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

[Frostburn]

@Frostburn

Except, libertarians very rarely want true freedom. They want freedom applied to their own actions, but rules upheld against others. Very few "libertarians" would be happy with muggers, serial killers, rapists, etc. So some freedom, as usual, has to be suspended in face of a fair and equal society.

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.

The same goes for the for-profit private industry that is video games development. The need for a free and fair gaming experience has to be tempered - for good and for bad - by the necessity to turn a profit. This doesn't excuse predatory models, this is simply me explaining where they originate. Certainly, developers don't sit there nodding their heads along with it.

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.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

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.

 

[Frostburn]

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.

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.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

 

[Frostburn]

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

 

[sherbz]

@Frostburn

Except, libertarians very rarely want true freedom. They want freedom applied to their own actions, but rules upheld against others. Very few "libertarians" would be happy with muggers, serial killers, rapists, etc. So some freedom, as usual, has to be suspended in face of a fair and equal society.

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.

The same goes for the for-profit private industry that is video games development. The need for a free and fair gaming experience has to be tempered - for good and for bad - by the necessity to turn a profit. This doesn't excuse predatory models, this is simply me explaining where they originate. Certainly, developers don't sit there nodding their heads along with it.

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

 

[Frostburn]

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?

 

[sherbz]

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?

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.

 

[Frostburn]

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.

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.

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

Why is the word freedom in quotation marks here?

 

[sherbz]

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.

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.

Why is the word freedom in quotation marks here?

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.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Thanks for hijacking the thread. Now it is closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889