[jdm]

"But for the spammer, who's sending millions of e-mails a day, it would bring his business down because he wouldn't have the computing horsepower to keep up with his volume of sent e-mail."

That raises an interesting point. Can one be pro-capitalism and anti-spam at the same time? I wouldn't want to destroy someone's spamming business as long as the inconvenience on the receiving end is minimal to none.

[thoughtomator]

Can one be pro-capitalism and anti-spam at the same time?

Being pro-capitalism would lead one to be anti-spam, as spam is a gross violation of the property rights of the recipients, whose property is being abused without their permission.

[steve-b]

Can one be pro-capitalism and anti-spam at the same time?

Being pro-capitalism requires being pro-property-rights, which in turn requires being anti-spam.

I wouldn't want to destroy someone's spamming business

Why ever not? Destroying someone's spamming business is no different from destroying someone's counterfeiting business or someone's fencing* business.

*The dealing-in-stolen-property definition, not the swordfighting-arts one.