As a warlock, I am deeply offended. That was a good friend of mine...

Agreed, it is silly to put such regular things under health insurance. Insurance is supposed to be for emergencies.

When you think about it, men don't take birth control, so a logical conclusion is that women want to offset the cost onto men. They want men to pay for their health care. Kinda sexist if you ask me. Feminists demand freedom, which includes contraception, but they still want men to foot the bill. Freedom isn't free ladies!

I think birth control should be available without a prescription (like all drugs IMO) so that women have easy access.

It is not the governments job to "drive the economy", otherwise the economy will become dependent on the government, like it has now. With an economy not directly and fed by the government, yeah the bottom line would be smaller, but it would be more stable.

Keynesian economics is like putting the economy on methamphetamine, seeing the high it gets and concluding that it is good for the economy, then proceeding to continually pump the drug into the system to avoid an inevitable crash. Part of economics is looking BEYOND the short term benefits. Yeah giving subsides now might boost and industry... for a time, before it harms all of the economy. Keynesian economics is not sustainable, it is Utopian.

"People in power or not will always try to exploit the system (current financial situation) so agree in the Keynesian view of government imposed limits to avoid extreme problematic situations."

Soooo the solution to keeping people in power (like government officials) from abusing their power is too give the government more power? It kinda seems like adding fuel to the fire to me.

Wait! We need to define and prove logic first.

Assuming? Perhaps, I also assume there is no Zeus or Athena. Why? There is not proof. When I say proof I mean verifiable and scientific, not "some guy I know saw XYZ".

Millions of supernatural things? No... Just many things we don't YET understand, that doesn't mean they are beyond comprehension. Not so long ago we didn't completely understand the physics of how bees flew. Yes we understood they had wings and all, but not the complexities of it. Theologians said "it is god that makes them fly!" and yet with more advanced science we have discovered that it is NOT god that makes bees fly, and that bees flight is well within the realm of natural law.

You may laugh at someone saying bees fly by the will of god, but it is the same principle whenever anyone says something is done by god.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke

If there is an omnipotent being that owns my life, then it should be able to stop me killing myself. If it can, and chooses not to, then why does it matter? If it wants to, and cannot, then is it really omnipotent?

PS:I meant to press oppose, woops.

I'm for self governing. So I suppose it would be nice for everyone in the world to have that freedom.

I understand what you are saying. I have no problem with the fact that he wants homosexuality to remain a sin in the eyes of the LDS, but also I was irritated the most when he implied that homosexuals are inferior.

"...those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

I take offense to him using the government to regulate sexual behavior. Perhaps he should press for laws that make it illegal to have sex unless reproduction is the intention.

From the essay... "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."

I don't know if I will ever be able to read on of his books.

The scenario I presented was a simplification of what we have today. I changed the intensity of the situation so it was not as recognizable. We tax those who have money partially to provide services for the taxed people, but also to help those without money.

When you say that 99 people are suffering, therefore it is acceptable to harm one you create a sort of moral continuum. How many people need to suffer? How bad must their suffering be? How many rich people is it acceptable to kill? Who decides these things? How do we decide how this money is best used?

What you have done it created a single unit where there is none. I am an individual. I may interact with other individuals, but what I have or who I am compared to my surroundings should have no such bearing on how you decide treat me.

As for your island scenario, if I agree to be eaten if chosen, then it is perfectly fine if people decide to collect on their contract. But if I say no to their deal (which I probably would), than they would have not right to kill me and I would have no right to kill any of them, except in self defense.

The problem with such a scenario you presented is that the chances of that occurring are astronomical. I would not build a moral philosophy on those kinds of highly improbably events, it would be hard to apply to real life. The world would be a mess if everyone lived their lives based on those sorts of scenarios. On the other hand there are rich billionaires and there are starving people all over the world.

The problem with utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is that it can lead to some pretty atrocious stuff.

Lets say there is a rich billionaire. By utilitarian standards, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable to murder the billionaire and use his money for the public good? So, now instead of one person with billions of dollars, we can spend those billions to help many others.

greatest good for greatest number of people.

I agree. Some say "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.", but I would say that if men were devils, then you CAN'T have government, otherwise the most vile people would find their way into government and use it to abuse others.

Indeed, they never smooth him out. I was expecting the whole time that the writers would pussify Mal at some point, but they never did. I liked that.

What if I do not wish to participate, regardless of whether it is good for me or not? Am I not free to do with myself as I wish? Am I really being so evil as to even dare being a productive citizen that doesn't pay taxes. If I am so evil, what do you propose, throwing me in jail?

As to the assertion that government is right because large groups of people do it is ridiculous. A long time ago pretty much every country had a king or emperor, that is clearly wrong now.

You can have your little collective defense groups, I'm fine with that. The problem is you force me to participate for "my protection", regardless of the fact that I don't want to be apart of your gang.

Why do you want my money to push your science. Don't get me wrong, I love science, I am an atheist. Just don't steal my money for your studies. If you care about this issue you and your friends can collect some money and donate your own money. Otherwise when you say you care about the issue, you care just enough to use my money, but clearly not enough for you to use your own money or effort.

On the other hand, I may one day give money to stem cell research, but I don't trust the government to handle the money. I have a feeling most of the money will land in the hand of bureaucrats. That's what usually happens when the government is put in charge of something like this.

Ayn Rand was a bit nutters in some ways (look into her personal relationships), but other than that she really revolutionized philosophy and how we view the free market. She has had an influence on me also.

I would say the most pointless thing to debate would be what shape of kidney stone hurts the least to pee out.

As long as I live alone I wont find peace? That's silly, if I live alone than there will be no one to aggress upon me. I am in complete control, only I can disturb my own peace.

"There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers." -Ayn Rand

What makes you think there are no consequences? Don't you think people would defend them self? I know if someone was trying to harm me or steal from me, I would have no trouble shooting them or taking some other defensive actions.

Some would say that this would cause the world to devolve into a massive shooting rampage. This is ridiculous, I have no interest in shooting at anyone that is not attacking or threatening me. It makes me the aggressor and turns everyone against me. People do not like to deal with violent individuals. I would be shutting myself out from the whole world by attacking innocents.

What you describe does not sound like traditional anarchists. Traditional anarchists are against private property and a bunch of other things. To be honest I don't really understand traditional anarchists completely.

What you describe sounds closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Being an anarcho-capitalist, I will say you come close to defining it, except for the part where a government is formed. There would be companies that have some of the functions we see in government, I.E. protection, dispute resolution, roads. The difference is, there would be no central monopoly on these functions. There would be a competing free market for these services, meaning instead of having government decisions handed down to you and being forced to obey, you are allowed to make decisions for yourself in life as long has they don't harm others.

No private company would dare tell you to not smoke pot, buckle your seat belt, or tell you that you can't eat trans fats. Unless they are your doctor, its not their business. Their only business is to satisfy you, so you will continue to give them money.

Yes! Does yours have a dancing furry?

Han Solo is cool. Han is awesome. But Mal is my generation's space cowboy. Every generation brings something new. Nothing against Han.

My life is mine to do with as I wish. I am not taking it, but I can give it if I wish.

Bradf0rd brought up a good point. Most people like to act righteous and want to stop people from killing them self, but they don't want to actually HELP the person. They will just do enough to stop the person from killing them self, to claim they save life or perhaps to feel moral, but do nothing to actually improve that suicidal person's life. You continue their hell.

People often want to make things they find distasteful illegal. They want to government to do their dirty work. If you care about the problem, fix it yourself. Don't have the government do it with other peoples' money.

Those who believe suicide should be illegal, I want you find someone who wishes to commit suicide, and stop them. Physically stop them from killing them self. Don't help them, don't try to convince them to live, just stop them from killing them self and keep them alive. Nothing more. I wonder, would they thank you?

The same thing will happen if you have government handle this. The government is cold and impersonal. It does not care about the suicidal people, it cares about the taxpayer dollars. The government would be ineffective. We don't need government to solve this problem, we need caring people to solve this problem.