DAVID HARSANYI

The deepest mystery of Twitter is why celebrities and elected officials take part. After all, we all know they can't write their own lines.

I believe that the war on drugs is a tragically misplaced use of resources - an immoral venture that produces far more suffering than it alleviates.

If had to label myself, I guess classical liberal would be best.

Whether you're a believer or not, a flawed biblical epic is going to be more entertaining than a remake of a Paul Verhoeven movie or some third-rate sci-fi flick.

Simplification of the tax code would not only unlock dormant economic potential, but, in the process, it would blunt the preferred weapon of social engineers, who reward favored industries, punish success and distort economic incentives.

Biblical movies need not sermonize, just be honest to the foundational story. As powerful as the message is for people of faith, it's really great storytelling.

If progressives were interested in mitigating inequality, they would support the dynamism of free markets to allow the merit of ideas, products and services to win the day rather than stifle companies and pick winners in the name of imagined 'progress.'

Health care in America, despite all you hear, still offers us citizens one of the most efficient and highest quality systems in the world. But it's expensive, and it's only getting worse.

Are you sick and tired of these moralizing moralizers imposing their morality on the rest of us? I know I am.

Political correctness is one of the engines of nannyism. Allowing and even encouraging 'offensive' ideas is vital for the intellectually health of a free society.

Twitter's popularity and usefulness are mysteries to me.

A cultural shift is not always an ideological one - or at least not always the one you imagine. Our norms are always evolving.

It would probably strike the average politician as absurd to argue that the best way to fix the economy is to stop trying to 'fix it.'

In summation, like your beloved pet rock, Twitter is useful only in your imagination.

Democracy allows rhetoric, false empathy and emotion to pummel rational thinking - so it's no wonder so many politicians thrive in it.

Now, I do not, on any level, possess the expertise to argue about the science of anthropological global warming. Nor do you, most likely. This certainly doesn't mean an average citizen has the duty to do the lock step.

If the wealthy get wealthier, no one has to become one penny poorer.

It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that democracy will improve the function of policy.

Faith helps many people make sense of the world around them. Faith gives them a spiritual connection to something larger.

Progressivism is the belief that we have too much freedom with which to make too many stupid choices.

We have little choice but to place a certain level of trust in scientists - even when it comes to the model-driven speculative discipline of climate change. And, need it be said, most scientists take great care in being honest, principled and precise.

My parents both defected from communist Hungary and were what most people would today call libertarian. I grew up with a general distaste for taxation and any policy that intruded on our lives.

Broaden the tax base, close loopholes and flatten the tax rates - all of which would bring more revenue stability and certitude to projections as well as make filing a comparable breeze.

Zero-tolerance on drinking and driving - meaning no drinking at all before driving - is a collective punishment that, in essence, only affects responsible adults who follow the law.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.