The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you.

agreed

Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to.

I disagree.

There are two extremes (I will use over the air as an example):
1) No regulation. Everyone is free to set up their own transmitters/receivers. This is the true free market way and is perfectly fair.
2) Total regulation. The government itself controls all aspects of transmission with "equal access" and so forth. In theory perfectly fair.

The difference is in what happens to the rights of the people. With 1) all rights are retained. With 2) some rights should be retained (e.g. free speech).

We currently have a compromise. A select few have control. So unless you are among the few, your rights have been curtailed, e.g. you can not set up your own transmitter. Thus we are regulated, but with some free market ideas. To me the issue centers around the rights of the people. If we are going to curtail freedom for the privilege of a few, then these freedoms should be curtailed as little as possible. Under this system you would treat communication pathways as just that, "pathways". The select few can benefit from providing them (at the expense of individual rights), but not from controlling their use (limiting the loss of freedom). Then we have an ordered system (not the wild west scenario of (1)), but without the total governmental control of (2).

And now for a car (actually road) analogy. If I build a private road network, then I can charge a toll. But I cannot restrict your origin or destination on that network. I have been given privilege (the right of passage), and freedoms have been curtailed (citizens' right of passage), but the curtailing of freedom has been mitigated (I can't tell you where to come and go).

It was not Candy in the study. It was Mrs. Peacock in the billiard room.

Planets need bailouts too. After all, if one planet loses its status, then all of the planets in the solar system will have a reduced value. This causes the moons of the planets to lose value. Next thing you know, we will no longer be living on a planet, but on a rock. This will continue to drive real estate values down. Who wants to live on a rock?

Agreed. I know its more of a reflection on socialization or personality rather than intelligence. However, I have to deliberately try to be objective after reading "so last century". Its not easy.

True, he doesn't have to go back and do it again. But I was commenting on the idea of punishment. If the biker were in a contest where the rules dictated that putting a foot down requires him to go back the beginning, then it still would not be punishment. I believe penalty and penalize are a more appropriate choice of words.

What is being discussed is really just game mechanics, and penalties are a valid mechanic. A game can be seen as a collection of restrictions. Violating restrictions results in penalties. Also, "bad" moves will result in a penalty when playing against an opponent who exploits it, e. g. losing your queen in chess.

Obviously, it is up to the player to decide whether this collection of restrictions and penalties is fun or not. I would say if it feels like punishment or work, then it is time to pick up another game. Of course, what promotes these feelings will vary from player to player. If it feels like punishment, then either the right game is being played the wrong way, or the wrong game was chosen.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Is the mountain climber who doesn't make it to the top being punished?
If you play a superior chess player, is he punishing you by not letting you win?