1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Take-Two plans to only release games with 'recurrent consumer spending' hooks - Gamasutra

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by 123john321, Nov 8, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male

    Libertarians aren't against all forms of law and order. You are thinking of anarchists. As a libertarian I support a police force and laws that protect the right's of it's citizens, and I want the same laws to be applied to all citizens. You are argueing against a complete strawman.

    "Which is exactly what "socialists" want. You're just quibbling over the details, while pretending that your own rules are truly "free". They're not."

    Socialists want government to own or regulate the economy. Define scoialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

    Every government falls somewhere between "slightly socialist" and "very socialist". There is not one economy on Planet Earth that does not at least have some regulations- so the practical argument becomes: Do you want more government intervention than there is currently, or less than there is currently? I think that there should be less. You sound like you think there should be more- cool- agree to disagree.

    I don't know where you get the notion that I want special rules applying only to me or that I don't believe in an armed police force.
     
  2. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,697
    Location:
    UK
    I didn't say you were against such. I simply pointed out that by definition this means you are not in favour of "freedom". All laws have to be enforced somehow.
     
  3. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Some laws are used to protect people's rights (murder, theft, etc.)

    Other laws are used to take away people's rights (gambling, drug laws)

    You implied that libertarians want no laws. That is not true, and not what libertarians mean when they speak of freedom. Freedom from government tyranny =/= freedom to kill people with no repercussions.
     
  4. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,697
    Location:
    UK
    For the last time, correcting your incorrect use of "freedom" is not the same as saying you want no laws. I explicitly said most don't want lawlessness (I'm guessing at this point you didn't actually read my post properly). I was pointing out that the mere presence of laws - in any form, for any reason - are a restriction on freedom as a base concept with regards to human actions.

    A lot of them are sensible. What people disagree on is how sensible some of them are. That doesn't make the "socialist" condescending, it makes you incorrect for misusing freedom. Libertarians are in favour of laws too. Stop trying to frame it like you somehow want "freedom". You do not.
     
  5. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    I do want freedom, I want freedom from government laws and regulation in areas where it is not protecting my rights as outlined by the Constitution. I don't remember the Constitution guaranteeing us a society where nobody is allowed to gamble.

    " Libertarians are in favour of laws too"

    I never implied that I am not in favor of laws. I implied that I am against the government regulating the economic. To equate that to wanting to legalize murder is disingenuous

    Also, read my previous post, I said "I completely disagree with those gambling and financial regulations. I prefer individual freedom over government regulation in most instances, setting price caps and other regulations on gaming is one of those instances. Nobody is forcing you to play games or pay for microtransactions"

    bolded for emphasis
     
  6. sherbz

    sherbz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,190
    Location:
    London
    Or in the words of W E B Du Bois:

    "The trouble with men today is that they cannot conceive of a 'freedom' that does not necessarily involve somebody else's slavery"

    @Frostburn - take note :rolleyes:
     
  7. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    What a god-awful quote

    I can conceive on right now:

    The freedom to gamble. IIRC me being able to make a small wager on a Patriots game doesn't enslave another man.

    Also, the freedom to sell and purchase things in video games doesn't enslave people either. Also, the freedom to defend myself when attacked doesn't enslave people.

    What is he even suggesting?
     
  8. sherbz

    sherbz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,190
    Location:
    London
    He was actually referencing claims by southern white Americans and their "freedom" to own slaves. One of the key claims by confederates was that the federal state should or did not have the right to take away or legislate on citizens "property". Namely slaves. To them, their economic "freedom" existed in the possession of slaves. But the sentiment is actually far wider than that.

    Sure it might be your "freedom" thats impacted by placing certain restrictions on gambling laws. But if that means that a whole slew of people dont end up in huge amounts of debt, they can afford to properly clothe and look after their kids, they dont get thrown out their home and turned out on the streets. Then that is surely a price worth paying in my view, and your "freedom" to place unlimited amounts of cash on a bet is a worthy sacrifice to that cause. Its not just gambling we are talking about here either. The vast majority of laws that exist restrict your "freedom" to do what you please. Traffic laws, drug laws, laws on sex, laws on guns, laws on education. All of them restrict your unfettered "freedom" to do what you want.

    It might be nice to think you live in a bubble, but i am afraid life isnt like that.
     
  9. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Right, but human beings are not property. It's a terrible quote as it is so easy to conceive freedoms that don't enslave people. You posed this quote to me as if it's relative to the discussion, but in reality he was talking about slavery, which was based on the fact that slaves were (wrongly) considered property.

    Why is the word freedom in quotation marks here?
     
  10. sherbz

    sherbz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,190
    Location:
    London
    It is relative to the discussion. Or at least the sentiments expressed within are. Its not just related to slavery either, its also related to the rights (or non rights) of black people who used to be slaves but no longer were.

    Because "freedom" is a misnomer. At least as far as radical libertarians use it (which you seem to be). Society essentially works by a collection of individuals sacrificing parts of their freedom for the greater good of the whole (some have termed this a "social contract"). The theory goes that as humans, we recognise that having certain restrictions in place on our own freedom can often be of benefit to society, and even prevent problems from occurring in the first place. Otherwise, as Hobbs would say, we would exist in a state of nature, where no man can reasonably trust another.
     
  11. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,175
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page