The Video Game Critic

Quothe Mozart : If I am ever drafted, I can quite assure you I won't serve a day.  As much as I love this country and would fight for it (keyword) willingly in a situation that really called for it, I won't be its slave.  Once I am that -- I am quite aware that there is little left to fight for.

 
I AM THE COMMUNIST!?!  LOL!!
 
I am not preaching communism, for crying out loud. If I had not read a 100 of your posts before, I would laugh this off and assume you are trolling. In any event, I can still laugh it off.

O.K. Mozart, your individual freedoms to buy sadistic videogames trumps every other force in the universe. Throw off the yoke brother! Drive drunk! Steal when you can! Personal responsibuility is dead! Nothing you do will ever matter, so go with the wind, where ever it blows.

Now I am done with this thread. Rob is worried about the tone of this thread, I have not posted anything in anger, and I am glad I have gotten my chance, and will admit that sometimes I am a sarcastic ass. But this game speaks for itself, and will meet its own reward.   Thank you.

Oh, okay, I'll guess I'll get fired after all .

I find myself in a situation where I constantly have to "make myself clear." That's okay, I'll do it again.

I'm most definitely not myself advocating any kind of forced conversion to make Christianity legitimate, if that's what you took me to mean when I said I agreed with Steerforth (I'm not sure he said that himself either). I in fact take great comfort in Christianity's success in the free arena of ideas and always think that is the best place for it to grow. Just want to be *crystal* clear on that point. I agreed with some of Steerforth's observations about America being founded on ideals that have some roots in Christianity.

I'm not 100% convinced that Manhunt 2 is completely innocent and non-harmful to people, hence my apprehension to just saying that it is "just a game." But also understand, there is no clear and good evidence for violent videogames being harmful (as we know the information is contradictory), and no research that I'm aware of that even approaches testing what happens if people play violent games where one uses semi-realistic gestures in addition to the visual stimulation.

This is why I cannot take either the Steerforth of the m0zart position here, and quickly say, "YES, this is the thing to do." Generally, like in many things, the market will sort it out: Major retailers could very well back out, and, as stated before, Rockstar has seen a decline in sales for their past few games. Therefore if a gun is held to my head (perhaps it should be the new gamestop Wii gun attachment? ) I would say I oppose a ban. I would support, however, the self policing regulations the industry has already put in place.

The reason I support a federalist approach, m0zart, is that a problem where (IMO) honest people can disagree can sometimes be better approached from a local level, as opposed to letting the federal government make one decision for everybody. I can see as legitimate, for example, a local municipality making it illegal (or difficult, like some areas do with alcohol on Sunday, etc.) to sell the game as a matter of civil law only (no guns, no cops beating down your door, just fines). Now, of course, I totally understand that you would disagree with that completely. I get that you would find a monetary fine to a retailer just as injurious as a bunch of cops bursting in the room with guns drawn. So I'm saying this only to make my position known, not in any brazen attempt to change your mind. I suspect that would be as difficult as getting a hit off of Justin Verlander on June 12th (just a little baseball reference for JLH).

Though I am largely Conservative in my political thinking, that is because my faith, which provides the philisophical underpinning in which I view the world, doesn't actually say a great deal specifically about government. Jesus didn't seem terribly concerned with government, as He was focusing, in my view, on something more important than that. So therefore my approach has always been "less is more," but at the same time, I am not an absolutist when it comes to my thoughts regarding individualism. It is this that seems to give us (referring to m0zart here, and the folks here that share some of his views) many points in common, but significant points of departure as well. This thread has certainly exposed that. That doesn't make me think ill of anyone of course, as I sincerely hope is the case likewise.

-Rob

[QUOTE=m0zart]And as Ayn Rand pointed out in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal : "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What is there left to protect?" [/QUOTE]Hmm, well I didn't want to continue discussing politics here, but my line of work and study s political philosophy and economics so I feel the need to comment here. First of all I must say that the mixed economy is the ony kind of economy that can conceivably exist so criticising it in principle is foolish.

Secondly citing Ayn Rand as a writer who supports freedom sound slike a bad joke to those of us who have actually felt our freedom be restrained. I have friends in Israel and Turkey who are currently in jail for refusing to serve in the military and all the Ayn Rand institute can say about them, particularly the Israeli ones is that they deserve it for refusing to take part.

Similarly, when some of us were giving heart and soul in our fight against the dictatorship in South Africa, so called Libertarian groups, including those inspired by Ayn Rand were arguing that it should be supported. I have not forgotten that, and I tend to take Libertarianism with a pinch of salt as a result.

Ayn Rand herself would certainly have supported the banning of this game. She effectively supported the banning of anything she did not like in my experience. The only freedom she was truly interested in was the freedom to pursue business unrestrained by regulation, and even that did not stretch so far as to include not banning anything she did not approve of. You certainly would not have been allowed to publish books by Marx in her ideal world, or even books by Galbraith or Rawls and you certainly would not have been able to publish this videogame.

like I say, I hoped I would not have to go into politics here, but it is almost inevitable I suppose. And what I would like to finish with here is that in my line of work and study I have seen the almost pure capitalism of Hong Kong and I have seen the Social Democray of Sweden and I know which is affording its citizens a greater degree of freedom

[QUOTE=Sterforth]I AM THE COMMUNIST!?!  LOL!!
 
I am not preaching communism, for crying out loud. If I had not read a 100 of your posts before, I would laugh this off and assume you are trolling. In any event, I can still laugh it off. [/QUOTE]

I wish it were as funny to me.  Yes, you ARE preaching communism in all of the substance that communism is built from.  The primary notion behind communism and its lesser socialism is that YOU, the individual, are not the owner of your own life -- that you don't own either your person or the product of your labor -- and to a lesser extent, that you don't have freedom of thought, though that translates into even larger offenses against human rights sometimes than the former.

Oh you're really quick to talk about sacrifice and such, and how "oh we must sacrifice to keep our society safe", but you falter whenever someone asks you to demonstrate this supposed safety, especially when it is purchased at the expense of its own egregious assaults on the safety of innocent people doing no harm to anything but your own burning desire to dictate to them.

Every collectivist, whether of the communist or theocratic variety, starts off with the best of intentions, all of which call for sacrifice for the greater good.  And all of those preaching that we should willingly give our skin for our fellowman are usually willing to skin every man alive to prove it.

[QUOTE=Sterforth]O.K. Mozart, your individual freedoms to buy sadistic videogames trumps every other force in the universe. Throw off the yoke brother! Drive drunk! Steal when you can! Personal responsibuility is dead! Nothing you do will ever matter, so go with the wind, where ever it blows.[/QUOTE]

No, despite your marketing-like term-redefining and double-speak, personal responsibility is alive and well.  For instance, I hold you personally responsible for any act of violence you support, either through our Government or by your own hand -- even if that act is simply a nod through vote.  You are responsible for any legal act you support which ultimtely translates into violence, such as allowing policeman, who are supposed to be our protectors, to become thugs, entering people's homes and assaulting them at any level (whether that be fines, arrest, jail time, or what-have you) for what they choose to watch, play, or do, so long as that act you so object to does not harm the equal rights of others.  It is your PERSONAL responsibiliity to keep your hands off of other people's lives and property, and it is just as much your responsibility not to support any kind of collective effort which does just that.

If you can't accept that, then please do go wherever the wind blows.

[QUOTE=Iain]Hmm, well I didn't want to continue discussing politics here, but my line of work and study s political philosophy and economics so I feel the need to comment here. First of all I must say that the mixed economy is the ony kind of economy that can conceivably exist so criticising it in principle is foolish.[/QUOTE]

It's the only kind of system that has existed, which may or may not suggest that it is the only one that can, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[QUOTE=Iain]Secondly citing Ayn Rand as a writer who supports freedom sound slike a bad joke to those of us who have actually felt our freedom be restrained. I have friends in Israel and Turkey who are currently in jail for refusing to serve in the military and all the Ayn Rand institute can say about them, particularly the Israeli ones is that they deserve it for refusing to take part. [/QUOTE]

The Ayn Rand Institute is not an organization I hold to, nor does it literally represent the views of Ayn Rand.  Can you cite an example where Ayn Rand herself suggested that these people are guilty, for instance.

Most of Rand's fans/followers/students don't take that organization seriously anymore, for what are increasingly obvious reasons.  But if you are going throw out Rand for an organization that was founded after her death, then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[QUOTE=Iain]Similarly, when some of us were giving heart and soul in our fight against the dictatorship in South Africa, so called Libertarian groups, including those inspired by Ayn Rand were arguing that it should be supported. I have not forgotten that, and I tend to take Libertarianism with a pinch of salt as a result.[/QUOTE]

I don't blame you, but again, the question here isn't whether Libertarianism as a political philosophy is at fault, but whether libertarians in that case were correctly applying the principle.  I can say for certain that there is nothing in libertarian principle that shows ANY suggestion that dictatorships should be supported anywhere.

This is of course one of the reasons why many libertarians choose to be non-interventionist, though I consider even that answer to be half-witted at best.  In cases like the one you are describing, they should keep their mouths shut until they have the facts.

[QUOTE=Iain]Ayn Rand herself would certainly have supported the banning of this game. She effectively supported the banning of anything she did not like in my experience. The only freedom she was truly interested in was the freedom to pursue business unrestrained by regulation, and even that did not stretch so far as to include not banning anything she did not approve of. You certainly would not have been allowed to publish books by Marx in her ideal world, or even books by Galbraith or Rawls and you certainly would not have been able to publish this videogame.[/QUOTE]

That is complete nonsense and shows an absolute failure to understand Rand at all.  Rand was once asked in an auditorium where she was giving a talk if communist propaganda should be banned, and she specifically stated without apology that nothing in the realm of free thought should be banned, even ideas that attempt to restrict that freedom -- including Marx, propaganda movies, and communism.  A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that Rand was summoned as a friendly witness in the McCarthy hearings, though what she actually stated in those hearings is usually completely misunderstood.  She correctly identfied the movies in question as movies that push communist propaganda, but she also said that banning them or their content would be inappropriate and would help to push the US to the very type of communism that the trials were supposedly there to support.  In addition, all of Rand's writing made it very clear that freedom of thought is an absolute essential, which precludes the banning of any material whatsoever.

Rand was interested in any form of freedom that made life possible, and which did not violate the equal rights of others.  Anyone who has read anything she wrote would know that.

Don't get me wrong about this.  I fundamentally disagree with several statements Rand made throughout her life, though most of them are trivial in comparison to your claim here, but since it's a claim I know for a fact is false I have to point it out.  If you intend to criticize her, feel free as she had many faults, but I suggest you get your facts straight first.

[QUOTE=Iain]like I say, I hoped I would not have to go into politics here, but it is almost inevitable I suppose. And what I would like to finish with here is that in my line of work and study I have seen the almost pure capitalism of Hong Kong and I have seen the Social Democray of Sweden and I know which is affording its citizens a greater degree of freedom[/QUOTE]

Sociam Democracy in Sweden is affording the same sorts of freedoms that are given out in a mixed economy -- mixed freedoms, in that case tolerating less of the freedom to control your own capital and more of the freedom to control your life.  Hong Kong is definitely close to pure capitalism, but even it has its own pitfalls which have nothing to do with the free market, especially since Communist China came in and swore away their right to free speech on day one almost ten years ago.  It may not seem obvious to you, but not having the right to control my own capital is jsut as egregious an assault to my personal liberties as not getting to make personal social choices in my life.  Both are the opposite of liberty BY DEFINITON, even if you can't personally care as much about the former vs. the latter.

Just to put this thread back on track a little bit, looks like Nintendo and Sony both have forbidden Manhunt 2 to be published on their platforms, affirming their strict no-AO-rated games policy.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

Unless they port to the 360 really quick, successfully appeal the rating of the game, or edit the game's content, it looks like the game is getting a big NO from NOA, and surprisingly from Sony as well.

[QUOTE=m0zart]
It's the only kind of system that has existed, which may or may not suggest that it is the only one that can, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate that beyond the shadow of a doubt.
[/quote]But if you have any form of Government expenditure at all, you have a mixed economy (and of course in a centralised economy any form of private expenditure will mean the same thing). Even in a laisser faire economy if you so much as want a Government to maintain a police force and courts you have a mixed economy.

Furthermore, despite there always being a trade off between resourced that can be used in the private sector and the pubic sector it has been found that hen you try to balance them at a certain point you will get a much greater return on these resources than you would at either extreme. So not only is a mixed economy inevitable, it is also out and out desirable.

There is one possible excetion to what I say though. The Von Mises institute claim that Somalia is an example of perfect capitalism. I suppose it could be, though even there, there is at least some degree a government spending money. Heaven help them if they regard Somalia as a desirable example of what they desire though/
[quote]The Ayn Rand Institute is not an organization I hold to, nor does it literally represent the views of Ayn Rand.  Can you cite an example where Ayn Rand herself suggested that these people are guilty, for instance. Most of Rand's fans/followers/students don't take that organization seriously anymore, for what are increasingly obvious reasons.  But if you are going throw out Rand for an organization that was founded after her death, then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.[/quote] Well I can just as easily refer to the various other examples of groups that are inspired by Ayn Rand, or Rand herself. I will admit to what may be considered a little bit of arrogance here though. In academic circles Rand has never really been considered a good source of ideas. She didn't seem to know how capitalism worked, which was a bit unfortunate given her political opersuasions. Personally I have always found her ideas, along with a lot of other Libertarian ideas to be more like a parody of Marxism than a coherant political view. People like Friedman and Rothbard are far better sources of ideas when it comes to capitalism than Rand ever was. I guess that because they were not such colourful characters some find them less appealing [quote]I don't blame you, but again, the question here isn't whether Libertarianism as a political philosophy is at fault, but whether libertarians in that case were correctly applying the principle.  I can say for certain that there is nothing in libertarian principle that shows ANY suggestion that dictatorships should be supported anywhere. This is of course one of the reasons why many libertarians choose to be non-interventionist, though I consider even that answer to be half-witted at best.  In cases like the one you are describing, they should keep their mouths shut until they have the facts.[/quote]But Von Mises for example, a man who I think we can agree knew his facts far better than most, said a liberal dictatorship was far better than an illiberal democracy. What he meant of course was that it was better that the people in Chile had capitalism forced on them, than be allowed to vote for socialism. He could just as easily been referring to South Africa though, which was the example I used. At any rate though, there is a very clear trend in Libertarianism towards the believe that imposed capitalism is entirely justifiable when the people would otherwise choose something else. In other words an obvious sympathy for dictatorship [quote[ That is complete nonsense and shows an absolute failure to understand Rand at all.  Rand was once asked in an auditorium where she was giving a talk if communist propaganda should be banned, and she specifically stated without apology that nothing in the realm of free thought should be banned, even ideas that attempt to restrict that freedom -- including Marx, propaganda movies, and communism.  A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that Rand was summoned as a friendly witness in the McCarthy hearings, though what she actually stated in those hearings is usually completely misunderstood.  She correctly identfied the movies in question as movies that push communist propaganda, but she also said that banning them or their content would be inappropriate and would help to push the US to the very type of communism that the trials were supposedly there to support.  In addition, all of Rand's writing made it very clear that freedom of thought is an absolute essential, which precludes the banning of any material whatsoever.
Rand was interested in any form of freedom that made life possible, and which did not violate the equal rights of others.  Anyone who has read anything she wrote would know that. Don't get me wrong about this.  I fundamentally disagree with several statements Rand made throughout her life, though most of them are trivial in comparison to your claim here, but since it's a claim I know for a fact is false I have to point it out.  If you intend to criticize her, feel free as she had many faults, but I suggest you get your facts straight first. [/quote]I dare say I understand Rand rather too well. The thing about statements like "Rand supported the freedom that makes life possible" is that they lack substance. Saying you support freedom is great, but the trouble is that freedom is not an easily defined concept. You might define freedom as absence of Government coercion, but I define it as absence of restraint. Doing this of course I immediately have to re-evaluate my priorities because complete absence of restraint is impossible, so I instead have to look at what restraint I regard it as more important to get rid of. In the context of society I am going to have to accept that everyone is going to have different views here and ultimately what we are going to have to do is find a way which suits as many people as possible. The problem with Rand was that she decided the restraint she wanted rid of was Government restraint and ignored the rest. She then expected the rest of us to go along with this. In other words we were to be forced to adopt her society, whether we wanted to or not. She justified this by claiming that laisseir faire capitalism was the natural system (ironically the same method Marx used to justify Communism) but the trouble is it is not any more or less a natural system than any other that has emerged over the course of human society. Our economic relations with one another are defined through the nature of the societies we live in, and for the past few hundred years capitalism has been the system that fits this. That doesn't mean it always has, or that it always will be the natural system though. And I think it would be foolish to blinker our thinking and say that it is. [quote]Sociam Democracy in Sweden is affording the same sorts of freedoms that are given out in a mixed economy -- mixed freedoms, in that case tolerating less of the freedom to control your own capital and more of the freedom to control your life.  Hong Kong is definitely close to pure capitalism, but even it has its own pitfalls which have nothing to do with the free market, especially since Communist China came in and swore away their right to free speech on day one almost ten years ago.  It may not seem obvious to you, but not having the right to control my own capital is jsut as egregious an assault to my personal liberties as not getting to make personal social choices in my life.  Both are the opposite of liberty BY DEFINITON, even if you can't personally care as much about the former vs. the latter. [/QUOTE]The trouble here is, you may regard the need to have control of your own capital as being of paramount importance. A marxist on the other hand would regard control of his own labour as being the most important thing for his freedom. Capital and Labour are both resources that are used for the production of goods and services, and economic systems will be defined by which resource is dominant. You will naturally believe that capital should be dominant, a Marxist will scoff at this and say Labour should dominate, and if we were to climb into a time machine and go back a few hundred years a feudalist might look at the argument in bemusement and ask why we did not accept land as the dominant resource. At the end of the day one is going to dominate the others. Unless of course we can find a way to have them trade off against each other. Which the mixed economy manages to an extent.

You have quite a narrow definition of liberty which I think comes from an attempt to create an abstract definition, but rather early on in my philosophical career I came to feel that working in abstracts simply is not helpful as I do not believe we can come to any solid conclusions outside circumstances that we know. Similarly it would be unwise to be too sure that conclusions we draw from circumstances that we know can be applied to all possible circumstances.

Anyway despite my attention to post here for casual escapism I am finding this discussion very interesting, so thank you for getting it under way.

[QUOTE=m0zart]Just to put this thread back on track a little bit, looks like Nintendo and Sony both have forbidden Manhunt 2 to be published on their platforms, affirming their strict no-AO-rated games policy.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

Unless they port to the 360 really quick, successfully appeal the rating of the game, or edit the game's content, it looks like the game is getting a big NO from NOA, and surprisingly from Sony as well.
[/QUOTE]

Bravo. And a special bravo from me to Sony, who I must admit didn't think had such a policy in place.

-Rob