So, once this has happened, the homeowner has the legal right to steal the intruder's stuff and rape the intruder's wife? Or that of somebody who looks like the intruder?
You do realize that poor people are going to suffer more than the affluent from climate change effects, don't you? Barring some sort of intervention, they're screwed either way.
As our tech gets better and better, we'll be able to find new ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and if it's increasing slowly enough we can use other means (such as trees) to reduce CO2 in the air. Therefore, the rate at which things get worse matters.
As a cynical liberal, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Businesses have only a very limited ability to pass costs to their customers. The reason is that the cost, in fields where there is competition, is pretty well set by a fairly standard supply-demand curve. If it becomes more expensive to produce something, the supply curve changes, but there's no bloody way a business can pass along costs and add their profit margin to it (unless you're talking about a contract specifically written that way).
If a business could just pass its costs onto its customers, then it could just raise its prices now and make more money. Do you think businesses in general keep their prices low and their profits low, for some reason? My observation is that they like profits, and set prices to their best guess on what to charge to make maximum profit.
Besides, if there's different ways to produce something, that produce varying amounts of carbon dioxide, the tax shifts production towards the methods not using as much carbon dioxide, reducing the amount of tax paid anyway.
We can estimate a 9/11 plane crash as killing about fifteen hundred people. There is one nuclear power disaster that has caused deaths on that order, which is Chernobyl. Chernobyl is, very simply, not happening again. (Who ever claimed that Chernobyl was absolutely safe? Do you have some sort of cite?)
Your other examples don't support your claims. Fukushima may or may not have killed someone, and few people not immediately involved in the cleanup have any significant harm. The exclusion zone is much less than a state, and it's real hard to poison something for a thousand years when you're working with a dangerous isotope with a half-life of about forty years. Three Mile Island was even more innocuous.
There are two reasonable definitions of the value of somebody's work. One is the amount you need to pay to get somebody to do it, and one is the amount it contributes to the employer's bottom line. There is a class of jobs that pretty much anybody can do, and unless we're at full employment those jobs are going to pay minimum. These jobs are often worth considerably more to the employer than the employer is paying. The immediate effect of raising minimum wage is that a few jobs will go away and the rest will pay better. The longer-range effects are much less predictable. For example, if an employer is paying more for an employee the employer might find it worth investing in making that employee more productive. This could spur the economy.
Do you have any evidence that the cost of living rises quickly? Most prices are tied to labor costs, to some extent, but in most fields the bulk of the labor costs are from employees making more than minimum wage anyway.
A few points.
While deficits have generally been less under Bush than Obama, the highest Bush deficit is higher than any of Obama's, and Obama has been cutting the deficit he inherited pretty well.
For all of the people who complain about Obama's diplomacy in the Middle East, I have yet to hear a semi-coherent explanation of what he should have done. Instead of getting Iran to accept a treaty that prevents them from developing nuclear weapons without being discovered, what should he have done? Exactly what was he supposed to do in Iraq, given the withdrawal treaty negotiated by the Bush administration? Bear in mind that we cannot, in the long run, impose a regime on Iraq. Trying to do so would be about as successful as Iran, which wound up being governed by religious loonies because they were the ones that managed to overthrow the US-supported Shah.
How does a Christian determine what is right or wrong? Most have moral qualms about things in the Bible, like throwing one's virgin daughters to a mob to be gang-raped. Heck, the Bible doesn't offer one consistent moral code, so any code based on the Bible is cherry-picked. Trying to determine what God approves of and what God disapproves of is no more certain than trying to suss out good and evil from any other perspective. You seem to be claiming that your idea of what God approves of is somehow supposed to be recognized as correct.
Where do we get our consciences? Duh, from our upbringing. There's no need to hypothesize a God as a cause of a conscience.
And, given the traditional problem of pain, you completely duck it. You assume there is a God, attribute various traits to God (such as the ability to specify good and evil), and then when the least intellectual difficulty comes up you abandon all reason and go with blind faith. Way to go; at least it shows us the shallowness of your thinking.
The Tolkien universe was created by a Catholic who included God in it, although not quite how he believed God worked in our world.
You're not saying ISIS is a good Muslim organization, you're saying that it goes along with certain teachings that are linked with Islam. In other words, you're confusing a religion with a culture that is a large chunk of that religion.
You're claiming that Marx's premises are false because they don't fully apply nowadays. In fact, some ideas Marx shared got woven into capitalism.
Economically, it was state socialism rather than some form of capitalism. It started out paying much more than lip service to Communism, with ideology held as far more important than mere people.
In 1941, the Red Army was generally badly led, primarily because of Stalin's purges. These left officers in command of formations they had little idea how to command (promotion was very rapid, if you escaped the purges), and too frightened to do anything the least bit suspicious or original. The top commanders were mostly politically reliable and militarily inept (Kirponos, in the south, being something of an exception). By the end of 1941, the Red Army had had a lot of deadwood shaken out. Officers were still in commands they didn't have the experience for, but they were capable of learning and not afraid to do what it took to win. However, the Germans had taken millions of prisoners by then, and due to incredibly brutal treatment very few of them survived to the end of the war.
If I carry any sort of cell phone, I'm providing the phone company, and by extension the government, with fairly detailed location data. If I decide sometime I want to go somewhere and be less trackable, I won't be taking my phone. It's a privacy invader out of necessity.
Vista's problem was that it was crap when it came out, and never got user confidence back. Over time, as Microsoft worked on the major problems and vendors came out with more Vista-compatible drivers, it became pretty good.