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.