Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
On the other hand the number of legitimate people DRM harms is equally small because they don't even have a moral concern about doing the above when DRM screws with them. That pretty much leaves an even smaller pool of people since they'd have to fit in group 1 in order to fail to break DRM that was going to force them to buy it twice.
I seem to have talked myself out of my original position. I guess you're probably right really. DRM doesn't actually force many people to buy it twice because it is trivially broken and the moral concerns that stop said people are mainly alleviated by buying it once.
As a side note you could substitute murder for DRM in that last sentence, and by its own internal logic its just as valid because the only thing its concerned with is the artist's desires.
The only way a second amendment solution is vaguely viable is if a person/people starts assassinating lynchpins and lets be fair here, that would be just as easily done illegally as via second amendment. Probably more so really since hiring professionals is likely to work better.
This also works the other way too, my rights also restrict you. To make a relevant analogy your right to live prevents those people who you (seem to?) advocate letting die due to lack of health care from forming a lynch mob and hanging you from a nearby tree.
3. Well we could reduce our greenhouse emissions, if they aren't effected by human action then our reduction of greenhouse emissions would have no effect (or a statistically minor effect) on the current rate of increase. Since this would require actually reducing our greenhouse emissions I doubt its going to be a popular test though.
Because as I understand the concept, their desire for any part of government being huge would disqualify them from actually being Libertarian in the strict sense (also their social policy is not compatible with small government at all, they support several "moral issue" bans that like all "moral issue" bans mandates a massive system to enforce) .
The Social Democrats have not to my knowledge ever held the balance of power (in fact I'm not even sure if that group exists?, I know there are both Labour Democrats and Liberal Democrats), you might be thinking of the Democrats who held the role the Greens currently do (ie the largest party not part of the 2 major groups), up until the late 90s. We have a bunch of parties who feature the word Democrat in their titles, some because they were spin offs of the Democrats, others because it seems like a nice word to have in your title in a democracy.
Also there's not really a Christian Conservative single issue group, there's 2 parties playing that card at the moment Katter's Australian Party (which is new) and Family First. The 2nd is actually pretty much a Christian Conservative group, the former is hard to explain, since he span of one of our major Conservatve Parties his policies are pretty wide ranging but largely conservative, in favour of farming and hunting , and Christian.
Sorry if you were trying to describe ideologies rather than parties but since some of party definitions and names are very different (Our Liberal Party would usually be considered Conservative) I felt the need to qualify.
Disclaimer: I don't care much for any of the major political parties at the moment, but my social positions are Left (significantly left of even our Left party really), I apologize if my bias has slipped in anywhere, I tried to be as factual as possible.
This is basically one of those circumstances where capitalism doesn't work properly
I don't think plane ticket ordering is the best analogy, its a reasonable assumption that a surge in demand would cause a limit of supply in such cases (there's a finite number of seats), so the price increase is still sort of tied to a finite supply.