This (unfortunately) reminds me of the ontological argument and similar examples of bad reasoning that manage to avoid being laughed out of the room because they dress themselves in a false shroud of logical rigor.
One version of the ontological argument procedes by defining god to be the being which has the maximal amount of good qualities and continues from there. Now there are other problems with this argument but the giant gaping fallacy is that this simply isn't what people mean by god, a point that wouldn't be lost on anyone if you stripped off all the pretense of extreme rigor and just said, "Hey, something has to be the best thing."
I'm a big fan of using logic to demonstrate that our convential views are incoherent. Indeed, many of the issues mentioned here beg for such a treatment but disguising your hidden assumptions by pointless trapings of rigor (and I'm mathematical logician so I like rigor) gives those of us who actually want to reason about these situations a bad name and enlightens no one.
Grr...I mean just consider the free trade example. It sounds as if he is delibrately trying to slip past the reader that our goal is not to maximize the net inflow of 'dollars' to the US not to mention the existance of inefficent equilibriums. I mean I think nearly every protectionist sympathizer I've ever heard is being a total moron but you don't do anyone any favors by failing to mention that increased utility from trade may require transfer payments to compensate for the disparate impacts of trade. Maybe you oppose these on other grounds but if so you need to state the case. Ohh and BTW given the extremely strong evidence that many Chinese are eager to the point of breaking the law to get these 'sweatshop' jobs maybe the reviewer should try harder to believe that other things being equal they leave an individual better off on balance for taking the job. Perhaps by contemplating how much subsistance farming without modern medicine or convienences sucks.
And the god arguments repeat the same problems. Yes, it's interesting that adults treat religious beliefs differently than other beliefs but saying they don't believe in god doesn't accomplish anything. It just redescribes the situation confusingly. People still let their faith influence their attitudes on many policy questions (which they often also treat differently than beliefs about things they can affect). The ESP bit is even dumber. ESP, like most words, doesn't have a stipulative definition but rather is understood by something like prototype resembelance. It's like the word table, you know some things count and others (a bed) don't and evaluate weird new examples (three legged 2 foot radius stool) by their similarity. Besides, no one cares if 'ESP' exists, people care if people can read minds, remote view etc.. whatever you want to call it.
The only half-decent argument listed is the bit about free will. A better statement would be something like this:
Free will doesn't mean unpredictable/random. A person who heroicly rushes back into a burning building to save a trapped dog is exercising free will in that choice if anyone is even if they would make the same choice everytime you (exactly) replayed the situation. Indeed, if you rewound time and gave it another go and they acted differently that feels less like exercising free will. If free will makes sense then choices I make because of my charachter (how I see myself) surely count and not just choices which we might as well have left up to a coin toss. In other words it seems that what makes a choice free is that I get to select the outcome without outside dictation of the answer.
In other words for a choice to be free it must be possible for me to have acted differently, i.e., if I were inclined to select a different option then I could have done so. It doesn't require the absurd criterion that a free choice must be something that *I* don't determine, e.g., by being the sort of person who will race into burning houses. So now if we take the step of identifying ourselves with our brains we see there is no conflict. Had we wanted to make a different choice we would have had a different brain and hence would have acted differently. The key point is that determinism is really saying that *you*, embodied in a brain, in conjunction with the enviornment dictates the outcome while free will is saying that you make the choice. The only trouble arises because we aren't used to thinking of ourselves as brains so we imagine sortof floating outside the physical realm in which case if the physical world dictated the outcome we (not being part of that world) would have no choice in the matter. So once you are cool with yourself as a brain no problem.