Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can set it to be Who decides? Politicians romanced by industry lobbyists? Why should the government/public bear the costs for legislating such things? > So, isn't that to their discretion? Now you are switching from "what is right" to "what is legal". The law is dictated by society, based on common morality. > they show there's value to what the sellers are trying to sell. And that value exists under a mandato…
> Now you are switching from "what is right" to "what is legal". The law is dictated by society, based on common morality. No, I keep using both moral/legal. It's their thing, so they get to set their rules for giving access to it. What's immoral about "I created Star Wars 555 but only allow you to see it if you pay $10,000. Oh, and you only get to see it once for the price while I play the kazoo". That's their propo…
The government isn't "their thing". They need to negotiate with the rest of society if they want anyone else to enforce those rules.
> What's immoral about "I created Star Wars
You are ignoring a lot of what I wrote about monopolising middle-men, or the role/interest of government in actively enforcing these "propositions".
Do you also not believe in "resale" laws?
> Only as much as DIU shows
Yes, I don't believe this either, I think these kinds of argument are specious. And people acting under under DUIs are a) under the influence, not at their full rational capacity b) a minority, most people support DUI laws.