Do you mean marijuana or heroine?
[...] I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it.
This is the problem. Microsoft is a game publishing company, and the amount of control gamers have over their own games is essentially another price point. Publishers will put that price point exactly where the market will bare it, which means things will get worse until people stop buying games. So if you don't want things to get worse, don't roll over.
Don't buy this console, tell your non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, tell your tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, and tell your tech-savvy friends to tell their non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Do you have any evidence for this, or do you just want to restrict people's freedoms based on what you think?
[...] this kid was only twenty years old.
Not true. In Quebec, we have the CEGEP system, which is equivalent to the last year of high school and freshman year of university. Dawson is a CEGEP, so Ahmed was almost definitely between 16 and 18.
How do you convince people that what they have been taught is completely wrong without insinuating that they or their respected teacher/pastor etc is a complete idiot?
Have you ever seen Richard Dawkins answering questions? I don't think he generally worries about that.
Perhaps if we never had "right-of-way" laws (which usurp individual property rights), people would insist on owning the cable running through their properties.
If we assume people get to own the cable, then, presumably, each person is responsible for maintaining his or her part of the cable. But what if the same cable also runs through your neighbour's property? What if your Internet cuts out due to your neighbour's negligence? What if your neighbour moves, and your new neighbour decides they don't want a cable on their property? Do you pay for the ISP to run new cable around your neighbour's property? What if no one else wants the cable under their property? Do you get to negotiate with them each individually? Are you just out of luck if they still say no?
Oh no, two cables in the ground! The horror! Who would have thought that competition involved duplication?
Do you feel the same way about power lines? Natural gas pipes? Sewers? Roads? Libertarians say that private enterprise accomplishes things more efficiently than public enterprise, but I really don't think that's the case when it comes to infrastructure.
Local governments use their road monopoly to stifle ISP competition.
Has that ever happened? And I don't mean a city charging someone to dig up a road; I mean a city refusing to let someone pay for it.