Compensation? Compensation would mean they'd be paying for it from their own funds. The government gets money by taxation. This isn't compensation... it's giving money back to the people with some skimmed off for the bureaucrats.
Saving and holding on to your money is exactly what needs to happen. The lack of savings and constant borrowing is caused this in the first place. Demand for dollars is high. Good. Makes things cheaper. That high demand is what people want. What you advocate is forcing people buy things they don't want. That by definition is economically less efficient. The government can't and will never be able to assess the needs and wants of the people as well as the people, the market.
You can't spend your way to prosperity. There is no free lunch. Bastiat clearly explained this over 150 years ago. What's so difficult to follow?
His understanding of software development and FOSS in The Conservative Nanny State was completely shallow and lacking.
Perhaps you need to better understand the history of the commerce clause. How it came about and how it has been completely abused.
Harmful to society? And exactly how does that jive with the fact that individuals have rights and not society? That you can't harm society you can only infringe on the rights of an individual... as only individuals can have rights?
Having child porn does not harm anyone. Especially when it's completely fictional. The person who committed the act with the child MAY have. The government definition of child is way out of line. A post pubescent individual is not a child.
A real crime, a natural crime has a victim. A real individual who has had their property rights infringed. Having images of a crime is not a crime. There is no victim. It's nothing more then a thought crime and totally illegitimate in a so called free country.
There is no such thing as a libertarian government. A government by definition must initiate aggression or threaten it in order to function. That is the antithesis of the libertarian NAP. The word has an absolute meaning and it is incorrect to call anyone who advocates any level of coercion or non-retaliatory force a libertarian.
And I think you should read up on economic theory, history, and libertarian theory before making such comments. Take a look at works by Ludwig von Mises or better his student Murray Rothbard. Mises.org has most of their work for free.
The first amendment doesn't give rights. It is a specifically enumerated restriction on infringing on your natural right to free speech which is simply derived from the right to property. A private company has their own property rights which allow them to restrict whatever they want just as you can restrict anyone from coming in your home.
Besides... how well has the 1st Amendment worked at keeping me free? McCain/Feingold? The FCC? Protest permits?
If the US Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Which it is. And therefore it explicitly says what the general and state governments can and cant do. Why would it bother to list in Article 1, Section 8 anything? Could they not all be found in "general welfare?" "Defense" and "general Welfare" belong together and refer to the nation as a whole. The defense and welfare of the federation of states. Not of the people. Not to use eminent domain to take people's property from them for the falsity of defense like Eisenhower claimed. In addition the word welfare had a different usage then than it does now.
Besides, regardless of what the Constitution says, theft is not justifiable in any condition.
Bankers, stockbrokers, CEOs and economists all help make capital accumulation possible and are components of a free market. (Discounting all monetarists and Keynesians who go about destroying capital.) Without capital accumulation society would stagnant at best. Your implication that individuals in those fields are "obsessed with the accumulation of power and wealth" is fallacious as is the claim they have little or no role in making "the world a better place." Those who we need less of are those who really leach off the productivity of others and who 99% of the time are obsessed with the accumulation of power and wealth and have traditionally been the root cause of social problems like war, colonialism/imperialism, ecological/environmental destruction, social exploitation & inequality, etc. Politicians and other government employees.
The 1st Amendment nor the US Constitution disallow what occurred. The 1st amendment says Congress shall pass "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Even if you accept incorporation theory and claim that the states must abide by it too that still doesn't cover this case. It has nothing to do with the State but a contract for employment between a business and an individual. Any federal legislation regarding this topic is likely unconstitutional leaving only state law. Unless state law says you can't make religious teachings part of one's employment requirements their is no case.
Even so... I'd still rule against the employees. The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like. If the employee doesn't like them they can find some other job. No harm was done to the employees or their property so their is no crime. No one was forced to do anything here. The employees voluntarily accepted positions offered by Diskeeper. The only force that appears to be or will be going on is the State on those who owner Diskeeper.