|
Just to add the democracy-flavour to camooT's good comments:
US people actually want a drinking/drug/etc. prohibition THEMSELVES. It's not like the almighty Uncle Sam decides to do so. In the past these laws are chosen via electorate-representatives and that's why you have them right now.
You think in the next elections the revolutionary minimum-state-Nozick-like extremist will become president? He who shouts: "responsibility to the people, stop sentences, stop crime regulation, hell, even stop having a police, or an army, let the people themselves take care of their own safety?" You think the ordinary citizen in the US wants that? Man, he is glad that he can live his ordinary life and that he doesnt need to be scared for his diet coke to be intoxicated by greedy industrials.
Maybe it's useful to realize that implicitly, we're all happy with a government that sets regulations, creates laws and decides what's good for us. Ever imagined what a world without regulations would be like? That your neighbour could blow you into pieces just because he's horny on your wife? In fact we're all in a social contract to each other that forbids us to do certain things and that makes our lives easier.
Regarding the government: we expect it to take certain measures at certain moments. Gaming-regulations are just an example of this. Apparently there were enough voices in China that wanted this and enough research about harmful effects was done before a rule like this was implemented. If there would be a large enough electoral base in the US, don't be astonished if the same rule will be implemented. (remember that democracy is not a "choose the system of law you like". It's all about majority and gamers are a VERY small niche of the world).
To all of you who believe in an egocentric government who only does what is best for itself: what is the fucking use for the civil servants to implement this? Are they getting rich? Is there a stake for them in it? No way!
Enough for now, it's way past bedtime here...
|
Hmm I wanted to write a long response to this, but then i realized that Camoot had already said what I wanted to say -_-;;.
But anyway here's something else I thought about: I belive a lot of you are greatly overestimating the amount of "oppresion" in China. Sure you may not involve yourself in politics (At least not in an orginized group), you may not move around freely to different cities and a few other things. But apart from those China isnt the nightmare of total controll many of you make it out to be.
And tbh... More than half of the american people don't exersice their right to vote anyway, so I don't see why you think people in China are having it so _terrible_ just because they aren't allowed to -_-;;.
If I am completely wrong, then plz correct me.... but in that case you better be a fu"#"ing expert ^^.
|
Just live with a little moderation people, jesus fucking christ.
Then we wouldn't have to think of these crappy laws.
|
I don't think anyone believes the Chinese people live in total despotism. But for some people not having the right to protest against the government, free speech, and freedom of religion, like in the U.S. IS a nightmare of control, although it's not total control.
Every 4 year election I believe more than half the voting age population votes, probably just barely under for 2 year elections. On the local level I'll bet it's very very low, granted. I'm not one of the people who gives up their chance to vote whether it be for my representative to the Senate or our town council.
I do think we could use less restrictions from the government even here in the U.S. and I definitely opposed certain portions of the Patriot Act (sneak and peek, library records). Is it stupid to prefer to spend no money and have a societal problem vs. spending billions of dollars and still having the same problem, albeit on a slightly smaller scale? ^^;
EDIT: Veigh is my hero, too.
Of course we will want reasonable restrictions on our personal liberty for safety/health. That's the social contract. I do believe in some cases we are overreaching and I want to oppose them. That's exactly what people should do, and it makes sure we draw the line in the sand at the appropriate distance. It's not like I'm going to declare war on the government and start killing people and myself if they push a little too hard. ^^; I think the political term for my view in the country is "loyal opposition". Democracy works, amazing.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On August 27 2005 17:01 Veigh wrote:
Just to add the democracy-flavour to camooT's good comments:
US people actually want a drinking/drug/etc. prohibition THEMSELVES. It's not like the almighty Uncle Sam decides to do so. In the past these laws are chosen via electorate-representatives and that's why you have them right now.
So? A society can't be truly free if the majority can democratically vote to destroy the rights of others. Majority vote doesn't automatically make something right.
You think in the next elections the revolutionary minimum-state-Nozick-like extremist will become president? He who shouts: "responsibility to the people, stop sentences, stop crime regulation, hell, even stop having a police, or an army, let the people themselves take care of their own safety?" You think the ordinary citizen in the US wants that? Man, he is glad that he can live his ordinary life and that he doesnt need to be scared for his diet coke to be intoxicated by greedy industrials.
I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating anarchy. Government should be there to protect people against each other and foreign enemies, but no more. In other words the government should make sure that no one's right to "life, liberty, and property" is infringed upon. This includes fighting crime and maintaining a military for defense.
Maybe it's useful to realize that implicitly, we're all happy with a government that sets regulations, creates laws and decides what's good for us.
No, many are NOT happy that the government decides what's good for us. You're arguing for government paternalism and taking away individual rights by pretending that total anarchy is the only alterantive, and it's not.
Regarding the government: we expect it to take certain measures at certain moments. Gaming-regulations are just an example of this. Apparently there were enough voices in China that wanted this and enough research about harmful effects was done before a rule like this was implemented.
Individual rights should not be susceptible to being voted away. Not that this gaming restriction is a huge deal, but it should seem horrible on principle. If you can justify a relatively harmless ban such as this, you're on a slippery slope where far worse obstruction of liberties can be implemented.
You make a good illustration for why democracy by itself isn't necessarily conducive to freedom. The government should have contitutional safeguards against tyranny of the majority.
|
Constitutional safeguards which we have in the United States, yet we take certain liberties away anyway. Why do you think that is, HnR)hT? I was wondering if it wasn't that nowhere does our constitution enumerate the right to do everything we want unless we're hurting someone else.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
The U.S. constitution says what the government CAN do, not the other way around. Similarly, it is assumed that the people are free in all instances unless specified otherwise, in accord with the liberal philosophy described in the declaration of independence. However, the constitution is now routinely ignored and violated by the government at all levels. The country was essentially libertarian for the first century and a half of its existence, but is moving closer to totalitarianism.
|
I'm not going to respond to the other things you said, because your responses were laughable, and the reader can see that.
congratulations, you win by ad hominem.
comparatively, china is in a much worse state as far as personal rights go. compared with most of the world though, it is heaven  . while china is no longer a communist country, it would be wrong to say that some of the cultural and political attributes commonly found in socialist states don't still exist there. the media is in fact state controlled, but it's way better than say, north korea. i'm not sure about this, but i think independent newspapers are allowed as well (although they are censored to some extent).
wikipedia has an article on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_mainland_China
Much of the surprising diversity in the Chinese media is attributable to the fact that most state media outlets no longer receive large government subsidies and are expected to largely pay for themselves through commercial advertising. As a result, they can no longer serve solely as mouthpieces for the government but must also produce programming that people find attractive and interested so that money can be generated through advertising revenue. In addition, while the government does issue directives defining what can and cannot be published, it does not prevent, and in fact actively encourages state media outlets to compete with each other for viewers and commercial advertising. .
The number of newspapers in China has increased from 42 -- virtually all Communist Party papers--in 1968 to 382 in 1980 and more than 2,200 today. By one official estimate, there are now more than 7,000 magazines and journals in the country. The number of copies of daily and weekly newspapers and magazines in circulation grew fourfold between the mid-1960s and the mid-to-late 1980s, reaching 310 million by 1987. (2)
A prime example has been the party's flagship newspaper, People's Daily, which had been rigidly controlled under Mao, used against his enemies, and copied verbatim by every other newspaper in the country during the Cultural Revolution. This leading daily was reformed and enlivened in the late 1970s and early-to-middle 1980s by then editor-in-chief Hu Jiwei. Hu expanded the paper's size and coverage, encouraged public criticism through letters to the editor, called for promulgation of a press law to spell out journalists' rights, and introduced a sprightlier writing style.
my grandfather who lives in china regularly browses non-government affiliated media outlets through a proxy. (he is frigging good with a computer too, he learned to setup email and a printer on his own with like a month of use. my grandparents rock  ) within the U.S. it seems the general opinion is that all of china is under authoritarian rule and that freedom of speech doesn't exist. it doesn't exist in exactly the form that you see in the U.S., but if you were familiar with china's recent history, the amount of progress they've made in a few decades is remarkable.
|
On August 27 2005 16:31 nova_442 wrote:
If the State would stop giving aid to people who get addicted to drugs we could also remove the restrictions on them. Removing restrictions while maintaining various entitlement programs that act as a safety net for stupidity is the best way I can think of to waste taxpayer money.
I think that's one problem the libertarians have in this country, although the biggest is still that promising bigger and better socialist programs gets you elected. Anyone who has as part of his platform to remove all funding for family planning, substance abuse treatment, and the like has my vote.
Let's let people and their families take care of themselves, eh?
EDIT@ Social Security: Social Security is about the most inefficient way of using your money to save for retirement. If you and your employer invested the same amount of money into a mix of stocks and bonds (transitioning to safer investments as you get close to retirement) you'd EASILY outstrip the modest money S.S. guarantees. What's even worse is that when *I* retire Social Security benefits will be slashed, the retirement age will be raised and I won't see the money I put in. Yes I know you weren't arguing effectiveness but you have no idea how badly I want to kill the golden cow.
Its nice to see there's someone here that has a little knowledge about economy and doesn't just goes for "lets take money from wealthy people and give it to poor people, that's gonna save the world"
About the restrictions, they are COMPLETELY VALID when they PROTECT people from other people, but not when they LIMIT people from nothing. I also agree with the drug staff. I myself beleive drugs should be completely forbidden and no help for drug addicts. If they destroy their lives, they pay for it, not the rest trought taxes. Also murderers/rapers should be executed, no wasting money in jails. And for those who say "they can be rehabilitated", plz, lets be honest
Any policy that goes for reducing taxes and reducing states investment is good, whereas the other way it is not. Unfortunatly, eventhough no one beleives in communism, marxism ideas have sneaked almost in every country where people beleive state should take care of them. State is there to avoid people to harm other people, and nothing else. The less money it takes from taxes, the better it is.
|
Individual rights should not be susceptible to being voted away. Not that this gaming restriction is a huge deal, but it should seem horrible on principle. If you can justify a relatively harmless ban such as this, you're on a slippery slope where far worse obstruction of liberties can be implemented.
the slippery slope theory is getting old. i'd like to see it in action. wasn't roe vs wade the beginning of a slioppery slope to national moral decadence? why are people not getting drunk and having lude sex in the streets yet (even here, in the bay area)?
So? A society can't be truly free if the majority can democratically vote to destroy the rights of others. Majority vote doesn't automatically make something right.
no, but it doesn't make anything wrong either. yes, popular opinion was behind the japanese internment, and it was behind the war in iraq. but popular opinion was also behind prohibition (a positive measure by all means, it just couldn't be enforced), it was behind the New Deal, it was behind sewer systems, public transit, labor reform, etc. etc.
You make a good illustration for why democracy by itself isn't necessarily conducive to freedom. The government should have contitutional safeguards against tyranny of the majority.
i agree with you on the first part. on the second issue though, i'd like to hear you opinion on what counts as "tyranny of the majority." you're advocating a return to the pre 20th century idealogy that the majority can't be trusted to govern themselves. by what means then, will we be governed? the topic at hand is a social issue - video games screwing up people's lives. can we trust a self-elected congress to manage all our social issues? or do you believe still that these issues (among others, like drugs, education, labor) don't deserve government involvement? if these measures have proven to work (see examples i cited in the last page), then it follows that these measures are in fact, practical, regardless of whether or not they were enacted as a result of "mob rule." you can't just dispute results with ideology.
|
About the restrictions, they are COMPLETELY VALID when they PROTECT people from other people, but not when they LIMIT people from nothing. I also agree with the drug staff. I myself beleive drugs should be completely forbidden and no help for drug addicts. If they destroy their lives, they pay for it, not the rest trought taxes. Also murderers/rapers should be executed, no wasting money in jails. And for those who say "they can be rehabilitated", plz, lets be honest
Any policy that goes for reducing taxes and reducing states investment is good, whereas the other way it is not. Unfortunatly, eventhough no one beleives in communism, marxism ideas have sneaked almost in every country where people beleive state should take care of them. State is there to avoid people to harm other people, and nothing else. The less money it takes from taxes, the better it is.
ok. i disagree with you, but if i were to argue with you, it would be over morality, and i don't care much for that. i just want to point out that communism has nothing to do with what we're talking about. china isn't a communist country, what it's doing isn't "communist," it's "marxist" not "marxism" and read the thread and actually try to form an argument before posting  . while i like to hear people's opinions as much as the next person who doesn't give a fuck, i also like my opinions with sound, reasonable arguments supporting them.
when will people realize that statement of opinion doesn't constitute an argument?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On August 27 2005 18:17 camooT wrote:
the slippery slope theory is getting old. i'd like to see it in action. wasn't roe vs wade the beginning of a slioppery slope to national moral decadence? why are people not getting drunk and having lude sex in the streets yet (even here, in the bay area)?
Abortion has nothing to do with immorality as far as I'm concerned. More to the point, slippery slope is not a "theory", but a logical argument to demonstrate the possibility of consequences of an action. It is not always valid (as in your example), because there has to be a connection between "initial bad action" A and "possibly much worse consequence" B. In your example, abortion has nothing to do with getting drunk and having sex on the streets except that both are arbitrarily deemed "immoral". In my example, agreeing that government sometimes should restrict personal freedom other than to protect from force or fraud, in however harmless a fashion, sets logical precedents for worse infringements.
no, but it doesn't make anything wrong either. yes, popular opinion was behind the japanese internment, and it was behind the war in iraq. but popular opinion was also behind prohibition (a positive measure by all means, it just couldn't be enforced), it was behind the New Deal, it was behind sewer systems, public transit, labor reform, etc. etc.
Agreed, but I didn't really claim otherwise. I'm saying that *pure* democracy is bad, but an essentially democratic system with checks and balances to insure basic rights would be optimal.
i agree with you on the first part. on the second issue though, i'd like to hear you opinion on what counts as "tyranny of the majority." you're advocating a return to the pre 20th century idealogy that the majority can't be trusted to govern themselves. by what means then, will we be governed? the topic at hand is a social issue - video games screwing up people's lives. can we trust a self-elected congress to manage all our social issues? or do you believe still that these issues (among others, like drugs, education, labor) don't deserve government involvement? if these measures have proven to work (see examples i cited in the last page), then it follows that these measures are in fact, practical, regardless of whether or not they were enacted as a result of "mob rule." you can't just dispute results with ideology.
These issues don't warrant government involvement under any circumstances. This is essentially like the issue of "victimless crimes". How ridiculous is it to go to prison merely for smoking pot? More to the point, even if a law achieves some positive results (like people do better in school because they aren't playing games), why should the equivalent of a random stranger force you to do what he perceives to be good for you? If some guy came to your house and said "if you watch more than 5 hours of tv today ill mug you, it's for your own good" you wouldn't gladly go along with it.(?) The other part of it is, the more the government is used to this sort of regulation (and the more the people are used to it and accept it), the easier it is for the government to act out of own self-interest and secure more power for itself without much opposition. The bottom line is that government should serve *all* people, not the majority at the expense of the minority.
edit: 634234 typos, im so tired. im out for today t.t
|
They aren't blocking gaming for more than 3 hours...they just antagonize by putting restrictions on it, like turning your character into a pile of shit if you play too long, that's all. That's more real life than anything in an MMORPG anyways, like come on, if your char was real, how could you fight demons and monsters for 8 hours straight anyways?
|
It's a brilliant idea. Gamers are useless people anyway.
|
On August 26 2005 22:55 Freezer_au wrote:
what if pj is in a important tourny that lasts longer then 3 hours ?
halfway through tourny pj says:
"sorry i gotta go i been on 3 hours! bye"
omg I hope you aren't seriously worrying about that
|
yes, well, we're arguing over principle, and we happen to believe in different ones. i don't believe that it is ridiculous at all for the government to get involved. i believe the government should do whatever is neccessary to improve the standard of living of its people. if we have to lock people up for doing things harmful to himself, then so be it. i'm aware that this approach doesn't always work, but it's better than doing nothing at all. in this case, there is no minority being expended here, except the MMORPG players which, not incidentally, are the target of this law. as this law is actually meant for their improvement, i see this as a win-win deal.
if the government weren't to pay attention to their people, how would they ever be motivated to act on critical social issues? i don't think you can take up any one side here, there has to be a balance. on one side is where the 'slippery slope' (if you believe, first of all, that that applies in this case) begins and things become ridiculous -- example: greece bans all forms of gaming, including entertainment consoles and PC games. in that case, the people spoke out, and the law was revoked. on the other side is where government intervention is expected, social issues critical enough to require government intervention. this intervention can't be too extreme -- banning all gaming, as in greece and it can't appear to be any more powerful an act than the government has already put in place, to avoid sliding down the 'slippery slope.' you could argue radically that ALL government intervention is bad, in which case we might as well revoke the constitution and reenstate the articles of confederation.
this is where, i think, we differ. i believe that this measure is a reasonable response to a serious issue in china. the only reason i think anyone might feel it's unreasonable is because gaming is 'our domain.' any intrusions upon it tend to taken personally. an outside observer who has never played any games in his life, however, might think this would be a good idea.
edit: personally, not 'reasonably' heh. heh. -_-''.
|
On August 27 2005 07:52 Caution wrote:
LOL im sure glad that i dont live in China =/
yea well kim jong is going to pwn you with his nukes
|
On August 27 2005 19:35 AnGuRuSO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2005 22:55 Freezer_au wrote:
what if pj is in a important tourny that lasts longer then 3 hours ?
halfway through tourny pj says:
"sorry i gotta go i been on 3 hours! bye" omg I hope you aren't seriously worrying about that
This system is only for MMORPG games, so I don't see what PJ has to worry about with BW
|
On August 27 2005 18:24 camooT wrote:Show nested quote +About the restrictions, they are COMPLETELY VALID when they PROTECT people from other people, but not when they LIMIT people from nothing. I also agree with the drug staff. I myself beleive drugs should be completely forbidden and no help for drug addicts. If they destroy their lives, they pay for it, not the rest trought taxes. Also murderers/rapers should be executed, no wasting money in jails. And for those who say "they can be rehabilitated", plz, lets be honest
Any policy that goes for reducing taxes and reducing states investment is good, whereas the other way it is not. Unfortunatly, eventhough no one beleives in communism, marxism ideas have sneaked almost in every country where people beleive state should take care of them. State is there to avoid people to harm other people, and nothing else. The less money it takes from taxes, the better it is. ok. i disagree with you, but if i were to argue with you, it would be over morality, and i don't care much for that. i just want to point out that communism has nothing to do with what we're talking about. china isn't a communist country, what it's doing isn't "communist," it's "marxist" not "marxism" and read the thread and actually try to form an argument before posting . while i like to hear people's opinions as much as the next person who doesn't give a fuck, i also like my opinions with sound, reasonable arguments supporting them. when will people realize that statement of opinion doesn't constitute an argument?
I'm not english native speaker so it doesn't matter if i say marxism o marxist, u get my point. I mentioned it because the idea of people depending on the State beleived by most of the world sadly (welfare system i.e) is basically taken from marx theories that claim that people must receive something from the government.
"china isn't a communist country, what it's doing isn't "communist," it's "marxist"
I mentioned china its not communist, read BETTER PLZ.
|
MMORPGs tend to more addictive because of the social aspect. same thing can happen in starcraft, but not too many people actually make friends on bnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
