Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a very effective defense of domain squatting. The idealistic sex educator should just as rationally say, "I'm not making $1.5m off this site, so I should accept that bid and sell it, and use the money to get my important message out some other more efficient way." The domain squatter serves no beneficial function at all to society, so nothing is lost by banning that behavior except a sliver of economic fre…
"The domain squatter serves no beneficial function at all to society, so nothing is lost by banning that behavior except a sliver of economic freedom." I like how you glide right past the argument I made. You note that you disagree, and then note that you disagree, but I see no refutation, so I'll illustrate it again: toilet-seat.com gets registered by a loving toilet-seat fanatic. He posts pictures of all the awesom…
I would view the sale of "sex.com", at whatever price, to be a good and natural example of free markets tending to reallocate resources for near-optimum utility. I believe I read your parent post correctly as claiming that domain squatters serve a beneficial function by auctioning off domains to high bidders rather than letting fast-moving hobbyists set up disappointing web sites at those domains, and pointed out that the hobbyist could sell the domain just as well as a squatter could -- thus the squatter doesn't provide any added value for society as a whole.
So no, I would not "rather both sides walk away sad", and likewise I would not agree with most of your characterization of my comment. I'm sorry I was not more clear.