Gamers Tend to Be More Libertarian, According to Survey

[Scorpid]

The only party worse than republicans are Libertarians. The welfare system of modern governments is a monument to good government can do for people that need help the most, any parties platform or standard bearer wants to completely destroy it will never have my vote. Any that voter that is causally dismissive of welfare because the only thing they know of welfare is buzzwords like "welfare queen" and all their knowledge stems from that stigma don't have near enough knowledge to vote for any candidate of any stripe.

 

[AgedGrunt]

The entire reason we're having this debate is because we know just how badly "the market" would handle things if left to their own devices.

Libertarianism is not without a government role. Limited government does not mean zero government. Leaning government down to an essential role is not a difficult concept.

When it comes to something that might actually affect them personally, we get to see how "libertarian" gamers really are.

When it comes to something that actually affects people, we generally get to see how people, at a base level, are looking out for themselves. That's why so many tend to not care or listen to problems in the world until it's something that upsets their world, such as their Internet connection.

It's still hilarious for people to be told how much they might have in common with this ideology that's so beleaguered with leftists who swear by its inequality and unfairness.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Oh yes and to get on topic- Libertarianism is abselutely horrible and the people behind the survey quite clearly just wanted to draw some voters by saying (Hey, We're just LIKE YOU!) Except- far from it.

 

[Kataskopo]

I'm against stupid regulation. I'm in favor of sensible regulation that improves the life and wellness of people. Because, you know, that's the whole point of the government.

Also, is that libertarianism thing something new from the US?I don't recall reading about "Libertarianism" a few years before, but now I see them all the time, like whenever same sex marriage is being discussed, suddenly there's this guy that will say "let's get rid of marriage altogether!" Ehm, no.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I think calling them Libertarian is a bit of a long step.

Government regulation on video games generally translates into censorship, because those politicians who talk about video games are always grabbing for the worst possible solution because they have no fucking idea what video games are or how people interact with them. In their crusty little minds video games are some kind of brainwashing device that makes you want to kill hookers and become homosexual.

Now, government regulation that bans micro-transactions...

 

[chadachada123]

Hardly surprising, given the way our hobby has been attacked incessantly by governments, in addition to being far more educated on (at least in America) government abuse. Skepticism or even distrust of government is quite reasonable.

(Fun fact: Scientists are WAYY more likely to be libertarian than the average citizen, and almost definitely atheists as well. Every single one of my friends that got a degree in a hard science are both, myself included)

Also, is that libertarianism thing something new from the US?I don't recall reading about "Libertarianism" a few years before, but now I see them all the time, like whenever same sex marriage is being discussed, suddenly there's this guy that will say "let's get rid of marriage altogether!" Ehm, no.

Are you actually suggesting that marriage SHOULD exist as a legal institution? It only got really pushed in the US to ban inter-racial marriage to begin with, and is now being used to ban same sex marriage. We should just abolish the whole thing and stick to taxing based on residency and children, not an arbitrary definition that varies heavily from state to state yet includes literally thousands of tax/etc benefits.

(Another part of it is that it punishes/discriminates against single people, too).

So, yeah, libertarianism/Libertarianism largely involves questioning whether or not a particular institution should exist at all, with the goal being to limit it where possible. (This should be obvious, considering the vast majority of murderous dictators gained their power legally or, after gaining power, used their government's expansive power against their own citizens. The larger the government, the bigger the possibility of abuse).

 

[Kataskopo]

Are you actually suggesting that marriage SHOULD exist as a legal institution? It only got really pushed in the US to ban inter-racial marriage to begin with, and is now being used to ban same sex marriage. We should just abolish the whole thing and stick to taxing based on residency and children, not an arbitrary definition that varies heavily from state to state yet includes literally thousands of tax/etc benefits.

Well, a great deal of laws and policies around the world are based on the idea of a family, concepts like parents, spouses and the like.

So I think that a gigantic amount of laws would have to be changed around the world if you want to remove marriage as a legal institution, and that's just ignoring that it's a millennial tradition that has been observed in basically every society around the world.

Also, are you talking only about the US? Because in most countries laws are determined by the government, with small changes between states, if any.

I don't really get why is it bad to have marriage as an institution. It's a legal framework based on the idea of monogamy and family, which is a basic unit in society. I don't have anything against other types of unions, but I would think that most families are like that.

So really, what are the benefits of removing marriage? Besides, it's considered a human right by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there's that detail.