Blizzard is not guilty for World of Warcraft addicts!

A video about one of the WoW addicts. According to joystiq it is these kind of “news” that cause the violence. But, whose fault is it that people become addicts? Is it Blizzard? Or the game itself? Or is it someone else’s fault?

If a parent of a fat child decided to file a lawsuit against a baker who makes such tasty bread, and a butcher who sells meat, because his kid is addicted to these, that would at least be considered silly. But when such a parent decides to sue McDonald’s, even though the principle is the same, the act is praised in the media.

Similarly, if a parent of a child who plays chess a lot sues the maker of a chessboard, it would be considered silly. But when a parent of a child who is addicted to World of Warcraft decides to sue Blizzard, then he meets with the approval of psychologists and mass media and the so-called intellectuals. Nonetheless, these people are too dumb to realize that the principle is the same in all of the above cases – or better said, the same principle is being violated.

World of Warcraft is probably Blizzard’s greatest success. It is played by roughly 4 million people worldwide. Not only are these people willing to pay for the game itself, but also the monthly subscription required so that they may play on-line – the only way it can be played anyway.

As with anything, people can exaggerate in playing this game. They often do. According to the video, 40% of them exaggerate. These people are mostly kids. There are some pathological cases that lose their jobs over it and such. But mostly, they are kids. In the video, we see the mother of a 16 year old crying and sobbing over how much her kid plays this game. In the news, we se parents suing Blizzard because so many people get addicted to the game. A gifted child, the video says, killed himself because he wanted to see the heroes of World of Warcraft in the afterlife. His parents are suing too.

In this scenario, there are many things that have gone wrong. First of all, there are no grounds on which to sue Blizzard. Blizzard has created a great game and as such should be praised, not condemned. There are 2,4 million players that are happy this game exists. They have spent their free time on this game, rather than all of it, and have had lots of fun. On the other side, there are the troublesome ones – the 1,6 million who have no life and all they ever do is play World of Warcraft. They are the ones whose mothers are sobbing over, who lose a job to a game, who play for 36 hours straight and then, naturally, flip. Clearly, the problem is not the game – for there are 2,4 million people who live happy lives with it. The problem is not Blizzard either, unless one would consider success a problem. The problem is, as it always is – failure. The problem are those 1,6 million failures who have naught to do with their lives but play games. And if within those 1,6 million failures there are mainly kids, then the problem are their parents too.

The first barrier to those parents is that they would not admit it that they are the problem. They cry and sob and they blame Blizzard, but they take absolutely no action to make such insanity stop. For crying out loud, people, when your kid is playing WoW too much, why don’t you simply unplug the router? If the game is really what the 16-year-old from the video says – like going out with friends, only over the Internet – then unplugging the router would be the equivalent of grounding a kid that spends too much time in the disco. An appropriate further action would be selling the computer and reducing your kid’s allowance. Forbid him to go out of his room. Stop paying internet bills. Take away his plastic cards and hide your own. Don’t pay his monthly subscription to the game. There are a million ways to prevent your kid from playing World of Warcraft, and that is not by suing Blizzard. Furthermore, admit to yourself that, since your kid got addicted to a game, you haven’t shown him that there are better things in life, i.e. you’ve been a lousy parent. Especially if he dares to say that playing a game is his own choice. If it truly is, then I suppose your kid is also the one earning and paying for it?

And finally, there are parents who are suing Blizzard because their kid killed himself over World of Warcraft because he wanted to see his heroes in the afterlife – who planted the stupid idea of an afterife in that kid’s head in the first place? Why didn’t those parents start actively raising their child, rather than let him go with whatever stream caught him? And now they still blank-out on the fact that it’s their own fault for what happened to their child and instead of rethinking their error, they are making another one – suing Blizzard.

The principle is always the same – if you have a problem, then it is your problem. Suing somebody because you have a problem won’t help you solve it. Also, there is no such thing as “Internet addiction.” It’s fiction invented by those who wouldn’t admit themselves they have a problem. There are millions upon millions of people who use the Internet every day, and they do it with moderation. Only drugs cause addiction, not Internet – because if the Internet caused addiction, then every person with a modem would be an addict.  In short, the so-called addicts are misusing the Internet – or World of Warcraft – or whatever other thing they are said to be addicted to. By the same principle, a chair would be misused if you sat in it 24 hours a day. These things were not meant to be raped with use, they were meant to help you. The fact that this overuse happens, shows that people who overuse them – rather than owning things – are being owned by things.

Wild Capitalism does not exist!

Ayn Rand, founder of the philosophy of Objectivism, proponent of Laissez-faire Capitalism. It is normal for her critics to promptly forget some part of her philosophy in order to criticize another, especially if the criticism is negative. Image from this site.

Out of curiosity, I’ve searched one of the croatian Internet portals of what it “knows” about the known author Ayn Rand, founder of the philosophy of Objectivism and the person who built upon the philosophy of reason (started by Aristotle). Search engine spat out an article entitled: “Pitt and Jolie will act in a movie anthem to wild capitalism?” I was not surprised that Ayn’s name was connected with capitalism, for she was a strong proponent of laissez-faire capitalism.

The name “laissez-faire” comes from french “Laissez nous faire,” which means “Let us alone.” It was a response of one of the french businessmen named Legendre to a finance minister who asked him what he can do for them. However, I was interested how one could connect this fictitious concept of “wild” capitalsim with the name of Ayn Rand.

There was no explanation, which means the adjective “wild” was arbitrarily added to what Ayn Rand fought for.

What is today known as wild capitalism, for one, is no capitalism at all. What is referred to as “wild capitalism” is, in fact, a slow disintegration of all social systems and a collapse towards complete anarchy. If it can be called a social system, then it is one where all or most men who have political influence try to take as much money as possible for themselves, with no regard for ethics and the long term consequences. The reason they can do that is because they are the ones making laws which suit them.

In true capitalism, political influence is an unknown term. Economy is not meddled in by politicians (which is the true meaning of “Laissez nous faire!”). This means that in an ideal laissez-faire capitalism there are no taxes – the government is compact and efficient because it is being financed by means of voluntary taxes (nobody is forced to pay them), conflicts solved at court and by organizing its own lottery. Its mission, contrary to the popular idea that the task of politicians is to build up the economy of a country, is the protection of the rights of individual from bullies, both domestic and foreign. American economy was built, strenghtened and fortified by businessmen – individuals, not politics – and today’s politicians are dismantling it. Thus, capitalist govenment consists only of the police, the courts and the army – there are no ministries and countless ministers and government offices throughout the land which hand out various blessings (for example, so that an individual may build something on his own land).

Since it is financed by voluntary taxes, it is the government’s imperative to be quick and efficient in its work. It means that courts must be quick in solving their cases, and the enemies threatenning to destroy the country must be subdued as soon as possible, and by endangering as few of its own men as possible. Such a government has no time to suck up to the world as the american government is doing today in regard to the war on Middle East. Its primary goal is to protect its own citizens. As such, it pays off to certain individuals to pay voluntary tax to his country’s government, purely for his own protection.

The government itself is controlled by the people it governs. The principle of the democratic elections might be changed a bit, but that is still largely a theoretical discussion as a government like it never existed. But, while in such a society people try to choose the most efficient government, today in reality people choose the government which gives more promises. If these promises are not fulfilled, then the people go out on streets and demolish and protest, while an inefficient government of laissez-faire is punished by witholding the voluntary donations, which makes a larger source of such government’s financing. This means that the government will have to step down or it will have to start taking its job seriously.

This is the kind of capitalism Ayn Rand was talking about. How similar is this to what is today known as wild capitalism? How similar is it to that instance when the politicians sit on their comfortable chairs at the top of the nation and decide whom to prosecute next for the crimes they will invent; or when they decide whom to secure the monopoly and whom to destroy and remove from the market by means of their political influence; or when they couldn’t care less that the courts do not function at all, as long as they have something which fills their pockets; or when they do not care that the people they govern go through Scylla and Charybdis only to get the permit to build a home on their own land, on their own property and with their own money; or when it does not matter that they suffocate their citizens with ever increasing taxes; or when they hypocritically give fictitious rights to various groups of people, at the expense of those who will never enjoy these rights and they are forced to pay them no matter what? How much do you think the basic principles of laissez-faire (and these are the individual rights) support what people call wild capitalism? Not at all!

Fort Knox is believed to be the instrument which stabilized American economy, while in fact it plunged it in a constant state of flux, and caused the great depression which started in 1929. Photo by Kevyn Jacobs.

Capitalism is being blamed for many alleged evils in the history of mankind. I will only mention one, and this is child labor. Capitalism, contrary to the common belief, is not guilty for it. Children worked because they brought much needed income to their families. They sought work at the request of their own parents and not by being forced to work by the employer (which is a story that many cartoons today are trying to sell to children who watch them). In fact, it was capitalism that created conditions which made it possible for children to stop working! Capitalism shortened the workday from more than 15 hours to a mere 8, and created greater efficiency and brought larger paychecks. If you take a look at history, particularly American history, you will see that most of the companies which today are blamed for the greatest evils of capitalism, in fact had some significant political influence. In laissez-faire this does not happen. An example of this are the great four and their Central Pacific Railroad.

Therefore, wild capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing does not exist. It would be closer to the truth to say that it is socialism, which cannot be sustained as such, and just as well as this so-called wild capitalism, it sinks towards anarchy slowly but steadily. You might even hear politicians talking about wild capitalism and how they condemn it in public and how wild capitalism is our grim reality. However, none of them will try and do something about it, or it will take a really really long time. The reason is simple – they profit from it. In capitalism, there is no such thing. Political influence and corruption are plagues brought to us by communism and socialism, and the only way to deal with them is to introduce the rule of law, not of men. And when speaking of the rule of law, then we speak of the laws protecting individual rights, thus I am speaking of capitalism.

It is clear then that the greatest proponents of a system that is falling apart will defend themselves from capitalism by telling lies about it. The saddest thing is that many of today’s intellectuals are incapable of seing through these lies, so then they write articles such as I found, where laissez-faire is said to be the same as the greatest fraud of the proponents of socialism. It is said to be the same as something that doesn’t and couldn’t even exist; as something that is contradictory in its essence – wild capitalism.