Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
There is nothing wrong in selling merchandise to help promote Ron Paul/the "rEVOLution"/ideas of liberty. It's a way to use merchandise to spread support via word of mouth. Even if their intent was to solely profit by selling the merchandise, it is a perfect example of voluntary exchange (which, at least in the past, Ron Paul has been a strong advocate of). If people are voluntarily purchasing the merchandise resulting in a profit for the domain name holders, then they are clearly meeting a market need.
However, in this case it appears that Ron Paul & company is saying to hell with the non-aggression principle and instead has decided to employ State force/aggression in an attempt to take the justly acquired property of the RonPaul.com domain name holders.
With the type of logic displayed by the government in this case, in the near future could we see single mothers going after condom manufacturers for child support?
Maybe the government should go after printer ink manufacturers in libel/defamation lawsuits.
This is the result of the so called "justice system" being a government monopoly funded through theft. Any "service" that, through aggression/violence or threat thereof, gets paid no matter the results while holding a monopoly...is going to be a dismal "service".
Jeremiah Perkins owns his brain which could be viewed as a "device" which through its memory could be used to infringe copyrights after release.
It seems as though the only thing the courts could possibly do to enforce this requirement is to lobotomize Jeremiah Perkins.
In all seriousness though, until we have competing arbitration organizations instead of the State's monopoly on all conflict resolution (in which the State's decision power extends even to matters regarding itself), we will continue to see the tyranny march to it's logical violent totalitarian end.
Picture Google as a good looking successful man who happens to find a different beautiful woman to go home with him every night voluntarily and have consensual sex with.
A group of not so good looking men (Google's competitors), instead of working to make themselves more attractive in innovative ways, run to the government in an attempt to use State law to force some of the women, that would have voluntarily gone home with Google Man to have consensual sex, to instead have sex with them.
Or they may force Google Man to make himself uglier in an attempt to have less woman as attracted to him (Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" comes to mind).
It is never morally legitimate to initiate force against another individual, no matter what the excuse.
Either engage in consensual relationships/voluntary exchange or don't engage at all.
Through its actions the State teaches me that theft is A OK ("taxation"), that murder is virtous if wearing a green costume, counterfeiting is good fiscal policy (Federal Reserve), it's alright to shoot dogs if you're wearing a blue costume...and on and on and on.
If one wants to lay blame, the immorality & violence of the State seems to be a much more reasonable place to lay such blame, not video games.
Who defines "discrimination" in the one concession made by Uber?
Individuals should not be forced to do business with other individuals against their will due to the subjective whims of bureaucrats via anti-discrimination laws/regulations.
If a business discriminates that just opens up an area for a competitor to meet the market needs of the individuals who are being discriminated against, while negatively impacting the market of the business that engages in discrimination.
Incentives work beautifully when government force/coercion is not inserted into the lives of individuals engaging in voluntary exchange.
Complex social issues cannot be solved through force/coercion, it only makes things worse in the long run.
So why are states (and countries) so eager to hand over taxpayer subsidies to Hollywood?
This is due to the money having been stolen from individuals through force/coercion. As the money being doled out by the State gangsters is not their legitimate property, they have no real incentive to be responsible with said money.
If we want things to get better, we must advocate consensual relationships & voluntary markets instead of a State monopoly on "taxation" (theft) & the so called "justice" system.
"Regulation" is just a euphemism for government force/coercion. It is used to create artificially high walls to entry into various markets using State force/coercion in order to keep out competition.
Also, the power to regulate is the power to grant favors. So it also increases the power of State bureaucrats.
What truly helps the "public good" is the ability for individuals to exchange on a voluntary basis (no force/coercion involved).
Less government force/coercion aka "regulation" (i.e. the tech industry) = more competition, more innovation, more choice & affordability for all consumers.
More government force/coercion/"regulation" (i.e. government "schooling"): 100 years ago - classroom, desks, teacher in front of class, writing on a blackboard.
Government "schooling" today? - classroom, desks, teacher in front of class, writing on a whiteboard.
Behold, the magnificent innovation resulting from government "regulation"...from a blackboard to a whiteboard in 100 years.
The SEC is an organization that is funded via coercion/theft ("taxation"), so they are paid whether they do a good job or not; meaning they are not exposed to market forces.
There is no market incentive to keep the data secure and do a good job.
This is just another of the miriad of examples of why laws against theft should be applied universally, no matter what organization you are a part of/what color clothes you wear/or what euphemism you use to rename theft ("taxation").
I prefer consensual relationships. Try Voluntaryism instead.