Welcome to the Nanny State: Saints Row IV banned in Australia

[Michael]

Right.. You are saying that the law and Constitution of this land is incorrect...

I'm saying exactly what I said. The Constitution is a body of Law. The last I knew, paper doesn't perform surgery - humans do. The distinction between an abstract set of rules and real people is, IMO, important.

Censorship has always existed in Australia in some form or another.

That's argumentum ad antiquitatem

The issue with Saints Row IV and State of Decay is new and it has hit the headlines because it has happened after the adult R18+ classification was applied and created for video games to match movie and film ratings. Do I think the ban is bizarre? Yes. However you are blowing this all out of proportion. It isn't illegal to play it, it just cannot be supplied or sold or advertised in Australia. People bypass the ban by getting it from overseas (probably at a much cheaper cost to be honest). The issue here is that the R18+ classification was brought in specifically to apply to such games. The group that denied it classification were actually an independent panel of 3 people, who deemed it too violent for even the R18+ classification.

Why the word "Bizarre"? How about immoral? Is it immoral that three bureaucrats in a room can decide how the entire population of ADULT "Australians" can non-violently interact with one another? Isn't this what an Ethician would ask? This thread is in "Ethics" I assume it's not too far fetched to expect a comment on morality somewhere in the discussion.



Suppose an Australian Citizen started selling some Saints Row IV games to other adult Australian Citizens? Regardless of what fines were imposed, what warnings were issued, the continued to sell this video game to other Adult Australians. What would eventually happen to this person?

 

[quinnsong]

The truth is I am just nitpicking because the problem is not our civil liberties but our lack of economic power. The truth is I can go get stoned on just about any drug or watch the most sexually debasing and violent film if I so desired. Hell I am sure if i tried hard enough I could find someone selling a child for sex and if I get caught I would get a little prison time. But let me start organizing the poor successfully(hasn't been done yet) and become a real economic threat by demanding the same opportunities, the same justice system that the wealthy enjoy, access to good schools, .......


I will start giving a fuck about civil liberties when Michael starts giving a fuck about ghettos and slums!

 

[paddoboy]

Suppose an Australian Citizen started selling some Saints Row IV games to other adult Australian Citizens? Regardless of what fines were imposed, what warnings were issued, the continued to sell this video game to other Adult Australians. What would eventually happen to this person?

Well we don't have the death penalty in Australia.

Fair dinkum, I have never seen such overacting, sanctimonious paranoid behaviour in a long long time.
I think you need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down.

 

[Balerion]

NAMBLA is censored by law from acting out their desires on young children and NAMBLA really only exists to change current consent laws. OHHH, but that slippery slope, fuck that, you heard me fuck that, at some point someone has to say enough is enough. So what, I have the right to assemble and say just about anything, no real power or threat in that.

Hm. Perhaps part of our disagreement can be chalked up to a misunderstanding. You seem to use "censorship" to mean prohibit, or outlaw. I don't. When I say the word, I mean it strictly in the sense of preventing the expression of words or ideas. No wonder you think I'm crazy; you must think I'm saying pedophilia should be legal! To ease your mind, no, I don't believe we should live in a world where anything goes. My belief is simply that ideas--no matter how vulgar or offensive--should be freely expressed without fear of legal repercussion. I also believe that you, as a citizen, deserve the right to choose for yourself what you watch, read, or listen to.

When I step in shit I know it and so do you, but you call it chocolate and I say it is pure unadulterated shit.[/quote]

...?

I f you can guarantee that the ESRB rating system actually worked then great, but we know that some parents do not care what their children watch or play and even if they do their children are able to access M games at their friends houses.

So far, the only danger in playing M-rated games that has even been suggested is a mild increase in aggressive behavior--something that could be said about eating sugary foods, or watching an exciting sporting event. Hell, when I got home from the theatre after seeing The Karate Kid, you bet your ass I was crane-kicking everything in sight. So what are we supposed to be protecting them against, exactly? And why should your bad parenting mean that I can't purchase adult content?

What action would you take against violence and drug use?

In what context? If you're asking me how I'd legislate against actual violence and drug use, I think the question is silly. If you're asking what action I'd take against violent games that also depict drug use, you already know my answer: None.

Which drug and what personal gain? Be more specific?

The game "State of Decay" features a health and stamina gauge that can be replenished by using various drugs, some legal, others not. Amphetamines and "trucker pills" are the ones that brought about the Aussie ban, even though giving you a physical boost is exactly what those pills do.

So you are saying that the Aussies banned a game merely because it showed an accurate description of drug use?

Accurate insofar as the game wasn't claiming that drugs are good for you, only that some can give you energy. And considering it was the zombie apocalypse, it isn't as if they were doing this instead of going to the gym and eating right.

Does Saints Row IV show an accurate depiction of drug use?

No. Apparently, (I haven't played the game) there is a mission in which a character smokes alien (as in outer space alien) narcotics and is granted superpowers as a result. The accurate drug use I was referring to was in State of Decay.

If yes, has Australia banned every book, tv show or movie that shows an accurate depiction of drug use?

Not likely, though to be honest I don't follow Australian politics. I'm only familiar with the game bans because I am an avid gamer.

Is the game promoting drug dealing? Maybe the Aussies want to leave drug dealing up to doctors like we do in the U.S.

If you think only doctors deal drugs in the US, you're out of your mind.

To answer your question, I don't know if the game promotes drug dealing. Nor do I think it's relevant.

I could cite numerous studies that contradict yours as you well know but let's keep this simple. Why does the American Military encourage our soldiers to play violent video games? Or, I had 2 boys that played violent video games at a friend's house while I was working and I noticed a marked physical aggression in their behavior towards me and one another.

So I call your bluff, and you balk. Typical.

Your "scientific studies" amount to you presuming that your rotten kids became rotten because of video games, rather than absentee parenting or the influence of other children on them. My advice would be to become a better parent.

 

[Bells]

I'm saying exactly what I said. The Constitution is a body of Law. The last I knew, paper doesn't perform surgery - humans do. The distinction between an abstract set of rules and real people is, IMO, important.

And the humans who perform surgery have to follow a strict set of guidelines, rules and laws, after having obtained a certain level of education and training in the field. Those pieces of paper are vitally important, especially for anyone in the field of medicine.

That's argumentum ad antiquitatem

Yes. And?

Why the word "Bizarre"? How about immoral? Is it immoral that three bureaucrats in a room can decide how the entire population of ADULT "Australians" can non-violently interact with one another? Isn't this what an Ethician would ask? This thread is in "Ethics" I assume it's not too far fetched to expect a comment on morality somewhere in the discussion.

Someone brought up NAMBLA earlier. Your argument is often spouted by that group as they feel being allowed to send and swap and even sell child pornography is a way by which they can interact with each other in a non-violent manner. And yet, child pornography is illegal. In any way, shape or form. Someone can draw a cartoon of child pornography and it would still be illegal and censored. Understand what I am saying here? We are governed by laws that are often made by bureaucrats. Sometimes they are bizarre, such as in this game ban and sometimes they are absolutely necessary, as in the case of groups like NAMBLA. But immoral in the case of the ban of two video games? No.

In an age where the country is trying to determine the proper and just treatment for illegal immigrants coming to our shores, hundreds dying in the process, you want me to apply the term "immoral" over the restriction of a violent video game? Really?

Suppose an Australian Citizen started selling some Saints Row IV games to other adult Australian Citizens? Regardless of what fines were imposed, what warnings were issued, the continued to sell this video game to other Adult Australians. What would eventually happen to this person?

The company or retailer who is selling it could face a fine. People can purchase it and download it from overseas, which is a cheaper means of buying games anyway. No one is prevented from playing it. Just selling and promoting it.

 

[Bells]

No. Apparently, (I haven't played the game) there is a mission in which a character smokes alien (as in outer space alien) narcotics and is granted superpowers as a result. The accurate drug use I was referring to was in State of Decay.

Drug Use
During the course of the game, there is an option for a ‘side mission’ where the Player can achieve an unlimited sprinting power or superpower. Having acquired alien narcotics, the Player then has to inhale the drugs to gain the necessary superpower. The game directly links drug use to incentives and rewards. The fact that at another point in the game, these superpowers can be acquired in a different manner is irrelevant to the fact that in this option the drug use directly achieves the incentive of acquiring superpowers. Though the drugs are referred to as ‘alien’ their usage is represented in a realistic manner using realistic drug taking methods. The means by which the drugs are obtained from a street dealer parallels reality. The dialogue of the Player and other characters underlines the link between the drug use and the achievement of superpowers e.g. “This alien shit should give us an edge" (spoken by a female character).



7. Reasons for the decision

Drug use related to incentives or rewards is not permitted. The game Saints Row IV is therefore classified Refused Classification.


Australian Government Classification Review Board - Report
​

That was why it was banned. The promotion of drug use for incentive and personal gain and making said drug use so realistic. Had the drug use been unrealistic, it probably would not have been banned.

It's silly and bizarre. The R18+ classification should cover this as well, but for some reason, in this instance for Saints Row IV, it was not.

 

[Asguard]

And the humans who perform surgery have to follow a strict set of guidelines, rules and laws, after having obtained a certain level of education and training in the field. Those pieces of paper are vitally important, especially for anyone in the field of medicine.

Bells haven't you seen his arguments previously that the reason health care costs so much is that we have licensing requirements. In his ideal world anyone would be allowed to call themselves doctor and do anything they want and if the patient died well that's the free market

Out of interest though why do you consider the ban "bizarre"? when I read the decision it seemed to me to be compleatly in line with the guidelines that were published before the bill passed and therefore compleatly predictable. Do I agree with the law itself? As I said before on sexual violence 100% behind it, it SHOULD be justified by context rather than a leisure suit Larry rape Sim, in the case of saints row we have no idea what the age is of the civilians you could use the gun on. Now sure that "age" does lead to some stupidity like Dead and Alive being banned (under the old laws) because a dev mentioned overseas that the "girls" were 16 in spite of the fact in other places it was listed as 18 and in Australia no age at all was given. Doubly stupid when considering the age of consent in Australia is 16 anyway but for the most part it makes sense. As for the drug use I am in 2 minds because we are restricting positive depictions of smoking and it appears to be working, last I herd the rate was down to around 16% in SA and there was talk a while ago of banning the covert advertising of smoking in movies, so to my mind I would rather see depictions of drug use be put in the same category as smoking, if it works then great if it doesn't then so be it but these were well known BEFORE the legislation passed so if people had major complaints with that the time to raise them was in the public consultation period before the Act was passed

 

[Michael]

I will start giving a fuck about civil liberties when Michael starts giving a fuck about ghettos and slums!

You think "the Government" can get rid of ghettos and slums?!? Have you BEEN to a PUBLIC housing project?!?

Slums are the direct result of Government. As AMOF, 80% of the money we set aside (in tax) to pay for the poor, is consumed in governmental administration. If you want to eliminate the poverty, then you'd support Civil Liberties and free-markets.

 

[Asguard]

You think "the Government" can get rid of ghettos and slums?!? Have you BEEN to a PUBLIC housing project?!?

Slums are the direct result of Government. As AMOF, 80% of the money we set aside (in tax) to pay for the poor, is consumed in governmental administration. If you want to eliminate the poverty, then you'd support Civil Liberties and free-markets.

Ah yes, the "more guns equals less school shootings" argument. What a surprise

 

[Michael]

But let me start organizing the poor successfully(hasn't been done yet) and become a real economic threat by demanding the same opportunities, the same justice system that the wealthy enjoy, access to good schools, .......

This really makes no sense. The poor have never had access to information any easier than now - and yet public schools are graduating barely functionally literate students with no drive and no hope. The dream of owning a home and raising a family, for many young Australians, is just that - a dream. The houses are priced out of their reach and they couldn't afford to spend any time at home with kids anyway because they're both working just to make ends meet. AU government pays Australian parents to put their children in daycare from 6 weeks of age.

Yes, the same "Government" who cares about Alien drug use in a video game wants to "HELP" Australian families by paying them to put their children in day care from age 6 weeks. The economy is directed affected by the Australian government - their meddling in the housing market to prop up home prices (so as to keep the home-owning voter happy, at the expense of their kids) is forcing young Australians to share-house until many are in their 40s! Hell, 50s even! Times have never been better if you're an overseas investor looking to become a landlord - it that's your dream, Australia is your country.


Again, free markets and civil liberties, law and sound money - these are the ingredients for a successful prosperous society.

 

[Michael]

Ah yes, the "more guns equals less school shootings" argument. What a surprise

I have no idea what you're on about here.

Increased civil liberties and free market efficiency is, when added together, by definition: Prosperity.

 

[Michael]

Well we don't have the death penalty in Australia.

Fair dinkum, I have never seen such overacting, sanctimonious paranoid behaviour in a long long time.
I think you need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down.

AND?

Here give it another go:
Suppose an Australian Citizen started selling some Saints Row IV games to other adult Australian Citizens? Regardless of what fines were imposed, what warnings were issued, they continued to sell this video game to other Adult Australians. What would eventually happen to this person?

 

[Balerion]

Drug Use
During the course of the game, there is an option for a ‘side mission’ where the Player can achieve an unlimited sprinting power or superpower. Having acquired alien narcotics, the Player then has to inhale the drugs to gain the necessary superpower. The game directly links drug use to incentives and rewards. The fact that at another point in the game, these superpowers can be acquired in a different manner is irrelevant to the fact that in this option the drug use directly achieves the incentive of acquiring superpowers. Though the drugs are referred to as ‘alien’ their usage is represented in a realistic manner using realistic drug taking methods. The means by which the drugs are obtained from a street dealer parallels reality. The dialogue of the Player and other characters underlines the link between the drug use and the achievement of superpowers e.g. “This alien shit should give us an edge" (spoken by a female character).



7. Reasons for the decision

Drug use related to incentives or rewards is not permitted. The game Saints Row IV is therefore classified Refused Classification.


Australian Government Classification Review Board - Report
​

That was why it was banned. The promotion of drug use for incentive and personal gain and making said drug use so realistic. Had the drug use been unrealistic, it probably would not have been banned.

It's silly and bizarre. The R18+ classification should cover this as well, but for some reason, in this instance for Saints Row IV, it was not.

I don't know how much more unrealistic one can get. They were doing drugs from outer space that gave them superpowers!

 

[Michael]

And the humans who perform surgery have to follow a strict set of guidelines, rules and laws, after having obtained a certain level of education and training in the field. Those pieces of paper are vitally important, especially for anyone in the field of medicine.

Last year I read that statistically, ~1 in 25 Australia MD's practicing are considered incompetent and ~1 in 73 are sociopaths. Are those good or bad odds? Maybe they're good, maybe they're horrible. We'd only know if we had a free-market, but we don't.

I think of it like this: I had a very good student ask me for a letter of recommendation to medical school. She's much better than some of the students who got in (there's only so many places). This means she has spent 6+3 years of her life preparing for medicine and now will have to do something else. This is a huge waste of resources and time. Her parents paid in over $100,000 worth of private school education. She's paid in probably $20,000 herself in higher education. ALL for NOTHING. What a massive inefficient waste of time, energy and resources. Another student's 'dreams' crushed. To bad too, she'd have made an excellent doctor. This is the story of hundreds of thousands of Australian students - each and every year.

Now, you could say: Bad Luck. That's what I hear Aussie's say.
In the same breath they like to say "fair go" and "fair dinkum".

I know enough about the system to know this is far from a fair go. A real fair go is free-markets. AND as 'crazy' as that might sound *gasp* someone do something without a NannY! *GAASP* 80 years ago there actually was a free market in medicine and people had affordable healthcare. I know you think the ONLY way we could possibly train medical doctors is through the State - but I know different. ANY group of humans can self-organize to develop medical training (or any other training). And a free-market would ensure the best possible training institutes produced the best possible medical doctors. If you think that's happening now, I'd implore you to think of Public Housing. Sure, you may get one or two people who genuinely do care about public 'service' and will do their best. Those few usually get burned out and leave. Time are actually going to be getting a lot tougher for medical doctors and prices will be going higher. Expect to see more and more of the good ones left, getting out of public practice to private in the coming years.

 

[Michael]

Someone brought up NAMBLA earlier. Your argument is often spouted by that group as they feel being allowed to send and swap and even sell child pornography is a way by which they can interact with each other in a non-violent manner. And yet, child pornography is illegal.

Exploitation is immoral and illegal - it's not possible to legally sign a contract (or even agree to an unwritten contract) with impaired judgement. Thus, a formal argument would take into account this. You can't get someone drunk or slip a drug into their drink and then say they 'legally' agreed to such and such contract. You can't trick a mentally handicapped person into signing a contract and then taking their car or house. And you can not take advantage of a child via pornography for the exact same reasons. Children do not have the mental aptitude to legally agree to this sort of contract. It's why we refer to them as 'Children'.

As for a cartoon depiction of children. This is aesthetically repugnant. That's a question of aesthetics as no actual human is involved. If elements in society are this broken as a human to regard children in such a manner - one may want to ask how they became that way. I continue to press the case for peaceful logical parenting - however, as we speak 85% of parents are still legally hitting their children. I'm of the mind that these children grow up into adults that like cartoon depictions of violence being perpetrated against children. The real solution is to stop the real violence and by this means the cartoons will vanish as society won't be so broken as to produce the adults who are interested in that.

In an age where the country is trying to determine the proper and just treatment for illegal immigrants coming to our shores, hundreds dying in the process, you want me to apply the term "immoral" over the restriction of a violent video game? Really?

I've already made it clear I do not think Passports are moral - all humans should be allowed to travel to any and all areas of the planet. The issue can be resolved by private property rights.

The company or retailer who is selling it could face a fine. People can purchase it and download it from overseas, which is a cheaper means of buying games anyway. No one is prevented from playing it. Just selling and promoting it.

If it's possible to purchase on-line and download, then why have ANY committee at all?

 

[Michael]

Bells haven't you seen his arguments previously that the reason health care costs so much is that we have licensing requirements. In his ideal world anyone would be allowed to call themselves doctor and do anything they want and if the patient died well that's the free market.

To some degree yes, this is correct.

However, and this is a big however, no one is allowed to legally pretend they are qualified. Qualification would of course be a MAIN PART of any Free-Market. People LIKE having insurance, insurance likes paying people who are qualified to do the work. See how this is coming together? Anyone pretending to be Qualified would be legally liable as FRAUD. There's really nothing new in what I'm suggesting. This is how medicine (and all other professions) were practiced for hundreds, in some cases thousands, of years - and it worked BETTER.

The fact is a free-market with laws and sound money produces high quality products - including medicine, healthcare, medical services and technology.

 

[Rav]

Banning a game, or a movie, does nothing more than make it a tiny bit more difficult to play, or see. In fact when I hear about a film that has been banned in Australia (and there have been a few) I typically make a point of acquiring it so I can see for myself what all the fuss is about, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one. The situation with games is similar. Saints Row IV is definitely going to make it to our shores after it has been censored enough to appease the classification review board (it's available for pre-order on Steam and has merely been delayed), but now I really want to see for myself what all the fuss is about it. So I'll either be on the lookout for a patch that restores the original content (the creation of which certainly wouldn't be unprecedented) or I will acquire an uncensored version of the game through other channels.

Many people will.

 

[paddoboy]

Last year I read that statistically, ~1 in 25 Australia MD's practicing are considered incompetent and ~1 in 73 are sociopaths. Are those good or bad odds? Maybe they're good, maybe they're horrible. We'd only know if we had a free-market, but we don't.

.

You need to be educated in making sure what you read is reputable and above board. Although the Internet will prove to be mankind's greatest ever teaching/Learning aid, even little Joe Blow down the street, knows that it is also full of outrageous crap.


You really need to take that Aspirin and have good lay down I recommended a while back. The rambling gobblydook you're posting is getting rather stupid.

FLASH!!!!!

As I write this and listening to the arvo news, a report from the US has just come though about a young 16 year old US boy deciding to go out and find out what it was like to shoot someone...He has hopped into a car with some mates and randomly shot dead an Australian basketballer over there, playing with one of the top US sides.

I suggest you offer your time and energy to your country of birth, and the terrible gun culture that afflicts that nation.
Who runs the US?...The government or the National Rifleman's Association? sheesh!


A quick update on the news bulletin:
He was an Australian baseball player and was shot in a thrill killing in Oklahoma state.....

 

[Bells]

Last year I read that statistically, ~1 in 25 Australia MD's practicing are considered incompetent and ~1 in 73 are sociopaths. Are those good or bad odds? Maybe they're good, maybe they're horrible.

You tell me. You train them.

We'd only know if we had a free-market, but we don't.

Professor of emergency medicine and associate dean for health policy at Emory University School of Medicine, Dr. Arthur Kellermann gave an amazing example of the dangers of the free market system you are so fond of:

Kellermann still remembers the young mother of two who came into his emergency room more than 15 years ago, suffering from a hemorrhagic stroke.

"We worked for 90 minutes to save her life, but basically she had burst a blood vessel in her head. She didn't have a chance," he says. "She had no health insurance, and when the money got tight, she had to make a choice — she could either buy the groceries for her kids, or she was going to buy the three blood pressure medicines she had to take every day."

Sadly, Kellermann says, for less than the cost of that futile, 90-minute effort in the ER, the woman could have had all the blood pressure medication she needed for the rest of her life. It was not a government bureaucrat who decided she should forgo treatment until it was too late — it was her own lack of health insurance that led her to make that choice. ​

So would the poor be relegated to the sociopaths? Or the incompetent doctors?

I think of it like this: I had a very good student ask me for a letter of recommendation to medical school. She's much better than some of the students who got in (there's only so many places). This means she has spent 6+3 years of her life preparing for medicine and now will have to do something else. This is a huge waste of resources and time. Her parents paid in over $100,000 worth of private school education. She's paid in probably $20,000 herself in higher education. ALL for NOTHING. What a massive inefficient waste of time, energy and resources. Another student's 'dreams' crushed. To bad too, she'd have made an excellent doctor. This is the story of hundreds of thousands of Australian students - each and every year.

Good at what? Are you saying her grades were not high enough to get into medical school?

Under your free market system, one would only need to have money to get into medical school, like this girl. Who had the money but obviously not the grades.

Now, you could say: Bad Luck. That's what I hear Aussie's say.
In the same breath they like to say "fair go" and "fair dinkum".

In Australia, you need to have the required grades to get into courses. And her having money does not guarantee a place in medical school. That is 'fair dinkum' to those who did better than she did, money or no money.

I know enough about the system to know this is far from a fair go. A real fair go is free-markets. AND as 'crazy' as that might sound *gasp* someone do something without a NannY! *GAASP* 80 years ago there actually was a free market in medicine and people had affordable healthcare. I know you think the ONLY way we could possibly train medical doctors is through the State - but I know different. ANY group of humans can self-organize to develop medical training (or any other training). And a free-market would ensure the best possible training institutes produced the best possible medical doctors. If you think that's happening now, I'd implore you to think of Public Housing. Sure, you may get one or two people who genuinely do care about public 'service' and will do their best. Those few usually get burned out and leave. Time are actually going to be getting a lot tougher for medical doctors and prices will be going higher. Expect to see more and more of the good ones left, getting out of public practice to private in the coming years.

Under your system, one would only have to have money.. To get into medical school and to access health care services. Tell me, in the best possible institutions that would produce the best doctors, would the girl without the grades have gotten in?

Exploitation is immoral and illegal - it's not possible to legally sign a contract (or even agree to an unwritten contract) with impaired judgement. Thus, a formal argument would take into account this. You can't get someone drunk or slip a drug into their drink and then say they 'legally' agreed to such and such contract. You can't trick a mentally handicapped person into signing a contract and then taking their car or house. And you can not take advantage of a child via pornography for the exact same reasons. Children do not have the mental aptitude to legally agree to this sort of contract. It's why we refer to them as 'Children'.

As for a cartoon depiction of children. This is aesthetically repugnant. That's a question of aesthetics as no actual human is involved. If elements in society are this broken as a human to regard children in such a manner - one may want to ask how they became that way. I continue to press the case for peaceful logical parenting - however, as we speak 85% of parents are still legally hitting their children. I'm of the mind that these children grow up into adults that like cartoon depictions of violence being perpetrated against children. The real solution is to stop the real violence and by this means the cartoons will vanish as society won't be so broken as to produce the adults who are interested in that.

So in a free market system, how would you get parents to stop the violence? How would you stop the "real violence"? With regulation? How would you get the 85% of people to stop smacking their children? Laws?

The irony of this paragraph of course is that you are complaining about a nanny state and demanding a free market system, yet you are also pushing for a ban on violence and violent cartoons would follow...

I've already made it clear I do not think Passports are moral - all humans should be allowed to travel to any and all areas of the planet. The issue can be resolved by private property rights.

Right...

If it's possible to purchase on-line and download, then why have ANY committee at all?

Free market system - choice.

You can't buy it off the shelf, but you can download it from overseas. There is no ban on playing the game, just selling it.

So your ranting and raving is kind of a moot point. You'd be best served signing the online petition of gamers who actually do make changes to the laws (the R18+ classification only came about after gamers petitioned and pushed for change, instead of spending their time whining).

 

[Michael]

In Australia, you need to have the required grades to get into courses. And her having money does not guarantee a place in medical school. That is 'fair dinkum' to those who did better than she did, money or no money.

Her marks were better than 96% of the class - of which included 33% advanced medical students.

To get into the advanced medical program, if you're in QLD, then you'd need to score OP1 and within OP1 rank at least 99.75. Most of the top students come from QLDs elite private schools, such as Boys Grammar which requires a $500 a year placement holder from grade 1 - just to have your child's application of admission viewed.

Needless to say, the system is stacked in favour of the wealthy. Most of the medical students are highly paid to tutor high school students in private colleges. The parents figure, you got in - get my kid in.

The girl I mentioned went to a private school - it wasn't an elite school, but it obviously cost her father (a detective) a chunk of his savings. I'd consider her middle class.


As for your example of so-called Free-Market. We do not live in a Free Market. Not in the USA. Not anywhere. The USA has a HIGHLY regulated healthcare market rigged against the customer - Americans pay twice as much as English and have equivalent health. Does that make any sense to you? DO you find ANYTHING in the free semi-market (smart phones, airline tickets, cars, etc...) where you pay TWICE as much and get less? Imagine paying $3000 for a laptop that everyone else is paying $1500 for - and finding out that the reason why the laptop cost to much is ONLY due to that fact the market is highly regulated to reduce any and all competition selling laptops.

No one would suggest this is a free market.

It's no surprise the surgeon in your example thinks he lives in a free-market, very few people (from Professors to Bankers to Bartenders to Teachers) realize they live in a Progressive Fascist State. Americans actually believe they live in a free-market, the truth is exactly the opposite. Although, as the Elite top 1% get bailed out, I think some of thr 99% are beginning to question what they were normalized to believe. We'll see if the tide turns - although, I doubt it.