New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I'm guessing an electron microscope?

 I agree with ratings because that helps parents determine what's in the game having not seen it just like movies.  When I was young I knew I would never get to see a restricted movie until I was old enough.  That was ok with me.  My mother put limits on what television shows I could watch because of the graphic, horrific nature of them. I had a bedtime until I was 16.  I wasn't allowed to date until then.  Most rules I followed, some I didn't and I accepted the consequences if I knew I was going to deliberately break them.

When a child is a minor, it's the parent's responsibility to protect them because they are the individuals who set limits that children need and want even if they are not consciously aware.  Most parents should know their child's limits unless they are totally clued out and not paying attention to their development.  I will agree with you that some kids are more mature than others when it comes to the graphic scenes and violence in video games, but you can't assume that for everyone.

As for the 'free society' notion, if that's the case then bootleg copies of video games would readily be available at a lower cost or free without punishment, just so to be inclusive of everyone and companies developing them wouldn't care about loosing money.

Your using 'free' in the Libertarian sense... a functioning society has to have limits in order to continue to call itself a 'free society' and that's meant mostly in the marketplace.  

For example, I'm going to use the current economic and banking system as a simile to parenting v. immature wants that usually comes with childhood as a result of excellent marketing.  

Because of a lack of regulations in the 'free economy' the American mortgage companies started loaning out to whomever they wanted despite of their knowing their clients couldn't afford those loans (they encouraged the gimme gimme, instant gratification of 'want', I can handle this).  As a result their clients couldn't make payments and defaulted on the loans in a catastrophic way.  The banks loaning the mortgage co.s the money couldn't get their money back and like dominos other banks fell across the world and shut down because there was no money to pay the bills.  Once there is no money to loan, then new businesses can't start nor can exisiting companies call upon a bank for a loan to run their business, make upgrades to their business or pay their employees.  Once the company can't function they close down, causing a lose of jobs.  Once people don't have jobs, if they are parents they don't money to buy video games...

Do you see how this 'free society' in the 'free economy' that wasn't properly regulated in the first place caused so much chaos because of a few irresponsible mortgage lenders and banks?  It doesn't mean all banks are irresponsible but look at what those that were did to the worlds economy!

Now think about it in terms of gaming.  There are irresponsible parents out there that don't give shite about what their kids get themselves into and give in to whining and begging to satisfy childish wants instead of setting limits that ends up causing society harm or themselves & their kids harm in some way.  Call those limits regulations if you will.  

 Exactly.  Who's to say that something is only suitable for an 18 year old.  It's a subjective, personal opinion.  Sure, they try to standardize it to make it less subjective, but still, the ones who really know whether or not something is suitable for their kids are the parents.  

It's for this reason that the ratings should be guidelines.  Saying that no one under 13 should ever see a movie or play a game that has been given a minimum age rating of 13 years is just dumb, as different people view and experience things differently.  Same thing with R ratings.  However, this doesn't mean you should let some 12 year old go in to buy something rated for an adult, but you shouldn't force this practice as a law.