Behold for this man speaks truth!

The ultimate result of video game bans would be to establish a dangerous precedent: that the government should have the power to decide what ideas children may be exposed to…

I could not agree more. Allowing the government to control the flow of information to minors is DANGEROUS. It is essentially a form of state based mind and thought control on youth.
Minors especially older minors and teenagers should have the right to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted, uncensored access to media that present ideas, information, messages and opinions. To do otherwise would mean that once a minor reaches "enter arbitrary age limit for legal adulthood here" their minds would be a blank and they'd be unequipped to deal with the real world as we know it.

Damn straight the government shouldn't be allowed to control childrens upbringing.

I love this guy.

Wow. This has never been stated more plainly but clearly. Bravo.

Logic and clarity prevail, i'd like to see jack thompson counter this without sounding like a douchebag


oh wait, JT sounds like a douchebag whenever he opens his trap......




All these people who keep supporting free speech, and all the gamers and industry reps should really start their own publicity campaign to nip this in the bud.

So far the critics have been preaching their ignorance to the public and the government and getting things done, and we have crushed the every attack, folks, its time we went on the offensive.

Mtrox: Was thinking the same thing. But yeah, its good to hear the Ayn Rand folks speaking pretty darn logically on this otherwise emotionally charged debate.

This is one of the few people whose voice will actually be heard for our cause. I'm really proud to have Ayn on our side.

/r/-ing more people like him (and less JTs) Well said.

While I agree with the sentiment I am some what hesitant to agree with someone who suscribes to the Ayn Rand's views of philosophy and particularly her ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy

@ Terminator

It's no secret that these legislative measures are just measures to push their own agenda. What does it matter to the average Joe if the small chunk of cash from his paycheck to fund taxes is missing, if the reasoning behind taking said funds is to fund measures that will somehow protect our children better than parents can?

By stating that they had "legal experts" and "medical evidence", they essentially "inform" the public that what they're doing makes sense. And since most bad parents are the type who don't wish to be held accountable for the things their children are exposed to, they'll readily accept the idea of blaming it on something or someone else.

I'll add that's a reference from the Wiki, so to avoid offence, I'll point out that viewpoint should include Women too.

Well I applaud him for saying something logical and making a good intelligent argument, it still doesn't make the Ayn Rand institute any less freaky at times.

THANK YOU!!! I've been saying this for years but it more ore less comes out like "73h gov3rm3n7 i2 b3c0ming 4 Big Br07h3r!!! OMFGWTFBBQ!!!!!!111!!111!!!!!one!!!!!!!"

A Rand follower voicing a sane opinion is a rare and delicious thing.

okay. This guy's an idiot.

Granted I'm instantly critical of anything with Ayn Rand's name on it. However, he's forgetting that many states have child bans on pornography and violent movies rated NC-17 or R.

While yes, in reality the real problem is screwed up kids and

@taiki
incorrect, states only have laws against Pornography. There are no laws that ban children from R or NC-17 movies, especially not laws that ban them because of violence... the ONLY time it would be illegal for a child to see an NC-17 movie is if that movie had enough sexual content to be classified as pornography; which generally doesn't happen since the porn industry doesn't go to the MPAA for ratings and just use "X"; not to mention that such a film would not be shown in movie theaters... it is legal for children to see R and NC-17 movies... the only reason they can't is because of VOLUNTARY efforts by the movie industry.

Is it me or are sane people, who don't believe in the BS that Jack Thompson spews out, finally getting recoginzed? Yeah!

Has anyone here even read Atlas Shrugged?

That, in and of itself, is not a terrible set of values to uphold, but, like all things, it's dependent on personal Point of View as to what constitutes 'highest standards', for some this would 'socially acceptable', for others it would be 'freedom of expression.'

But then, I think part of the point is that the very struggle between Alpha and Omega are what keep civilisation pushing itself.

The most disturbing comment I've heard regarding Ayn Rand was in Dark Knight Strikes Again, when Question says she didn't go nearly far enough. WTF?

As for all this BS, I can still remember writing an essay two years ago on how people like Jackyboy are wrong. Much fun. Even if it was punishment for having Postal 2 (an illegal game even here in NZL) on my computer at tech.

Someone making sense on this issue?

What is going on?!

@CG

I wouldn't say I was a fan either, I don't really know the whole institute in detail enough to be a fan, as such, but the basic philosophy is mostly scary for being accurate to degree, most people are in it for 'Number 1'. If I remember correctly, 'Atlas Shrugged' had a highly oppressive world was not based on Objectivity, but on the lack of it.

I'm not a fan of 'complete permissiveness', which is, from what I get from the posts here, what Ayn Rand is about, but the right of Parents to raise children their own way, whether that way be 'right' or 'wrong', is something we'll agree upon. That means that the child can be anyone from Jack Thompson to Strauss Zeinick, in a way, in order for society to stay 'healthy' we need them both, or, at least, we need opinions that differ as widely, to be heard. The moment humanity forces itself into a controlling set of values, stagnation occurs, those values should always be challenged.

No comments on Bioshock taking pot shots at Ayn Rand? :P

I wonder if this Ayn Rand is related to Sally...

*deviation from

Yeah, the BioShock/quote connection was first thing that hit me...



I totally agree with the quote...but...needs some Big Daddy love.

Actually, Atlas shrugged is the story of an Objectivist Ubermench leading the revolution against ignorance by simply withdrawing from society. Others like him follow suit and society collapses as a result of the brain drain.

It is a fairly heavy handed philosophical story filled with two-dimensional characters and rant ridden dialogue.

"The ultimate result of video game bans would be to establish a dangerous precedent: that the government should have the power to decide what ideas children may be exposed to…"

Wrong.

It establishes the precedent that children should not be exposed to certain forms of content without express parental permission, IE, without having their parents buy it for them.

More to the point in this particular case, it empowers parents over the retail channels, since said channels would no longer be allowed to sell content the parents would object to without explicit permission from the later.

@DrkMatter.

If parents are doing their jobs, there's no need for legislation, children are their parent's property, this can be argued. However, you can't deny the slippery-slope factor.

Well, it's good to see that something that old Blowhard established actually did some good ... I've gotta agree, I'm also dubious supporting anything from Ayn Rand because her life philosophy is well .. "rubbish"

I agree with the message, not necessarily the messenger

Weatherlight
It makes sense,however how would you implement it in the US with the free speech nazis falling over them selfs to toss out common sense and demand 90% of all speech can not be blocked or hindered.

I would like to see age of independence and personal responsibility start at 16 with drinking at 18, the US coddles and protect their kids way to much....

I disagree with Rand's philosophy Objectivism, which to me is justifying selfishness, carelessness to your fellow man, and destroying the concept of loyalty. But the institute is basically on this issue.

On the subject of Ayn Rand... BioShock is fucking awesome. If you've played the game you probably made the connection too, yes?

I think it's impossible for two parents to outweigh the influence that thousands, and even millions, of people in a child's environment have on their children. The only way to do it would be to become an "oppressive government," where the parents act like unelected dictators over their children.

People say.. "the parents should make a decision as to what their kids see and hear. If a parent approves of their child playing a violent video game, then it's OK." OK, but what of the other side of this question? What if a parent disapproves of a child reading Democrat or Republican literature? Communist? Fascist? Christian? Muslim? "Son, turn off that TV. CNN is a liberal-run America-hating network. Turn it off right now." "Yes, daddy." Ugh.

I don't think children should be the "property of their parents" at all. In the Bioshock game, the parents forced their kids to come to Rapture with them, because that's what society saw as right. But that decision was a huge mistake, and those parents essentially murdered their children by bringing them there. Some parents, no doubt, sold their children (their "property") to Fontaine and Dr. Suchong because those people offered the parents a good "market price" for their children. That's disgusting.

As most people here seem to feel, I'm _generally_ anti-Rand, but very much in support of this statement.

I can see it now...PAX 2008 Main Event: J. Thompson v. Ayn Rand Institute

The less the government has to say about what a minor can read/see/hear/play the better.

Yeah, that's the thing. While parents SHOULD be responsible for their children and all that...using that as an excuse to cut them off from alternative viewpoints is a whole different thing.