Sure. Let's enforce all the laws, to the point that we realize that we've tremendous clutter, then set about streamlining them, so that what's on the books is needful, enforceable, reasonable, and minimal.
Such a state would probably optimize the balance between the individual and the group.
Which invites the question: what's your next obfuscation?

I want every programming tool with which I interact to have some special thing that it teaches. What is unique and distinctive about Pascal, the way, say, Perl brought regular expressions to the masses?

I find your interrogative disingenuous. The question is NOT "why do you support local jurisdictions passing laws regulating things. . .such as ammunition clips".
The question is, given laws, why do we tolerate uneven enforcement thereof.
This is a specific example of why I generally assume, as a default, that you are arguing in bad faith, or at least trolling, until proven otherwise.

You have to admire the Left's genius in realizing that there is more political power to be derived from keeping people divided, rather than having them unite under one set of capitalistic Judeo-Christians values.

But don't worry: the GOP is replete with patrician dickheads who will ensure we stay the Greek course and eschew an real reform that could enhance liberty.

It wasn't impossible to write cross platform browser stuff in the late 1990s, when most corporations started this whole "We'll standardize on browser X" policy making, but it required a discipline that had most developers throwing their hands up in the air in disgust.

I had these arguments many times back then. It was laziness more than anything else. We were writing cross-platform web applications without problems at that time. We were trying to convince other developers to follow the same route, but their attitude was mainly "IE has 90%+ market share, why bother?" They didn't believe a time would come when proprietary IE code wouldn't work - even if other browsers caught on, they were expecting them to copy the IEisms. They certainly didn't believe that even later versions of Internet Explorer wouldn't support their crappy code.

- IE4+ was the most standard. Yes, really. Those versions had a relatively complete implementation of CSS.

Let's not overstate things. Netscape bet on JSSS and when the W3C selected CSS as the standard instead, they scrambled to fix Netscape 4 to convert from CSS to JSSS on the fly. So Netscape 4 was exceptionally bad at CSS. Internet Explorer 4 was merely very bad at CSS. Opera was ahead at that time. I don't think you can call IE4 "relatively complete" unless you only compare it to Netscape 4, which was unusually bad.

Fair points, all. But the answer is that more involvement from the citizenry is the answer. Less involvement has allowed this ruling class, like yeast in an ale, to float to the top of the vat.

Well, he's a practicing Jew, but apparently that wasn't enough to keep Chuck Todd from replacing him at Press the Meat.

My point is in the JE; your troll is 100% your own creative fabrication. [golf clap]

reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Just because reverse engineering is legal, it doesn't mean WhatsApp are legally obligated to provide their services to third-party clients.

The legal matter here is the blatant trademark infringement by WhatsApp Plus.

Come to think of it, all of our problems can be summarized as a simple hair deficit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6155YveK0

I prefer Apple to keep iMessage to themselves. It will make sure its adoption never become widespread.

It's already widespread. Several billion iMessages are sent per day.

Oh, no, it was about making you dance. Dance, little man: dance.