Some people believe that property rights grant them the right to spend their money how they like. People have the right not to buy internet if they desire. But if enough people decide to infringe on those {god-granted|human} rights, they will be able to pass such a law in the USA.

If by "harder," you mean someone will need to re-code the sniffer program and the CPU will need to decode the traffic into human-readable format, then yes. But as far as the user/diagnoser is concerned, not really.

Probably because if we financed it, then we get the credit if it helps stop/stabilize the middle east. And it's a way we can aid an ally without incurring international strife (after all, it is solely a defensive weapon). And because a stable middle east is necessary to fuel our appetite for oil. A universal healthcare system for Israel costs so much less than one in the US, due to the number of citizens.... And in an area as volatile as the middle east, leaving sick people out to die (and spread disease and dissent) is a threat to Israel's national defense.

The incentives are exactly the same for software developers in my experience. The company can bill the client for number of hours worked, or at the very least can use this "metric" as a price haggling point.

And then the astrophysicist looks at them and says, "That cow only has one side. It is part of a hologram that we are all a part of."
And then the philosopher looks at them and says, "That cow doesn't necessarily exist. Neither do you. Cogito ergo sum."

So that we can create an amusement park and sell tickets? Duh.... It's not as if it could end badly or anything.

The genetic risks that you mention that are associated with incest are not as high as society would have you think. This link mentions that if we should pass laws governing sex based on genetic risk, then we should disallow sexual intercourse between the elderly, between those with common traits for genetic diseases, as well as between genetically similar groups (for example, between Ashkenazi Jews or Safardic Jews). And why not make genetic screening before having children mandatory while we're at it?

I believe that incest, homosexuality, and polygamy all suffer a stigma brought on by the bible and that the laws were written because of this stigma, and not for any rational reason. Yes, it would be better for society as a whole if certain people didn't have children, but do we really want the government to tell us who those people are?

Even if one were to say that we want the government to control who can have children and who can not, I would like to point out that in today's day and age, sexual intercourse does not have to have a significant chance of impregnation and therefore should not be outlawed under any consensual circumstance.