern for health.
Very much this. What you have to bear in mind is that for a lot of people, "it's bad for your health" was the rationalisation for smoking bans, but not the actual reason. For a lot of people (me included) cigarette smoke is unpleasant and annoying. But a complaint on that basis doesn't carry much weight politically, because it can always be answered with "well, go somewhere else where there isn't smoke, then". The smoker and the non-smoker are on an even footing if it's just a matter of annoyance, and complaining about smoking in a bar would be the equivalent about complaining about loud noise in a nightclub. Don't like it? Don't go.
But if you can make it about health then the arithmetic changes. If your smoking damages my health (in even the most minor way), then obviously that's way more serious than mere annoyance, so suddenly I've got the political clout to force you to stop. [Full disclosure: I actually oppose smoking bans, but the principle is there.]
So obviously, with e-cigarettes, those who are really motivated by simple dislike of smoking (and who are perhaps somewhat morally dubious) are going to do everything in their power to try to keep eCigs classified like regular cigarettes - which includes trying to drum up any kind of evidence for potential health risks, as well as tenuous "gateway drug" style arguments.
I get that we all gotta die someday, but that obituary will be a bitch to swallow when your life is expired by a $2 can of old food.
The thing is, an undamaged can effectively has no expiry date. People have recovered cans from the holds of ships that wrecked a hundred years ago and, upon opening them, discovered the contents to be safe. Unappetizing, perhaps (they do tend to dissolve into mush), but safe. The whole point of canning is that it makes microbial growth impossible, so if you're gonna be poisoned by a can of food, it makes no difference whether that can has been sitting on the shelf for a day or a decade. If it wasn't toxic on the day it was canned, it won't become so in the can. "Expiry dates" on cans are more to do with producers not wanting to create a bad impression by having customers try to eat soggy goop.
But do check to make sure the can is undamaged! A tiny pinprick of a breach, and all bets are off.
Not sure why this have been modded up as it's pretty much common knowledge that there is Supercharger Stations about everyone in NA [tesla.com] that will charge 80% of your battery under 30min.
1. Learn to grammar.
2. You seem to be confusing "it's pretty much common knowledge" with "a lot of people that I know, know this". I asked because I didn't know the answer. Presumably those who modded me up also wanted to know.
3. If by "about everyone in NA" you meant "just about everywhere in North America", then that site you linked to says you're wrong. Based on their map, the entire state of Texas appears to currently contain a total of 25 supercharging stations, for example. If you live in New York City, you'd have to drive all the way out to the airport to reach your closest station. That's not exactly convenient!
The only question that really matters is: What is the charge time? 215 miles is a reasonable enough range; but if you're planning a 250 mile trip, you don't want to have to make an overnight stop! If you can charge the car enough in, say, a 15-minute rest break that it can keep going for another couple of hours, then it's a viable vehicle. If not, it's not.
I don't need a computer to tell me that there is a good chance some of these people will attempt suicide again.
Yes, but which ones? That's the whole point, surely? You'd want to use this as a diagnostic tool, in cases where you're dealing with a lot of depressed people and you need to know which ones you particularly need to watch out for in terms of suicide risk. Mental health clinics would find this invaluable, wouldn't they?
It's pretty much the same thing as being able to tell a cardiac clinic which of their heart-disease patients are most at risk of having a heart attack soon. Obviously everyone who is a patient there will have a problem of some kind, but being able to distinguish those who need urgent attention from those who just need run-of-the-mill care is one of the primary requirements of the job.
"there's the BBC if I want something more or less objective"
You're making "more or less" do quite a lot of work there. The BBC has an official policy of providing balanced coverage, but being a state-run organisation has a natural bias in favour of state-run organisations. It is also almost entirely staffed by metropolitan liberals, whose personal political viewpoints colour a lot of their coverage. (Note: this is a bias not a conscious agenda. I know several BBC employees and they are all well-meaning and genuinely think they're being neutral; but they shudder at the word 'Trump'. Or 'Brexit'.)
It's something of a cliché that when the BBC arranges a discussion panel, they provide balance by bringing in one panellist from the left, and one from the right... and then have a moderator who clearly agrees with the one from the left.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset.
Dunno about America, but in the UK that's exactly what does happen, and nobody is particularly upset. I "bought" my house on a Leasehold basis; after 125 years, ownership reverts to the Freeholder (or, more likely, the lease is extended for a fee). The property was described as "For Sale", but with "Leasehold" prominently displayed on the advert. I was happy enough to go through with it, because although it won't increase in value as fast as a Freehold would, that difference was priced in to the initial "purchase" price. Nobody has any problem describing that as a "sale", and it's certainly not fraud; it's just a different type of contract. I guess technically what was sold was not the property, it was the lease contract to the property. But if both parties are fine with the arrangement, what's the problem?
Reality, we could simply take the entirety of the Middle East within two weeks, spend about a year fighting a ground war wiping out every possible bit of opposition using our advanced satellite technology to track targets and scan for them, and then that area is simply ours. Assuming one had a competent leader and plan for them to execute
And... y'know... assuming we were comfortable with all the civilian deaths that such an attack would cause. That, fundamentally, is why recent American wars have tended to drag on for so long; it's not an issue of competence or planning (those aren't perfect either, but they're secondary) - it's that the entire approach is based on trying to win while doing as little actual damage as is humanly possible.
And the real danger to America is the prospect of a commander in chief who equates that approach with weakness or lack of resolve, and decides to do it differently. Because at that point, the "America is the new evil empire" meme stops becoming the exclusive preserve of teenage Trotskyists, and becomes something the whole world has to take seriously.
unfair competition (i.e. individuals opting out of safety equipment to make themselves more employable).
So, in your world, someone who smokes 2 packs a day and works as a bartender would not have the option of saying to an employer, "hey, a little extra second-hand smoke is not going to make any difference to me; how about you don't bother with all that expensive equipment, and I get a job where I don't have to go outside every time I want a cigarette?" - because that is somehow being "unfair"?
Some people a born sick. In places without social healthcare, people often can't get the cover they need before they reach a certain level of income.
Yes, and as I've said, it is perfectly legitimate to make a utilitarian argument that taking money away from some people in order to spend it on other people's healthcare is morally permissible. But a) It is dishonest to pretend this is "insurance", and b) It is dishonest to pretend that when you take money away from one man in order to pay for the health care of another man, you are not doing harm to that first man. Acknowledge that you are. Argue that the good you're doing for the second man outweighs the harm you're doing to the first, sure, but don't just pretend you're not doing any harm.
Hell, you can even argue that, in some roundabout way, paying for the healthcare of the second man ends up benefiting the first man by more than the cost of what you've taken. I think that's a tough sell, and even if you could prove it in financial terms it still wouldn't necessarily solve the moral problem (if I break into your house, steal all your furniture and leave behind other stuff which I think is worth as much or more, am I not committing a crime?), but I'm perfectly willing to listen to your arguments. But my point is: You need to actually MAKE those arguments. You can't just assert that free healthcare is an "absolute" moral right.
Slashdot Mirror
My takeaway from this is: great news for the big boys in the game, primarily Google.
Link Tax: Most news sites need Google more than Google needs them. They will waive the charges for Google or see traffic plummet. Google's less-well-known competitors, though... perhaps not. You wanna launch an aggregator as a competitor to Google News, expect to have to pay a lot more for content than Google does.
Meme Ban: Google has the economies of scale that will allow it to afford the investment that complying with the regulations requires without simply blanket-banning anything containing any copyrighted content. Google's competitors... not so much.
it's just an expensive supply of water to make drinkable
Not really. Tons of the stuff literally falls out of the sky in drinkable condition. That's actually sort of the problem. The UK gets so much rain that it's never really been worthwhile to invest in the infrastructure to capture and store more than a tiny fraction of it. All this article is really saying is that as the population grows, that tiny fraction will need to increase. Which is hardly a startling revelation.
The UK didn't vote for Brexit
Factually untrue. There was a referendum, and more people voted to leave than remain.
the majority didn't vote
Also factually untrue. Turnout was 72.2% - which is higher than turnout at any US Presidential election since 1900. Are those all invalid too?
Putin's illegal propaganda funding
stop Brexit with a real vote
What do you define as a REAL vote? Do you seriously think that a second referendum would magically be "cleaner" than the first one? I don't think you do. I think you just want to keep asking the question until you get the answer you want, and democracy be damned.
For what it's worth, I voted Remain. I think leaving the EU is a terrible decision. But the precedent that would be set by ignoring the expressed will of the public because you don't like the result is more frightening to me than the worst chaos Brexit might bring.
Food would all be imported from the third world if we didn't have central ministries of agriculture centrally planning
And the problem with this would be...? Higher employment rates leading to higher wages in the third world, lifting people out of poverty there while delivering cheaper food here? And a world less likely to go to war since the potential disruption to the food supply makes the prospect more dangerous to governments? How terrible.
Anyway, the subsidies you're talking about refer to NATIONAL food supply planning, not city-level.
SimEnergy and SimWater, sure, but SimFood? You'd end up with a generation of people who think it's a good idea for a city's food supply to be centrally planned. Enjoy your breadlines. ;)
"You are exaggerating here. Who is talking about taking control of everything?"
You're saying a government-run ISP is not the government taking control of internet provision? Or are you just taking my "everything" too literally? Fine, I'll rephrase: "the more things are handled by the government, the less fine-grained control people have over the decisions that are made on their behalf." Happy now?
"And what can you do if you live in an area where there is NO other choices?"
"No other choices" is literally the exact situation you're in when it comes to your government, too. So, in your worst case-scenario (no other competitors, which incidentally I don't believe is actually true anywhere when you consider other options like mobile internet), you are in effectively the same position with regard to ISPs as you are with governments. Except then, to change ISP you may have to move to a different town; to change governments you'd have to move to a different country altogether.
If Comcast starts throttling my Netflix, can I elect a new CEO?
On the other hand, if it's Trump who starts throttling your Netflix, can you actually elect a new President? Do you honestly think that THAT issue, among all the millions, is the one on which the country will be making its electoral decision? What if at the next election your choice is between someone you agree with on economics, foreign policy, health and defence, but they want to throttle your internet, or someone who offers you the best internet imaginable but will also trash the economy and start a load of unnecessary wars?
The underappreciated value of NOT having the government take control of everything is that it gives more fine-grained control - different people make the decisions about different things.
And no, you can't elect a new CEO of Comcast, but you can switch to a different service provider a lot more easily than you can switch to a different government.
Also, fossil fuels are not forever. The best time to switch to alternatives is when they are still cheap and reliable.
How do you figure? Surely logic dictates that as fossil fuels become more scarce, their price will rise; and as alternatives continue to be developed, their price will fall; therefore the BEST time to switch is the time when the cost of the alternatives is less than the cost of the fossil fuels?
Even if you don't believe in climate change wouldn't it be nice to enjoy cleaner air and purer water?
Yes, it would. It would also be nice to own a Rolls Royce. The question isn't "is it nice?", it's "is it nice enough that it's worth the cost?"
Get this straight: there is nobody who is against improving the environment. There are simply those who believe it's worth the cost, and those who don't. Which group you're in seems to be largely a matter of...
a) How high you think the cost will be to actually fix the problem
b) Whether or not you consider yourself to be part of the group that will end up actually footing the bill
"that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet"
Are you sure about that? Exactly how much of a profit do you think the algorithm calculates anyone making if everyone is dead? I'm sorry, this is just intellectual laziness on display here. We get it - you don't like corporations - but can you at least try to stop that from leading you into spouting nonsense?
So, according to your rule, physics and chemistry, which are the "hard sciences" aren't actually science. Good to know.
Well, no - neither "Physics" nor "Chemistry" feel the need to add "Science" to their title. We don't talk about "Physical Science" or "Chemical Science", because to do so would be redundant - physics and chemistry are both so obviously science that it's not necessary to SAY they are.
I think that's GP's point. Perhaps you've heard the saying "Being in power is like being a lady: if you have to tell people you are, you aren't."? Or if you prefer your quotes to come from Tywin Lannister rather than Maggie Thatcher: "Any man who must say 'I am the King' is no true king."
Anyone have any information on why it's called Zuma? It seems unlikely that they're trying to honour South African President Jacob Zuma, so what gives?
Yes, this is clearly the number one demon facing the internet, once facebook has protected us from this scourge we will all be able to rest easy again. Thank you for saving the internet facebook.
Yes, god forbid that people make improvements to non-critical things, eh? Puts me in mind of this comic.
"you're giving that away for FREE to people and organizations that don't give two shits about what's good for you"
Small correction: no, you're not giving it to them for free. You're giving it to them in exchange for being allowed to use Facebook. It's a pretty straightforward deal: They give you a piece of software which makes it easy to communicate with your friends, and you give them some information. Quid pro quo. The real mystery is why people think that just because no actual money changes hands, that makes something "free".
No, second hand smoke is proven to be a cause of cancer. I should not be required to increase my risk of cancer to go to a club, simple as that. Your analogy is plain stupid.
Nope, that's just your basic reading and comprehension skills failing you there. In the text you quote, I said "IFit's just a matter of annoyance..." and then in the next paragraph went on to say that since it's NOT just a matter of annoyance, and health risks are involved, the arithmetic changes.
So, I gave a hypothetical in which there are no health risks, and you called me "plain stupid" because there are health risks. Brilliant. No wonder you're an AC.
There's a certain kind of mentality that drives some people to see vaping as just another form of smoking, which they also consider to be evil... Such things are driven by emotion and ideology rather than any serious concern for health.
Very much this. What you have to bear in mind is that for a lot of people, "it's bad for your health" was the rationalisation for smoking bans, but not the actual reason. For a lot of people (me included) cigarette smoke is unpleasant and annoying. But a complaint on that basis doesn't carry much weight politically, because it can always be answered with "well, go somewhere else where there isn't smoke, then". The smoker and the non-smoker are on an even footing if it's just a matter of annoyance, and complaining about smoking in a bar would be the equivalent about complaining about loud noise in a nightclub. Don't like it? Don't go.
But if you can make it about health then the arithmetic changes. If your smoking damages my health (in even the most minor way), then obviously that's way more serious than mere annoyance, so suddenly I've got the political clout to force you to stop. [Full disclosure: I actually oppose smoking bans, but the principle is there.]
So obviously, with e-cigarettes, those who are really motivated by simple dislike of smoking (and who are perhaps somewhat morally dubious) are going to do everything in their power to try to keep eCigs classified like regular cigarettes - which includes trying to drum up any kind of evidence for potential health risks, as well as tenuous "gateway drug" style arguments.
I get that we all gotta die someday, but that obituary will be a bitch to swallow when your life is expired by a $2 can of old food.
The thing is, an undamaged can effectively has no expiry date. People have recovered cans from the holds of ships that wrecked a hundred years ago and, upon opening them, discovered the contents to be safe. Unappetizing, perhaps (they do tend to dissolve into mush), but safe. The whole point of canning is that it makes microbial growth impossible, so if you're gonna be poisoned by a can of food, it makes no difference whether that can has been sitting on the shelf for a day or a decade. If it wasn't toxic on the day it was canned, it won't become so in the can. "Expiry dates" on cans are more to do with producers not wanting to create a bad impression by having customers try to eat soggy goop.
But do check to make sure the can is undamaged! A tiny pinprick of a breach, and all bets are off.
Not sure why this have been modded up as it's pretty much common knowledge that there is Supercharger Stations about everyone in NA [tesla.com] that will charge 80% of your battery under 30min.
The only question that really matters is: What is the charge time? 215 miles is a reasonable enough range; but if you're planning a 250 mile trip, you don't want to have to make an overnight stop! If you can charge the car enough in, say, a 15-minute rest break that it can keep going for another couple of hours, then it's a viable vehicle. If not, it's not.
I don't need a computer to tell me that there is a good chance some of these people will attempt suicide again.
Yes, but which ones? That's the whole point, surely? You'd want to use this as a diagnostic tool, in cases where you're dealing with a lot of depressed people and you need to know which ones you particularly need to watch out for in terms of suicide risk. Mental health clinics would find this invaluable, wouldn't they?
It's pretty much the same thing as being able to tell a cardiac clinic which of their heart-disease patients are most at risk of having a heart attack soon. Obviously everyone who is a patient there will have a problem of some kind, but being able to distinguish those who need urgent attention from those who just need run-of-the-mill care is one of the primary requirements of the job.
"there's the BBC if I want something more or less objective"
You're making "more or less" do quite a lot of work there. The BBC has an official policy of providing balanced coverage, but being a state-run organisation has a natural bias in favour of state-run organisations. It is also almost entirely staffed by metropolitan liberals, whose personal political viewpoints colour a lot of their coverage. (Note: this is a bias not a conscious agenda. I know several BBC employees and they are all well-meaning and genuinely think they're being neutral; but they shudder at the word 'Trump'. Or 'Brexit'.)
It's something of a cliché that when the BBC arranges a discussion panel, they provide balance by bringing in one panellist from the left, and one from the right... and then have a moderator who clearly agrees with the one from the left.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset.
Dunno about America, but in the UK that's exactly what does happen, and nobody is particularly upset. I "bought" my house on a Leasehold basis; after 125 years, ownership reverts to the Freeholder (or, more likely, the lease is extended for a fee). The property was described as "For Sale", but with "Leasehold" prominently displayed on the advert. I was happy enough to go through with it, because although it won't increase in value as fast as a Freehold would, that difference was priced in to the initial "purchase" price. Nobody has any problem describing that as a "sale", and it's certainly not fraud; it's just a different type of contract. I guess technically what was sold was not the property, it was the lease contract to the property. But if both parties are fine with the arrangement, what's the problem?
Reality, we could simply take the entirety of the Middle East within two weeks, spend about a year fighting a ground war wiping out every possible bit of opposition using our advanced satellite technology to track targets and scan for them, and then that area is simply ours. Assuming one had a competent leader and plan for them to execute
And... y'know... assuming we were comfortable with all the civilian deaths that such an attack would cause. That, fundamentally, is why recent American wars have tended to drag on for so long; it's not an issue of competence or planning (those aren't perfect either, but they're secondary) - it's that the entire approach is based on trying to win while doing as little actual damage as is humanly possible.
And the real danger to America is the prospect of a commander in chief who equates that approach with weakness or lack of resolve, and decides to do it differently. Because at that point, the "America is the new evil empire" meme stops becoming the exclusive preserve of teenage Trotskyists, and becomes something the whole world has to take seriously.
unfair competition (i.e. individuals opting out of safety equipment to make themselves more employable).
So, in your world, someone who smokes 2 packs a day and works as a bartender would not have the option of saying to an employer, "hey, a little extra second-hand smoke is not going to make any difference to me; how about you don't bother with all that expensive equipment, and I get a job where I don't have to go outside every time I want a cigarette?" - because that is somehow being "unfair"?
Some people a born sick. In places without social healthcare, people often can't get the cover they need before they reach a certain level of income.
Yes, and as I've said, it is perfectly legitimate to make a utilitarian argument that taking money away from some people in order to spend it on other people's healthcare is morally permissible. But a) It is dishonest to pretend this is "insurance", and b) It is dishonest to pretend that when you take money away from one man in order to pay for the health care of another man, you are not doing harm to that first man. Acknowledge that you are. Argue that the good you're doing for the second man outweighs the harm you're doing to the first, sure, but don't just pretend you're not doing any harm.
Hell, you can even argue that, in some roundabout way, paying for the healthcare of the second man ends up benefiting the first man by more than the cost of what you've taken. I think that's a tough sell, and even if you could prove it in financial terms it still wouldn't necessarily solve the moral problem (if I break into your house, steal all your furniture and leave behind other stuff which I think is worth as much or more, am I not committing a crime?), but I'm perfectly willing to listen to your arguments. But my point is: You need to actually MAKE those arguments. You can't just assert that free healthcare is an "absolute" moral right.