They could easily redirect your requests to Google DNS to their DNS.
I stayed at a hotel, whose Internet service was run by Comcast, which did exactly that (continuously, not just for login). If you want to detect hijacked DNS, I added a feature to my Device Fingerprint website to help. Loading the page triggers a unique DNS query. You can view information on the outbound IP of the DNS server that performed the lookup in the "DNS Data" section.
We have no proof that legal porn/cybersex leads to a better way of life.
You have the burden of proof backwards. In a free society, you don't regulate everything and then make exceptions. If you're going to limit the freedoms of others, you need proof that the actions being limited create negative externalities (negative consequences for 3rd parties).
We also have zero proof that banning it leads to banning of actual speech, i.e. political/social commentary.
There's plenty of historical proof that people in power will use available resources to maintain power. The infrastructure needed to censor porn on the Internet is the same infrastructure needed to censor political commentary.
The sacred might emphasize a purpose in life beyond freedom/porn/cybersex, and it seems most people fear that, even if in non-religious form.
Freedom is "sacred" in that it allows people to find their own individual purpose in life. The freedom to succeed where others didn't believe, and the freedom to fail (i.e. the consequences you said you want people to have).
Exercising that right does not make them a bully. What next, calling a woman a bully because she refuses to have sex with you?
That's the wrong analogy. The correct one is: An adult American and an adult Cuban want to engage in consensual sex, but the American's parents stop the transaction by threat of force. In real life, Americans want to buy cheap sugar cane from Cuba free from protective tariffs. We can't, so we end up consuming a lot of high fructose corn syrup instead.
The kind of plans some of receive from our employers that they now want to tax as income (at upwards of $5000/year in some cases).
It *is* income and should be taxed. I'm all for lowering income tax, but not with market distorting exclusions. Because of this subsidy you have:
Really simple example - do you have health insurance? If you do, then there is a large insurance company out there that has your entire medical record. You gave up your right to medical privacy (between just you & your doctor) when you agreed to purchase health insurance.
The above-mentioned problem only exists due to government meddling in markets. If employer provided health benefits were taxed as income, almost everyone would purchase indemnity plans, not plans that cover glasses, birth control and routine dental visits. We would actually have a free market and lower prices in non-catastrophic health care. We would also have more medical privacy.
There is no "law of supply and demand". It's a fiction.
You're ignoring quality/functionality as a variable. If a product or service has a perceived (utility) value significantly higher than its dollar value, the consumer is usually prepared to pay significantly more for small improvements in quality/performance. If my employer provided medical insurance is paying the first $1500 of the cost of my hearing aid, but my perceived value of a hearing aid is $2000, I buy the high end hearing aid for $3000 and feel like I got a good deal (since I only spent $1500 out of pocket, but would be willing to spend $2000).
why was healthcare so expensive compared to the rest of the world.
In order for *price* competition to work in a free market, the party paying for the service needs to be the same as the party receiving the service. In order to restore price competition, health benefits provided by employers need to be taxed as regular income. In the US, we've created a demand side subsidy that distances consumers from payment (a double whammy for increasing prices). The tax subsidies go much deeper than people realize, as health benefits are free from payroll taxes as well as income taxes. The current system is regressive (subsidizes the rich more), as wealthy people have better insurance and spend more on health care. Health benefits are income. If they were taxed as such, most people would choose catastrophic (high-deductible) plans, and routine medical care would deliver much more value per dollar spent.
It is better to live rich than to die rich. -- Samuel Johnson