This Just In--Of Drained Resevoirs

First off, we are talking about society's rights to compel, not individual rights to compel another individual. Not sure why you even made that leap. No one else did.



Again, I disagree. Go read Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes, among others, and then read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Framers of our Constitution used MAJOR aspects of the social compact theory in drafting those documents. When you freely enter a society, you do have duties and responsibilities to other members of that society. It is not a nebulous thing, but a real thing. And when you do not keep up your end of the bargain, society can compel you, See:laws.



Not only is society not an abstraction, it is a codified entity. It is how nation building began. Go read so political philosophy. I also suggest you read some J.S. Mill. I think you like his writings in particular, along with Hobbes.

You have a right to stop either of those from happening. In the case of the drunk driver if you own the road you have a right to prevent him from entering your property (the government should not be in the business of making roads but that is beside the point). In the case of child pornography have the right to defend the child from the perpetrators who are injuring the child.



The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.



It is a tough problem but the answer isn't to blame and punish the people making the video games. Put the blame where it belongs on the individual and the parents and you'll get much better results than making bogeymen out of the people making the video games.

jvquarterback wrote:

The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.

Logic and accountability FAIL. You argument is like saying that the pornographer holds no fault, just the person who accesses and consumes it. With all due respect, if the content in question, whether video games or pornography, is not produced, there is no harm. Not buying that.

snoscythe wrote:
Maybe you should reread D&C 143, especially verse 1: "We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

The society in 134:1 is a society of individuals who have God-given rights and the rights of that society are the sum of the individual rights. You only need to read next verse to understand that. The society Lawboy claims exists has more rights than the individuals and is indeed an abstraction.

Interesting conversation to this point. Although the last few posts have went to extremes which I don't think is necessary. Drunks are not supposed to drive because they are putting themselves and others (which is the real problem) in danger. Those who view violent child pornography are viewing something which has not only violated a child, but is illegal for good reasons.



According to this website there is little correlation to juveniles playing video games and juvenile crime. While the sales of video games has skyrocketed, the violent crimes among juveniles has actually gone down. So the cause and effect that advocates of the "ban violent video games sold to children" use is weak.



I'm glad that the supreme court voted the way they did because really it's a non-issue that the government shouldn't be dealing with. But, it doesn't mean I'm hoping that kids will continue to buy and play violent video games. Actually I'd vote to keep kids away from them if it came up in a local election (the federal gov. has bigger stuff to worry about, like how to come up with some money in the next few months to avoid defaulting). I think the biggest problem is not the violence, but the addicting factor that goes along with video games. I'll admit to being addicted to a certain video game a long while ago (Super Smash Bros- N64) that has been the biggest waste of time (outside of this forum) in my life. If I'd have used the time I spent on that video game towards something constructive who knows what the results may have been. I look back and see it as a missed opportunity. But I don't buy that violent video games are creating violent kids. They are just overstimulated, lazy and bored without a controller in their hands. But that would happen without the violence.

jvquarterback wrote:
You have a right to stop either of those from happening. In the case of the drunk driver if you own the road you have a right to prevent him from entering your property (the government should not be in the business of making roads but that is beside the point). In the case of child pornography have the right to defend the child from the perpetrators who are injuring the child.



The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.



It is a tough problem but the answer isn't to blame and punish the people making the video games. Put the blame where it belongs on the individual and the parents and you'll get much better results than making bogeymen out of the people making the video games.

You did not really respond to my two points. What legal right do I have to stop someone drunk from getting in the car, assuming that he is not on my property? I do not own the road. If I held on to the guy I'd probably be charged with kidnapping. Again I'm no expert. And if I can defend the child in the pornographic sense, why can't I defend the child from the violent videogame sense? One is much more compelling I know, but once you have agreed that I can in fact defend a child, why can;t I defend a child in other ways that will harm him?



How am I making the video game maker the bogeyman? No on'e punishing the video game makers. They can still make and sell their violent product to stores who can still sell the games to adults. These laws are meant to protect society not put the blame where it most intellectually best resides

JV, you are clearly not familiar with social compact/contract writings and how they shaped our country. It is not an abstraction. But ignore it if you like. The Framers of our Country most definitely did not.

declocoug wrote:
Interesting conversation to this point. Although the last few posts have went to extremes which I don't think is necessary. Drunks are not supposed to drive because they are putting themselves and others (which is the real problem) in danger. Those who view violent child pornography are viewing something which has not only violated a child, but is illegal for good reasons.



According to this website there is little correlation to juveniles playing video games and juvenile crime. While the sales of video games has skyrocketed, the violent crimes among juveniles has actually gone down. So the cause and effect that advocates of the "ban violent video games sold to children" use is weak.



I'm glad that the supreme court voted the way they did because really it's a non-issue that the government shouldn't be dealing with. But, it doesn't mean I'm hoping that kids will continue to buy and play violent video games. Actually I'd vote to keep kids away from them if it came up in a local election (the federal gov. has bigger stuff to worry about, like how to come up with some money in the next few months to avoid defaulting). I think the biggest problem is not the violence, but the addicting factor that goes along with video games. I'll admit to being addicted to a certain video game a long while ago (Super Smash Bros- N64) that has been the biggest waste of time (outside of this forum) in my life. If I'd have used the time I spent on that video game towards something constructive who knows what the results may have been. I look back and see it as a missed opportunity. But I don't buy that violent video games are creating violent kids. They are just overstimulated, lazy and bored without a controller in their hands. But that would happen without the violence.

Declo I do not understand: you would vote for a law that the Supreme Court has now declared unconstitutional? Why? By the way, this was not a federal law or the fedaral governement doing anything--the law at issue was a state law--an effort by a state to protect its citizens. Is there a proven cause and effect relationship between exposure to violent games and violent behavior? No. But that is a red hering. There IS proof that exposure to various media, like pornography, does have an effect and a very negative one, on the viewer/participator that can have negative consequences on our communities.

I appreciate your views and those of JV. They cause me to think and re-evaluate. I guess I'm just not as libertarian as some....

Lawboy wrote:

The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.

Logic and accountability FAIL. You argument is like saying that the pornographer holds no fault, just the person who accesses and consumes it. With all due respect, if the content in question, whether video games or pornography, is not produced, there is no harm. Not buying that.

Before you convict someone you have to state who is injured. In this case we are talking about the child (and ignoring your "societal" claims). If the child is underage and the parent either by neglect or with intent allowed or caused their child to be injured, they are the ones who should have to restore their child to a whole state. Certainly a pornographer harms the individual portrayed just as the pimp injures the whore he compels. There is no such analogy with respect to the video game producer unless someone was injured in the production of the game.



Re: Rousseau. His societe is the abstraction you claim it is not. He even states this. As for the social contract - it is a farce. People (with their rights) exist prior to government. Locke and Rousseau admit this (Hobbes not quite). But they all dream up a social contract (which for some reason you think is freely entered though only Rousseau even remotely suggests so) in order to justify compelling other men to do what they want. I suggest you read Lysander Spooner who directly addresses the idea of the social contract and exposes it for the farce it is (FYI I'm not quite the anarchist Spooner is but his argument against social contract theory is still valid). A real contract is reached by consent without one side compelling the other. I accept the contract to be ruled by God's government; I reject all contracts that seek to compel me through force. A government's right to compel can only be derived from an individual's right to compel (check the Ezra Taft Benson video).

BoiseBYU wrote:

You have a right to stop either of those from happening. In the case of the drunk driver if you own the road you have a right to prevent him from entering your property (the government should not be in the business of making roads but that is beside the point). In the case of child pornography have the right to defend the child from the perpetrators who are injuring the child.



The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.



It is a tough problem but the answer isn't to blame and punish the people making the video games. Put the blame where it belongs on the individual and the parents and you'll get much better results than making bogeymen out of the people making the video games.

You did not really respond to my two points. What legal right do I have to stop someone drunk from getting in the car, assuming that he is not on my property? I do not own the road. If I held on to the guy I'd probably be charged with kidnapping. Again I'm no expert. And if I can defend the child in the pornographic sense, why can't I defend the child from the violent videogame sense? One is much more compelling I know, but once you have agreed that I can in fact defend a child, why can;t I defend a child in other ways that will harm him?



How am I making the video game maker the bogeyman? No on'e punishing the video game makers. They can still make and sell their violent product to stores who can still sell the games to adults. These laws are meant to protect society not put the blame where it most intellectually best resides

I have held from the beginning that a child may be injured by violent video games, I've just maintained that the parents are at fault and not the seller nor the producer. The seller should be able to assume the child has permission from the parent to purchase the game if the child is allowed to enter their store with money to buy. The producer is not involved with the child at all so should not be held at fault.



If you pay taxes for the roads you can be said to own the road (and so prevent the drunk from driving on it).

So explain why we should follow the Constitution? You know, without being coerced.

So, not a parent, but telling others how they should do it, excellent.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
You have a right to stop either of those from happening. In the case of the drunk driver if you own the road you have a right to prevent him from entering your property (the government should not be in the business of making roads but that is beside the point). In the case of child pornography have the right to defend the child from the perpetrators who are injuring the child.



The problem with laws prohibiting video games (if you believe as I do that they can harm children) is that they punish people who are not guilty (the video game makers) while absolving the perpetrators (the parents). Now I don't think the answer is taking the kids away from their parents in this case but if a parent gives their kids drugs or money for drugs I think most of us would agree that the injury warrants removal. So this is just a matter of degree.



It is a tough problem but the answer isn't to blame and punish the people making the video games. Put the blame where it belongs on the individual and the parents and you'll get much better results than making bogeymen out of the people making the video games.

You did not really respond to my two points. What legal right do I have to stop someone drunk from getting in the car, assuming that he is not on my property? I do not own the road. If I held on to the guy I'd probably be charged with kidnapping. Again I'm no expert. And if I can defend the child in the pornographic sense, why can't I defend the child from the violent videogame sense? One is much more compelling I know, but once you have agreed that I can in fact defend a child, why can;t I defend a child in other ways that will harm him?



How am I making the video game maker the bogeyman? No on'e punishing the video game makers. They can still make and sell their violent product to stores who can still sell the games to adults. These laws are meant to protect society not put the blame where it most intellectually best resides

I have held from the beginning that a child may be injured by violent video games, I've just maintained that the parents are at fault and not the seller nor the producer. The seller should be able to assume the child has permission from the parent to purchase the game if the child is allowed to enter their store with money to buy. The producer is not involved with the child at all so should not be held at fault.



If you pay taxes for the roads you can be said to own the road (and so prevent the drunk from driving on it).

If you concede that I can protect the child from pornography, meaning, I take it, that you concede that I have a right to protect children, AND you conede that a child may be harmed by violent video games, then why cannot I not lay down the law that such games may not be sold to children? Such a law does not remove parents from the equation--they still need to teach warn and train their children away from such products because we all know no law is perfectly obeyed or enforced...but why not try and slow down the torrent of harm? And as for taxes justifying ownership, haha good luck on taking that argument very far. P.S. You do know that Rosseau was pig who did not remotely come close to practicing what he preached, right?

jvquarterback wrote:

Maybe you should reread D&C 143, especially verse 1: "We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

The society in 134:1 is a society of individuals who have God-given rights and the rights of that society are the sum of the individual rights. You only need to read next verse to understand that. The society Lawboy claims exists has more rights than the individuals and is indeed an abstraction.

False. Verse 2:"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."



Verse 2 of section 134 sets out the minimum responsibilities for a government to exist in peace. It says nothing of society much less what you claim.



I guess I should stop being surprised when you misstate and misconstrue things.

BoiseBYU wrote:

If you concede that I can protect the child from pornography, meaning, I take it, that you concede that I have a right to protect children, AND you conede that a child may be harmed by violent video games, then why cannot I not lay down the law that such games may not be sold to children? Such a law does not remove parents from the equation--they still need to teach warn and train their children away from such products because we all know no law is perfectly obeyed or enforced...but why not try and slow down the torrent of harm? And as for taxes justifying ownership, haha good luck on taking that argument very far. P.S. You do know that Rosseau was pig who did not remotely come close to practicing what he preached, right?

The child is injured by the neglect of the parent, not by the sale of video games. We speak a whole bunch about personal responsibility but these types of laws are intended to absolve responsibility by placing blame on those who have done something (perhaps morally reprehensible) that is not criminal.



PS Fortunately Jefferson and Madison rejected Rousseau in favor of Locke (who was the best of the bunch) and used the Carolina Constitution as the framework for much of what they wrote.

Schmoe wrote:
So, not a parent, but telling others how they should do it, excellent.

Yes I am a parent. But I am not a parent willing to strip the rights of others because I am too lazy to feed my children a good diet or limit their access to television or video games.

snoscythe wrote:
Verse 2:"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."



Verse 2 of section 134 sets out the minimum responsibilities for a government to exist in peace. It says nothing of society much less what you claim.

You are forwarding Lawboy's (Rousseau's) argument that society has more rights than the sum of the rights of each individual member of the society. Neither the first nor the second verse of Section 134 are a basis for that interpretation. If individual rights are inviolate, it should be clear (as Ezra Taft Benson taught) that individuals can give no more rights to government than what they possess as individuals. If the government (which you equate with society) pretends it has more rights than the individual it would be in violation of the second verse of section 134.

Lawboy wrote:
So explain why we should follow the Constitution? You know, without being coerced.

The Constitution is a superb, divinely inspired contract. One that I believe most would accept without coercion. Once accepted, enforcement of the contract is a part of the contract.

Once accepted? That is my exact point with the social compact/contract, which is exactly what the Constitution is. It is a written out, codified social compact/contract, which you argued against because it compels or coerces people to do what is right. The theory behind it is interesting, but the application of it most important.



You are talking in circles now. So which is it?

I have not argued against the Constitution because it coerces those who willingly accept it. I argue against people trying to use the Constitution to coerce people who have not accepted it. If it is really a contract tell me who has accepted it? and how? That is the problem with social contract theory. If you've barred and taken the oath I suppose you can say you have accepted it. But your acceptance is not binding upon me or anyone else. Sorry but don't try to pull the voting or paying taxes = acceptance shenanigans: I want a specific time when an individual accepts the Constitution. Otherwise there is no contract.



Personally I would accept the Constitution minus several of the clauses in Article I Section 8, the 11th and 16th amendment.

I propose that each year, every American must register with the federal government whether they accept the Consititution as presently constituted. Those who choose not too, may leave the country. This way we can know who accepts it and then what is required of it. So that way we'll know who we're dealing with.



You know, yearly may not be frequent enough. Maybe each month, week or day we should declare how we feel about accepting the social contract.

Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

jvquarterback wrote:
Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Yeah, so your reading comprehension is still lacking. SpiffCoug said nothing about removing people who don't accept the Constitution. I know you wish he said that, so that's how you interpreted it, but he didn't say that. Your ability to read people as saying something they never said simply because you want it to be there is quite astonishing.