When the conservative movement was growing exponentially in the 1960s, one of the early foundational ideals held by its members was the belief in limited government. Conservatives argued that private individuals should be allowed to govern and rule their own lives, with the government existing solely for the purposes as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Conservatives in the 20th century were staunch defenders of limited government, willing to risk political gain in the name of constitutional defense. Yet a new breed of "conservatives" hold the reins now, and they are driving the movement in an entirely different direction.

The neoconservative movement, which gained some prominence in the 1960s and 1970s as Democrats who were unstatisfied with their own party sought an alternative, is in essense the middle ground between conservatism and liberalism. While it advocates the conservative morality in regards to foreign policy (see NSC-68), the commitment to limited government is generally non-existent. To paraphrase historian Victor Davis Hanson, neoconservatives are merely liberals with guns. This mindset has been the driving force behind many "conservative" ideals of the past two decades, most notably those advocating government regulation of entertainment.

In a recent E-Alert to their supporters, Parent's Television Council advocated government regulation of video games. A California bill being considered would prohibit the sale or rental of "violent video games" to minors 16 or younger. The bill defines said games as such:

TITLE 1.2A. VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

1746. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Minor" means any person who is 16 years of age or younger.
(b) "Person" means any natural person, partnership, firm,
association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal
entity.
(c) "Video game" means any electronic amusement device that
utilizes a computer, microprocessor, or similar electronic circuitry
and its own monitor, or is designed to be used with a television set
or a computer monitor, that interacts with the user of the device.
(d) (1) "Violent video game" means a video game in which the range
of options available to a player includes killing, maiming,
dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if
those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either of
the following:
(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would
find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon
images of human beings or characters with substantially human
characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or
depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the
victim.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions
apply:
(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a
high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the
victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing
or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by
torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted
in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of
torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from
other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable
amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a
substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain,
substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function
of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse,
unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the
abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must
specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the
victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the
abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically
intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or
suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
(3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in
a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include
infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that
necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's
body, and helplessness of the victim.

This bill further contends "the state has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and antisocial behavior, and in preventing psychological or neurological harm to minors who play violent video games." Parent's Television Council encourages it's supporters to support this bill and others like it around the country, suggesting "The entertainment industry is fighting this bill and others like it around the country with piles of cash in the name of first amendment rights. What they are really doing is protecting their corporate bottom line by selling despicable acts of violence and depravity to children."

The problem with all of this? The Parent's Television Council wants the government to regulate what is in the best interests of their children. This is the same principle that many conservatives and Christians protest every day. Conservatives are staunch defenders (for the most part) of the right for parents to homeschool their children or send them to private schools. Yet these same parents are willing to give the government the right to police what their children are allowed to do. Is it not the parents jobs to protect their children from what is right and wrong? If parents are willing to cede these rights to the government then they must be willing to come to terms with the fact that the government will carry the precedent to its logical and unwanted conclusion.