Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4611)	3/17/2005 12:27:37 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

Hopefully this bill will die - Bill Holds Game Makers Liable for Violence Washington state considers dramatic legislation. by David Adams March 2, 2005 - A bill under consideration in Washington state would hold videogame developers accountable for violent acts ostensibly inspired by a particular game. Currently under review by the state legislature, House Bill 2178 would hold game retailers and manufacturers accountable for "injury or wrongful death" committed by a person under age 17, if the game "was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged" the perpetrator. While the bill is still in committee stage and far from becoming law, its dramatic interpretation of criminal responsibility reflects growing concern and controversy about the effects of violent video games... pc.ign.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (4611)	3/18/2005 7:51:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

reason.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (4611)	3/24/2005 2:22:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

"Some state that the burden is on the free marketeers to show that regulation does not work. I disagree." From an interview with Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase by Reason magazine: Reason: You said you’re not a libertarian. What do you consider your politics to be? Coase: I really don’t know. I don’t reject any policy without considering what its results are. If someone says there’s going to be regulation, I don’t say that regulation will be bad. Let’s see. What we discover is that most regulation does produce, or has produced in recent times, a worse result. But I wouldn’t like to say that all regulation would have this effect because one can think of circumstances in which it doesn’t. Reason: Can you give us an example of what you consider to be a good regulation and then an example of what you consider to be a not-so-good regulation? Coase: This is a very interesting question because one can’t give an answer to it. When I was editor of The Journal of Law and Economics, we published a whole series of studies of regulation and its effects. Almost all the studies–perhaps all the studies–suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been. I was not willing to accept the view that all regulation was bound to produce these results. Therefore, what was my explanation for the results we had? I argued that the most probable explanation was that the government now operates on such a massive scale that it had reached the stage of what economists call negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up. But that doesn’t mean that if we reduce the size of government considerably, we wouldn’t find then that there were some activities it did well. Until we reduce the size of government, we won’t know what they are. Reason: What’s an example of bad regulation? Coase: I can’t remember one that’s good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture– agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad. catallarchy.net reason.com