Fang is considered a wealthy professional making about 130K a year. It is election day and she still cannot decide on who to vote for. Governor Date plans to implement a tax increase on wealthy civilians, as well as make healthcare more accessible for everyone. Senator Full plans to make financials easier on wealthy civilians, by decreasing tax on them. Personally, Fang benefits more from Full, but she knows generally and morally she should vote for Date. Should Fang vote on what would benefit her more or what would benefit most of America?

The student debt crisis is steadily increasing by the year. Candidates like Bernie Sanders promise to totally delete all debt, while some promise to severely decrease it. Despite how good this sounds, there are a lot of critics surrounding this. Some say it's not fair for others who have handled their financials in a way where they need no loans. Would this policy be unfair to those who went about things differently? Should this policy be accepted to strengthen the middle class, therefore strengthing the economy since they'd be able to actively participate?

Supporters of entitlement programs ("public charity") believe they provide essential services that protect vulnerable populations while critics argue they violate the values of limited government and individual autonomy. What is the value of charitable donations that are coerced? Are public or private charities more effective? Do people have the right to be helped in some situations? Should each individual be fully in control of how to help others?

People from underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds are sometimes arrested and jailed for failure to pay their legal fees or fines for low-level offenses. Under what circumstances is it morally permissible to put people in jail for failing to pay their debts? How does the fact that those imprisoned tend to be undereducated minorities who are in some cases suffering from mental illness?