3 ms·

If what you want is a "Warning, this game may be addictive" every time you load the game, then fine. But I do not think the government should be passing hate t

If what you want is a "Warning, this game may be addictive" every time you load the game, then fine. But I do not think the government should be passing hate taxes on things they don't want you to do. People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar, and they're very likely to be going for animal based products at some point. I don't think it's the government's job to control the populace. They can force companies to make risks clear, but if the consumer accepts the risk, that should be that.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar Where is sugar being regulated as tightly as tobacco?
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  I'm talking about the hate tax. It's not nationwide yet, but you see more and more people pushing for one every year.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    A tax is hardly comparable to heavily restricting sales and making it completely illegal to buy or consume for under-18s. ("Sin tax" is the popular dysphemism, BTW.)
    - ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
      In my post I agreed with basic regulation, but against hate taxes. >But I do not think the government should be passing hate taxes on things they don't want you to do. People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar, and they're very likely to be going for animal based products at some point. I'm just confused what you're arguing (and why it led to this post being downvoted). I didn't compare tax to consumption under 18.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> They can force companies to make risks clear, but if the consumer accepts the risk, that should be that. It doesn't solve anything when the problem is with externalities and prisoner's dilemmas. Taxes on sugar and smoking can be argued on the grounds of increased load on national heathcare, at least in countries with publicly-funded healthcare. Taxes (or rather, pulling back on subsidies) on meat can be pretty strongly argued as effective means of reducing emissions and slowing down/mitigating climate change. Almost all situations where externalities are the problem share the exact same pattern: "it would be better if nobody did X, but since everyone does X, why should I stop and deprive myself of the value X gives me?". Personally, I came to believe that the job - perhaps the main job - of the government should in fact be to act as a central coordinator, to prevent citizens from falling into emergent prisonner's dilemma-like traps. As for regulating gambling and smoking and many other things you can see as "limiting freedom" - it's not like an individual decision leading to self-harm is always, or usually, an unique situation. Gambling isn't a random event, it's an exploitation scheme perpetrated fully intentionally by other people, who have literal textbooks describing the best way to fuck their fellow men and women over. It would be a pretty inhumane government that didn't take an interest in curtailing this.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  You giving justifications for banning food really just proves my point. Tyranny of the majority, if that faction should ever become the majority. With gambling there exists the chance you can bet your last $20 and make enough to pay off your debt. I don't think anyone is planning on getting rich off Idle Heroes.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

> People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar Where is sugar being regulated as tightly as tobacco?

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
I'm talking about the hate tax. It's not nationwide yet, but you see more and more people pushing for one every year.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  A tax is hardly comparable to heavily restricting sales and making it completely illegal to buy or consume for under-18s. ("Sin tax" is the popular dysphemism, BTW.)
  - ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
    In my post I agreed with basic regulation, but against hate taxes. >But I do not think the government should be passing hate taxes on things they don't want you to do. People mostly agreed when it came to cigarettes, now they're coming for sugar, and they're very likely to be going for animal based products at some point. I'm just confused what you're arguing (and why it led to this post being downvoted). I didn't compare tax to consumption under 18.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> They can force companies to make risks clear, but if the consumer accepts the risk, that should be that. It doesn't solve anything when the problem is with externalities and prisoner's dilemmas. Taxes on sugar and smoking can be argued on the grounds of increased load on national heathcare, at least in countries with publicly-funded healthcare. Taxes (or rather, pulling back on subsidies) on meat can be pretty strongly argued as effective means of reducing emissions and slowing down/mitigating climate change. Almost all situations where externalities are the problem share the exact same pattern: "it would be better if nobody did X, but since everyone does X, why should I stop and deprive myself of the value X gives me?". Personally, I came to believe that the job - perhaps the main job - of the government should in fact be to act as a central coordinator, to prevent citizens from falling into emergent prisonner's dilemma-like traps. As for regulating gambling and smoking and many other things you can see as "limiting freedom" - it's not like an individual decision leading to self-harm is always, or usually, an unique situation. Gambling isn't a random event, it's an exploitation scheme perpetrated fully intentionally by other people, who have literal textbooks describing the best way to fuck their fellow men and women over. It would be a pretty inhumane government that didn't take an interest in curtailing this.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
You giving justifications for banning food really just proves my point. Tyranny of the majority, if that faction should ever become the majority. With gambling there exists the chance you can bet your last $20 and make enough to pay off your debt. I don't think anyone is planning on getting rich off Idle Heroes.