What's happened in the past doesn't apply here. All throughout human history, musicians and actors, okay well entertainers in general, have been confined to the lowest levels of society along with prostitutes and peasants. Hell, even the king's jester would regularly get killed for his royalty's amusement. While playwrites and composers may have earned some respect in the past, the actors and musicians never did.

Then came things like radio and the record. These inventions turned musicians into celebrities while making them rich at the same time (which are two mutually reinforcing conditions). And we all know that for every person who has a lot of money, there are 100 people ready to exploit them.

Is the ability to bypass payment for music not a return to the natural state of things? After all, while musicians may be making less money, they are probably enjoying greater popularity. And when in the past HASN'T popularity led to riches?

Besides, aren't we just praising and giving money to these people for possessing talent and beauty that is really not nearly as uncommon as they would have us imagine? There are thousands of girls who look like Christina Aguilera, can sing as well as her, and aren't dirty whores either. Why should Christina Aguilera have any more fame or money than the other women who possess the same talents and physical attractiveness? Do artists, actors, and the **AA really deserve all that money? Even if they never sold a single CD, they'd STILL be richer than 99% of the population.

In Jefferson's time, people regularly fought and died for their beliefs. Today, you may be right, but when Jefferson wrote those words, HE was right. And he still is. If no one is willing to risk death for freedom, then liberty will wither away (like it has been doing).

I don't even think it will have to go that far. If the content providers are able to log every IP that downloads their content, and report it, it won't be long at all before a third of the user base is kicked off the internet, maybe even half. ISP's will be screaming for this law to be repealed.

So what happens when I visit the page in Linx?

See, your summary makes it perfectly clear: obviously he didn't feel like being pulled over at the time, so if the cops had just let him go instead of infringing on his right to not be pulled over (and thus violating his right to drive drunk), everything would have been fine... ...oh yeah, what were we talking about? Browser speeds or something?

1999 suicide rates per WHO:

(per 100,000)
JAPAN...M: 36.5 F: 14.1
US..........M: 17.6 F: 4.1
UK.........M: 11.8 F: 3.3

My take on these stats: honor is not taken lightly in Japan, and females just want attention, not the sweet release of death.

And how would this be different from the old legal standard?

Okay in a way I was being facetious, but I kind of had a point: an action is supposed to be considered a crime because it somehow hurts someone. All those things you mentioned don't hurt anyone and therefore shouldn't be crimes (except for copyright infringement, but I know you're not talking about REAL copyright infringement, you're talking about downloading music, which for now I'd rather not address). These laws have a place only in certain situations (for example, there is no reason you should have to wait for the light to turn green if there's not a car around for miles) but law enforcement uses them to punish people as often as they can.

And as far as the damn cameras go, imagine if you couldn't run a red light (after stopping, of course) in the middle of the night or walk across the street when there are no cars coming, for fear of the government seeing you and sending you a ticket in the mail.

The financial crisis is the government's fault, not really the banks'. And it isn't because of lack of legislation. It's because they print money at will that has no intrinsic value. It's not backed by gold or silver, it's just debt. Such a system is bound to collapse, and the banks handing out loans like hookers hand out VD just pushed it over the edge.

We already have a policy in place for legal, recreational drug use: alcohol.
 
You can buy and use as much as you want, do it at home or at a bar, but you can't drive on it. And if you do something stupid under the influence, you generally face the same penalties as if you'd done it sober. I don't know how insurance companies treat alcoholics, but as long as healthcare remains privatized, they are free to cover whomever they wish (to an extent... no racism, sexism, that kind of thing) and the government doesn't much have a say in it. Now if we go to national healthcare that'd be different.
 
There is no reason to think we couldn't legalize other drugs and treat them the same way. In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want. And hell, cigarettes are legal. But I think it's easy for a drug dealer to abuse addictive substances by getting unwitting victims hooked, so perhaps there should be some regulation. But not for pot, of course.

The problem with these cameras is A) it costs a lot of money and doesn't really make a difference (the small problem) and B) It's a significant step toward loss of liberties and privacy (the big problem). Once the cameras are already there, it becomes a lot easier for the government to pass and enforce a law which makes something everyone does on a regular basis illegal, something we think is absurd now but in 10 years will be expected. Then, once everyone gets used to a camera being on every street corner, they'll be much more willing to accept them in their homes, which is the government's ultimate goal. The idea that they're doing this to protect us is absurd. They're already aware of the fact that the cost-effectiveness of using cameras to prevent crime is practically zero, and usually they aren't very effective at assisting prosecution either.
 
This whole thing is bs.