New Bill aims to ban Loot Boxes in Games for Minors under 21

[HalGameGuru]

On 12/26/2017 at 11:06 PM, mr moose said:

Authority is authority and regulation of the community is regulation of the community.  Scale means virtually nothing.   The problem here is you are laboring under the preconception that government regulation is somehow different to tribal regulation. They are the same thing.  

 

 

Government regulation is presumptive, coercive, and involuntary. Regulation in GENERAL need not be any of those things. The NFL doesn't hold a gun to the head of anyone who wants to play football and require them to play by their rules. And nothing stops you from playing football with whatever rules you wish with whatever people you wish. The government doesn't regulate what is on McDonald's menu but if you want a franchise you better believe they are gonna make sure you offer filet-o-fish and Big Macs. But you can go and make your MacDowell's and have your Big Mick with no sesame seeds and russian dressing if you want. ISO, UL, JEDEC, NCAA, NFL, IIHS none of these groups hold a gun to anyone's head to have and maintain a set of regulations. And to produce value and industry leading standards based on their regulations.

 

And you apparently stopped reading early when I specifically state size makes no difference, the premises are what matter. Whether it is one person imposing his will on another, a thousand over a lone man, a head of state over a populace, or 51% over 49%.

[mr moose]

53 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Government regulation is presumptive, coercive, and involuntary. Regulation in GENERAL need not be any of those things. The NFL doesn't hold a gun to the head of anyone who wants to play football and require them to play by their rules. And nothing stops you from playing football with whatever rules you wish with whatever people you wish. The government doesn't regulate what is on McDonald's menu but if you want a franchise you better believe they are gonna make sure you offer filet-o-fish and Big Macs. But you can go and make your MacDowell's and have your Big Mick with no sesame seeds and russian dressing if you want. ISO, UL, JEDEC, NCAA, NFL, IIHS none of these groups hold a gun to anyone's head to have and maintain a set of regulations. And to produce value and industry leading standards based on their regulations.

 

And you apparently stopped reading early when I specifically state size makes no difference, the premises are what matter. Whether it is one person imposing his will on another, a thousand over a lone man, a head of state over a populace, or 51% over 49%.

You still haven't given an example of a community that doesn't have some sort of authoritative regulation.  Be it government, chieftains, elected Cannons or whatever.

[HalGameGuru]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

You still haven't given an example of a community that doesn't have some sort of authoritative regulation.  Be it government, chieftains, elected Cannons or whatever.

I never said you couldn't have authority. I specifically made mention of acceptable FORMS of authority. Derived from self-ownership and natural law. I SPECIFIED presumptive, coercive, and involuntary as ubiquitous to statism and what makes it immoral. Those societies and cultures I mentioned reflect that absence of immorality. These additional instances reflect that.

 

One of the many examples you have chosen to ignore in these last few posts? Heck even outside of state apparatuses.  Polycentric law, anarchic society, heck even just LESSER intrusion and coercion like Liechtenstein is a good example. The Wild West wasn't nearly as wild as people believe, some Gold mining communities had what we would term holacratic governance. Tiwanaku, Harappa, Jericho, Çatalhöyük, Moresnet, Godhordh, Xeer. There are many others. And once again I am being PRECISE in my definitions. SPECIFICALLY what is and is not moral or statist.

 

 

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

I never said you couldn't have authority. I specifically made mention of acceptable FORMS of authority. Derived from self-ownership and natural law. I SPECIFIED presumptive, coercive, and involuntary as ubiquitous to statism and what makes it immoral. Those societies and cultures I mentioned reflect that absence of immorality. These additional instances reflect that.

 

One of the many examples you have chosen to ignore in these last few posts? Heck even outside of state apparatuses.  Polycentric law, anarchic society, heck even just LESSER intrusion and coercion like Liechtenstein is a good example. The Wild West wasn't nearly as wild as people believe, some Gold mining communities had what we would term holacratic governance. Tiwanaku, Harappa, Jericho, Çatalhöyük, Moresnet, Godhordh, Xeer. There are many others. And once again I am being PRECISE in my definitions. SPECIFICALLY what is and is not moral or statist.

 

 

haha, moral, a purely subjective form of correctness. You are still ignoring the very fact that there is no difference between what is happening now and how it would play out in any other culture with authoritative regulation.  This is requested by the people.  You are still laboring under the premise that any other cultural form of governance is somehow intrinsically better.  That ideal is not born out in any real world society.   

 

If you think the wild west is something to hold up as an example maybe you should read into the story of billy the kid,  a corrupt society built him, not lawlessness.  

[HalGameGuru]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

haha, moral, a purely subjective form of correctness. You are still ignoring the very fact that there is no difference between what is happening now and how it would play out in any other culture with authoritative regulation.  This is requested by the people.  You are still laboring under the premise that any other cultural form of governance is somehow intrinsically better.  That ideal is not born out in any real world society.   

 

If you think the wild west is something to hold up as an example maybe you should read into the story of billy the kid,  a corrupt society built him, not lawlessness.  

Then don't call it moral, call it ethical, naturally legal, reciprocal and universalizable, whatever it takes for you to wrap your head around the reality. Natural Law, Self-Ownership, Argumentation Ethics if you prefer. It is objective to all rational acting beings. Humans Specifically. For you to claim, argue, or attempt to redefine otherwise is a performative contradiction. discounting your assertion before you ever attempt to support it.

 

If it is requested by the people it can be made voluntary with no ill effects. If it cannot you have agreed it is presumptive and coercive, ergo immoral. If it were at the request of the people the people could also OPT OUT with no ill effects. The fact that they can't belies your assertion. If it were requested by the people a plurality of providers would be able to provide service as close to perfect for the individuals in question competing for their citizenship. They all claim a monopoly on a population, a geography, and violence. Discounting your assertion. People request burgers, ergo it is OK for jackbooted McDonald's thugs to march thru town keeping the people in line and taking their tribute and handing out the burger dole day by day. THe people want burgers, violence, coercion, and taxes are the price they have to pay to be fed. If it is important, and necessary, and utile it can and SHOULD be provided morally. If it is not or cannot it should not be provided at all.

 

I'm sorry not borne out? Are you claiming there is no moral, ethical, or effective differences between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Theocratic Iran, and say... a liberal democracy like Sweden? Or a benevolent principality like Liechtenstein? or say a grand old republic? One system being less onerous than another doesn't make it moral vs immoral. It is the difference between murder and theft. Cultural form of governance? this is a hard and fast rule. No culture, no sway of age or ethnicity. The philosophy had to be elucidated but the laws and realities they describe are intrinsic to the human condition.

 

You are apparently not picking up on anything I am talking about. The wild west wasn't lawless. That is the whole point. It was unGOVERNED, but it was far tamer than people think and rules were the norm. 

[mr moose]

Just now, HalGameGuru said:

Then don't call it moral, call it ethical, naturally legal, reciprocal and universalizable, whatever it takes for you to wrap your head around the reality. Natural Law, Self-Ownership, Argumentation Ethics if you prefer. It is objective to all rational acting beings. Humans Specifically. For you to claim, argue, or attempt to redefine otherwise is a performative contradiction. discounting your assertion before you ever attempt to support it.

 

If it is requested by the people it can be made voluntary with no ill effects. If it cannot you have agreed it is presumptive and coercive, ergo immoral. If it were at the request of the people the people could also OPT OUT with no ill effects. The fact that they can't belies your assertion. If it were requested by the people a plurality of providers would be able to provide service as close to perfect for the individuals in question competing for their citizenship. They all claim a monopoly on a population, a geography, and violence. Discounting your assertion. People request burgers, ergo it is OK for jackbooted McDonald's thugs to march thru town keeping the people in line and taking their tribute and handing out the burger dole day by day. THe people want burgers, violence, coercion, and taxes are the price they have to pay to be fed. If it is important, and necessary, and utile it can and SHOULD be provided morally. If it is not or cannot it should not be provided at all.

 

I'm sorry not borne out? Are you claiming there is no moral, ethical, or effective differences between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Theocratic Iran, and say... a liberal democracy like Sweden? Or a benevolent principality like Liechtenstein? or say a grand old republic? One system being less onerous than another doesn't make it moral vs immoral. It is the difference between murder and theft. Cultural form of governance? this is a hard and fast rule. No culture, no sway of age or ethnicity. The philosophy had to be elucidated but the laws and realities they describe are intrinsic to the human condition.

 

You are apparently not picking up on anything I am talking about. The wild west wasn't lawless. That is the whole point. It was unGOVERNED, but it was far tamer than people think and rules were the norm. 

You are confusing dictatorships with democracies now.  Also you cannot make regulation voluntary or no one would volunteer, Very basic premise of humanity and we've already been over that.

 

As far as the wild west went, I don't think you know shit about it,  the law was bought by the highest bidder in many cases.