/liberty/ - Liberty

>What about social engineering, brainwashing or pushing agendas?

Pushing an agenda DIGRA-style only really works if there are non-discrimination laws shielding the pushers from criticism, and if there's no mass democracy any agenda they may try to push falls on deaf ears anyways.

>many terrible vidya developers like EA or Activision that haven't made a good game since forever yet are still rich because of the dumb majority who keep buying their trash.

>I keep hearing that in a free market, the best quality products will be available for the cheapest price, yet from observation this doesn't seem to be the case..

Well, to a certain extent what you're calling for here is a bit of social engineering of your own, by mandating that consumers buy the things you want them to instead of following their preferences. Someone else could just as easily declare that the market has "failed" because the dumb masses keep looking for better or worse video games to play instead of ignoring the medium entirely and sitting down with some Dostoevsky. What you have to remember about the phrase "best product for the lowest price" is that "best" doesn't mean the top rung of some standard or another, but that good which reflects consumer demand best, and the bland repeat titles churned out by EA et al reflect that, because most people are plebians and that kind of barely-playable garbage is all they need to be happy. It's the same reason fast food restaurants are so prevalent, or why Mazda isn't the only automaker: most people are casuals, and they're very satisfied with the experience they're getting.

>>92663

At the end of the day, you are always dealing with real people in the social sciences, whether it's in a state or a market. If EA can play the consumer like a fiddle, as you claim, to make him buy bad video games, then take a guess what it could do when it is playing the government instead. A company can always trick gullible fools, but only with a government can it trick a gullible fool who can them impose his bad taste on others.

Institutions are like buildings, and people are the building material. Your institution can look as good as you want on paper, but just as you can never build a skyscraper from clay, so you cannot have a market that is significantly better than the consumers on it.

>>92663

vidya became that way because they industry is completely controlled by the state via copyright and so you cannot see a good TES or fallout game now but alternatives are prevented from coming and you don't have clearly superior version of the same thing. You've picked one of the worst examples of "free market" to debunk, really.

>>92670

Of course not, but the market performs it's function and just ignores whatever isn't good. Unless there is a specific market for people with really shitty and specific tastes.

>this file is corrupt

Just like videogames look at commercials these days as well. They contain a shell of a joke that is devoid of humor. It is a figurative formation of the NPC meme. Usually they contain a soycuck with glasses that goes as so

>Semi serious product discussion

>Insert awkward gaffe

>Thick rimmed glasses host dysocially proud

>que audience laugh

I honestly believe that the writers and marketers are so separated from everyday individuals that they have no humor. Their thirst for control drives them towards decision making places where they spread their unoriginal ideas. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is the people who injected cultural marxism into the capitalist ecosystem. The nice thing is under capitalism, the results are inconvenient and stupid. Under socialism and communism the results aren't bad video games, the results are a cleansing of free thinking individuals.

Vidya turned to shit the way everything does without regulations, which is, it doesn't, but with a sufficiently selective history it does.

>>92676

>individualist anarchist

>shills for regulation

Back to /leftypol/, commie cuck.

>>92678

It's the butterfly tranny without xer trip.

>>92663

>I keep hearing that in a free market, the best quality products will be available for the cheapest price, yet from observation this doesn't seem to be the case..

Did you also miss the part about subjective value? People buy garbage because they want garbage. You don't get any better than what the majority is satisfied with, unless you are willing to make the necessary investment in funding something that caters specifically to your taste. Now introduce the State in there and you have no way of ever getting what you want because everything but garbage is banned, or regulated out of circulation.

This is why the founding fathers said the constitution was meant for a moral (religious) people.

AnCapistanis view freedom as an end, while conservatives view freedom as a means to an end. We want freedom because we are made in God's image and have inalienable individual rights that cannot be taken away from us by anyone.

Tradition, ethics, nuclear family, the fabric of society are important to uphold. Otherwise you end up with the moral decay and degeneracy we witness today in western civilization. Godless atheism leads to authoritarian ideologies, the state becomes god.

As for the free market, without subversive Marxist elements or social engineering it would indeed be the best system. Even with these things, it still is the best system because:

>the worst thing a company can do is offer bad products

>the worst thing a government can do is put a gun to your head

which would you rather have?

>>92705

>AnCapistanis view freedom as an end

Libertarians aren't libertines. Most people aren't libertarians because they want to do drugs and participate in gay orgies, you do not know what libertarianism is. Johnson and the Libertarian Party are just liberals who loves guns and capitalism.

>This is why the founding fathers said the constitution was meant for a moral (religious) people.

This is the same flawed logic that you find in totalitarian ideologies, and also the reason why the US government became so liberal. If your ideology requires the right society to function properly, then you will be playing the commie game of trying to mold society to fit your bullshit ideology, even if your intentions are good.

If you want to get rid of Marxist social engineering, get the state out of education. Marxism is the endgame of any state and what they're teaching in schools.

>>92663

To put it simply, just don't buy shit games. Tastes and preferences are ultimately a subjective thing, you might not like those games but other people do. This doesn't mean that the medium or even the market as a whole is failing, it just means that there's an entire market that likes to play shitty games just as there's a market out there that likes to eat what you could consider to be shitty food. This doesn't mean that there's no good games out there, there certainly are but if you're looking for good games from EA, Ubisoft, etc then you honestly only yourself to blame. It reminds me of an old phrase "Chocolate-Vanilla", some people don't like chocolate but it's their right to not eat chocolate and stay away from it, just as much as it is your right to each chocolate to your heart's content (or it's limits rather).

Go get Wasteland 2, go try out that new mod, play the games you appeal to your tastes from studios you enjoy and let casual gamers who don't mind getting fucked over enjoy their titles.

>>92664

This.

>>92676

>>92678

>>92683

He did not shill for regulation, he just told the BO he selects his data to come to the conclusion that we need regulation. That's how I read his prost.

>>92705

>AnCapistanis view freedom as an end, while conservatives view freedom as a means to an end.

Freedom is not an end in itself, you are right about that. A fulfilled life is an end in itself and freedom is the indispensable precondition for that, as neither virtue nor vice can exist if we don't have the freedom to choose them.

Politically, however, we may just as well treat freedom as an end in itself, precisely because it is such a precondition. Once you're dealing with fully developed adults (or teenagers who are close enough), it makes no sense to prescribe virtuous conduct to them, as they are already fully capable of acting virtuous on their own accord. Prescribing outward behavior will just atrophy the inner side of your actions, the actual choice, which makes them virtuous.

I am not fully opposed to paternalism anymore, but only under very narrow circumstances and on a case-by-case basis would I allow it. Only close family members (siblings or parents), spouses, and very good and loyal friends are qualified for judging whether you're acting "out of your mind", as people call it. They can judge if you're estranged from your true being because some animal impulse overwhelmed you. That would be the case if you're trying to cheat on your wife for the first time, or buying drugs in a bout of depression. Then I wouldn't call this a free choice in the thomistic sense. If you insist on doing it after they've restrained you, when the first impulse is gone and you've been reminded of your actual values (or what they think those are), then even they should let you go and ruin your life.

"Expert" committees, on the other hand, don't know you personally, they can only get to know you at all under very artificial circumstances and after your crisis happened (meaning they have no basis for a comparison between your prior and your current state). I don't see any grounds for paternalism from the state, and from experts like psychologists only when there are no relatives around and the patient is obviously fully incapable of functioning on his own.

Just wanted to add that, I pretty much agree with what you said.

>>92676

>>92678

>>92683

He did not shill for regulation, he just told the BO he selects his data to come to the conclusion that we need regulation. That's how I read his prost.

>>92705

>AnCapistanis view freedom as an end, while conservatives view freedom as a means to an end.

Freedom is not an end in itself, you are right about that. A fulfilled life is an end in itself and freedom is the indispensable precondition for that, as neither virtue nor vice can exist if we don't have the freedom to choose them.

Politically, however, we may just as well treat freedom as an end in itself, precisely because it is such a precondition. Once you're dealing with fully developed adults (or teenagers who are close enough), it makes no sense to prescribe virtuous conduct to them, as they are already fully capable of acting virtuous on their own accord. Prescribing outward behavior will just atrophy the inner side of your actions, the actual choice, which makes them virtuous.

I am not fully opposed to paternalism anymore, but only under very narrow circumstances and on a case-by-case basis would I allow it. Only close family members (siblings or parents), spouses, and very good and loyal friends are qualified for judging whether you're acting "out of your mind", as people call it. They can judge if you're estranged from your true being because some animal impulse overwhelmed you. That would be the case if you're trying to cheat on your wife for the first time, or buying drugs in a bout of depression. Then I wouldn't call this a free choice in the thomistic sense. If you insist on doing it after they've restrained you, when the first impulse is gone and you've been reminded of your actual values (or what they think those are), then even they should let you go and ruin your life.

"Expert" committees, on the other hand, don't know you personally, they can only get to know you at all under very artificial circumstances and after your crisis happened (meaning they have no basis for a comparison between your prior and your current state). I don't see any grounds for paternalism from the state, and from experts like psychologists only when there are no relatives around and the person is obviously fully incapable of functioning on his own.

Just wanted to add that, I pretty much agree with what you said.

>>92756

That games from Japan and Slavistan are getting more and more popular and gaining a reputation for actually having quality shows that the market works. You're not deprived of quality games, they're just not made in your country anymore.

Besides, I am not so sure there's no good vidya in the west anymore. We just have to deal with more high-profile crap than ever before, with fewer gems to make up for it.

>>92785

I remember we've had a thread about paternalism and i even debated a paternalist and shit on him. Too bad the thread is dead, though the only application of paternalism on ancap that does not come as an "exception" or something is the one where a precise and explicit permission has been given to some people, not some delegation of authority by default just because some fag deemed said so. By exception i mean that if someone forces somebody into something and before the situation becomes a legal conflict they resolve it themselves or the victim approves of other's actions.

>>92787

>That games from Japan and Slavistan are getting more and more popular and gaining a reputation for actually having quality shows that the market works. You're not deprived of quality games, they're just not made in your country anymore.

You know we're fucked when the SJWs start banning racist/sexist/ableist/etc products from Japan/elsewhere. Trump's protectionist laws are paving the way for this.

>>92792

is slavistan less cucked than burgerland?

>>92948

Really depends. If you think of feminists, gays and such then yes, there's not much of this shit going in here but if you think in the lines of "kiked" then definitely a no, the shit's worse than Brazil economically and China culturally. I really don't see anything changing in the future, unlike Brazil, unfortunately.

>>92949

This. Except when it comes to feminists, gays, SJWs, etc… then we are steadily getting there.

>>92949

just vote korwin mate