Has violent game regulation gone too far?

Remove all ads!

What historical record proves that government is more than a bunch of people with personal traits, including weaknesses?

The abuses that came with the industrial revolution replaced the abuses that came with a feudal society. The abuses ended because they were not economical. Capitalism, not big government, destroyed the sweatshop. Note that the sweatshop disappeared in Capitalist America and Western Europe first. Workers always had it better in the Capitalistic West than in the Socialist states of Eastern Europe.

One of the things that destroyed the sweatshop was that workers were free to look for better employment. This gave employers an incentive to better the conditions in their factories.

I hold that the public good is best defended by the public, not by a bunch of politicians, each with their own agendae. They will defend the good of themselves and their campaign contributors, not your good. Only you can do that.

Yes, let people be responsible for their own lives. And let them pay for their own irresponsibility. Anything else means rewarding stupid behavior by taxing those who behave responsibly. It teaches people that government will clean up their messes, at the expense of those who behaved responsibly.

Why not let insurance companies add a clause to their health insurance policies? "This policy shall be null and void for injuries sustaines while travelling in an automobile without a seatbelt." That would make political coercion unnecessary, since people would have a direct economical incentive to wear seatbelts - without the threat of fines or prison terms.

Government can't make people behave responsibly; it is not omnicompetent. It can only criminalize whichever behavior politicians want to punish. And ...

That will not be the behavior YOU want to regulate. That will be what they and their contributors want regulated. And their reasons will not necessarily be "The Public Good"!

Less accountable. Businessmen can be sued for destroying other peoples' lives, politicians are usually reelected no matter how many dumb laws they pass in the name of "political compromise".

You seem to reject Liberty because Liberty cannot create Utopia. This is partially true - even in a free society, people will get sick. Some will use drugs, or drink to excess, or smoke themselves into a cancer ward, or make a million other mistakes.

But no political system can create Utopia. Political over-regulation of anything from psychedelic drugs to video games can only create a nanny state not unlike the Soviet Union. And that is just about as far from Utopia as I can imagine.

 

It was destroyed in America and Western Europe and has reappeared in other countries. The alternative in those countries to working in a sweatshop would probably be working a hand plow in the fields, or unemployment (read: starvation).

 

The implications of what I am saying is that government consists of people - with their own agendae, which are not necessarily your (or anybody else's) idea of "Public Good"! They are no more intelligent or wise than other people. But politicians and bureaucrats are more cunning at getting elected or promoted to positions of power which they shouldn't be trusted with!

Labor can decide to work at the factory where they get the best deal, or they can open a factory of their own. Or, they can voluntarily work at capital's factory. The use of force against labor is coercive and wrong; why doesn't government stop that?

If you believe companies are doing immoral things, you can refuse to deal with them and get others to do the same. The loss of profits is the worst threat against any profit-oriented company.

Using government to force companies to comply means you can't get people to voluntarily help you, so you have to confiscate their earnings (through taxes) in order to pay men with guns (police officers) to enforce your ideals.

Except government may not decide to enforce YOUR ideals; because government may be too busy cracking down on non-violent sellers of video games and lightbulbs, casual marijuana users who harm nobody but themselves, and people who risk their own lives by driving without a seatbelt.

Or politicians may decide to protect the special interests of campaign contributors - which will be big business, not you or me.

And enclosure acts are passed and enforced by .... yep, government!

You have the right to help others, if you wish. But you don't have the duty. I don't have the right to put a gun to your head and force you to pay part of your income to the Red Cross or other charities, just because I think it is the right thing to do. I can donate my own money, I can't donate yours.

Neither I nor Ayn Rand define society as a bunch of islands warring on each other. War is violent and coercive, and therefore immoral. It is also counter-productive. Peaceful, voluntary cooperation is what I advocate. I agree with Ayn Rand that far.

No. I am aware that the New Deal (socialistic policies) prolonged the Great Depression by a decade and a half. You are probably not aware that FDR didn't know what the New Deal was when he campaigned on that slogan in 1932. Or that the New Deal he implemented after his inauguration was, for the most part, government programs he took over from Herbert Hoover's administration (Hoover was far from the "laissez-faire" president history branded him!). Read Thomas E. Wood's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History".

They are excellent examples of government run amuck. And what should I call a SWAT team but a "death squad in the night"? (SWAT teams routinely kill people when breaking and entering the homes of suspects in the night.)

 

You claim that government is somehow more than a bunch of people. I claim it isn't. It is a bunch of people elected by the same people that can't be trusted to govern themselves. How can they be trusted to elect governors.

Labor history tells me that government usually comes down on the side of employers, by attacking and occasionally killing striking workers.

On an open employment market, workers can choose the employment where they get the best deal, better salary, better working conditions, shorter hours, etc.

You mean the FDA that took seven years to approve beta blockers for medical treatment in the USA? An estimated 119,000 Americans died of heart failure during those years; how many would have died of unsafe medicines if the FDA hadn't existed?

Then try Thomas J. DiLorenzo: "How Capitalism Saved America". It basically says the same: Hoover started the "New Deal", FDR named it "New Deal" and expanded it. The "New Deal" didn't work; unemployment and inflation remained high throughout the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. The "New Deal" was a typical political program: It didn't achieve its aims, transferred more power and money to politicians, and had unforeseen, undesirable consequences. And of course it needed regular "corrections" and "amendments", as it became clear that it wasn't working.

Eventually. How do you enforce legislation? With policemen with guns. The more laws you have, the more law enforcement you need. And laws seem to grow on laws. When politicians find that their laws don't work or even have the adverse effect, they don't abolish their failed political schemes; they "correct" them. The "corrections" invariably mean transferring more power and more of your money to the state. And just as invariably, the politicians are back next year or the year after that with a new "correction", demanding more of your rights, more of your time, and more of your money.

Not to mention that the government, emboldened by its dubious "successes" on environmental protection, will move on to regulate anything else it "feels" "needs" regulating; like non-recreational drug use, energy-inefficient lightbulbs, violent video games, and anything else politicians deem to be a "problem".

[ June 10, 2007, 11:32: Message edited by: Montresor ]

 

You can prevent capital from bribing government by lessening government power, or by removing capital (but that would be Marxism, which we agree is a poor solution).

Something did, since we don't have that now. And that "something" was not government.

Even if accepting that only one-third (which I consider a conservative number) were preventable, you still end up with nearly 40,000 preventable deaths. How many Americans died from unsafe medicines before the creation of the FDA? Surely the number was less than that.

I believe both Woods and DiLorenzo have studied the facts before publishing. I therefore lend them some credit; rather than rejecting them out-of-hand. But I am open to your suggestions.

As I said, I lend them some credit, even if I read them with a critical eye. But again, what alternatives do you suggest?

By the way, I don't consider an apology necessary!

If WWII ended the Depression, that means the New Deal didn't.

If I accept that WWII ended the depression, which I don't necessarily, that is a negative way of ending a depression, to say the least. I would rather give the free market a chance, without government intervention, than starting a war or getting involved in one.

According to Woods and DiLorenzo (despite your misgivings), and to Harry Browne, the Depression ended after WWII, when government regulations were lifted.

Example of a law (or rather a law complex) that has lead to SWAT teams breaking into peoples' homes at night: The War on Drugs. You may think this has no bearing on the OSHA or EPA; but if government can violate people's rights in order to fight drugs, can't they do the same for violation of pollution or labor laws? Which Constitutionally recognized rights can be violated if government finds it "expedient" or "practical"? And are you sure George W. Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger agree with you on what government can or can't do?

Example of a failed law that has had to be amended several times and still doesn't work: Social Security. The system is predicted to be bancrupt in 10-20 years (depending on your sources) and will have to be amended before then (read: The SS tax will have to be raised, and the retirement age will also go up).

Example of a failed law that has cost America an estimated nine trillion dollars with little or no results to show for it: The War on Powerty.