Although I believe that many things in this world ought not to be regulated, I have believed for a long time that domain squatting really ought to be. Some folk

Although I believe that many things in this world ought not to be regulated, I have believed for a long time that domain squatting really ought to be. Some folks here have expressed that it is okay to make a profit from an investment. While this may be true in many cases, there is a serious lack of ethics in any case where the "investor" is not creating value. Back hundreds (or more) years ago, it was considered by many to be inappropriate to buy land with the intent of selling for a higher price later without that land having been actively improved by the party holding it. Holding on to something, leaving it as it is, and selling it later is not improving it. Any profit gained from its later selling is appreciation accumulated by the actions and labour of society -- not the squatter. In other words, the squatter is leeching on society, much like someone counterfeiting money. This situation applies not only to domains but also to many other things that are squatted. If he or she cares about ethics, an investor needs to ask by whom and to what extent the value is being created. After all, investing in buying slaves was surely a way to make a profit. But was it ethical? As for how exactly domain registration could successfully be regulated for the greater good of society, that is a tricky one. Perhaps a limit on the number of unimproved domains concurrently held by one party would be an effective start. Or perhaps a track record whereby a certain minimum proportion of purchased domains must end up being used legitimately, with a certain allowance for newcomers. I agree with others that the drug analogy was a poor fit.