House Passes Internet Poker Ban

[The Dowager Mod]

Typical conservative decision "if it's fun ban it".

[Citizen James]

I'll admit there is a nanny state aspect to this.  After all, if a person is foolish enough to  trust that their offshore operation of choice actually  participates in 'fair' betting (at least according to  standard rules of probability as you would get with real and fair cards, dice, etc.), then I suppose it could be argued that they are every bit as liable for their stupidity as those who trust Nigerian bankers.

Still, I can understand concern about money leaving the American economy to far less than savory characters - which would range from the merely greedy and corrupt to terrorist cells and comunist warlords.

I would however not be opposed to an amendment that excluded certain offshore buisnesses in nations (such as the UK) where gambling operations are well regulated.

[jerusalemcar5]

It even passed the Democratic caucus.  Disgusting.  How did our country elect 317 fascists?  At least we can still have a claim at being democratic since there were 76 Democratic noes and only 17 Republican noes.  I am most surprised by Bernie Sanders, though.  I thought he was a good guy.

[Virginian87]

It even passed the Democratic caucus.  Disgusting.  How did our country elect 317 fascists?

Since when does opposing gambling equate to fascism?

I am most surprised by Bernie Sanders, though.  I thought he was a good guy.

If you think a self-declared socialist is a good guy...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I enter into a consensual agreement to risk X amount of dollars for a potentially higher return, then there is no victim.  Sure, I might have a family, but how would that be different from any other way I could spend my money? 

I don't agree with the idea that just because someone consents, then that person cannot be a victim (and as I suspect that you do agree with that idea, there's no point in me arguing with you over this. And vice versa). I'm also not sure how consensual an agreement between an addict and somone providing something that he is addicted to is.

---
Jerusalem: I would think that Sanders backed this because he's a good Socialist, not in spite of that fact.

[Lunar]

If I enter into a consensual agreement to risk X amount of dollars for a potentially higher return, then there is no victim.  Sure, I might have a family, but how would that be different from any other way I could spend my money? 

I don't agree with the idea that just because someone consents, then that person cannot be a victim (and as I suspect that you do agree with that idea, there's no point in me arguing with you over this. And vice versa). I'm also not sure how consensual an agreement between an addict and somone providing something that he is addicted to is.

I don't subscribe to the philosophy that "if we don't agree, we shouldn't challenge one another's beliefs."  I'm going to ask a lot of questions here.

Your argument is that a consenual agreement isn't necessarily victimless because it has a chance to be, in your view, a non-consensual agreement.   This line of thought confuses me.

So, let's push into the issue of addiction.

1.  Everything is, has been, and will be addictive.  Should we punish gas station owners for selling cigarettes to nicotine addicts?  Some people are psychologically addicted to low-quality TV shows and others are addicted to chocolate.   Some people waste away in front of computer screens addicted to cybersex or video games while their family eats Top Ramen noodles.

The bright line, I suppose you'd argue, is the damage it can do to the person.   A person could gamble away their house.  However, a person could play video games instead of getting a job to feed his family too.  However, again, at some level you cannot stop people from doing stupid things.   You can inform them of the exact risks involved, but someone that irresponsible with their money can simply find another way to blow it away.  It seems hypocritical to outlaw arbitary forms of risk-taking but not others, codified naturally by what activities you (or politicians) do and do not engage in.

2.  Do we trust politicians to protect us from ourselves?  Do we just give that power to the government?  I hate to use alarmist anarchist rhetoric like "government" to describe every single sentence.  You can just as easily substitute the word "society" in every sentence. 

Anyway, the point remains.  It seems ridiculous to outlaw anything that we could be compulsed to do from some inward force.

3. Punishing people who choose to gamble responsibly for mild entertainment or career purposes is absurd.  Most people who gamble aren't addicted.  This is like outlawing cars because some people drive too fast or drive intoxicated. 

4.  I challenge your notion of addiction.  Everyone is psychologically inclined to certain behaviors.  As long as there is no misinformation about the risks involved, that person still has the same positive/negative scale we all use whenever we make a choice.  Some people have stronger psychological inclinations than others, and this does impact their choice calculus.

I know all about addiction trust me.    Physical addiction to a chemical, for example, is an interesting concept where certain receptors iny our brain are replaced by that chemical instead of what your body naturally produces.  Psychological addiction can become physical very easily.   However, even the most addicted heroin addict can still decide not to do heroin for his or her own good.  It'll feel like death, but that option remains, and they are not a "victim" if they decide to inject again since they made the decision with full knowledge of its consequences (usually).  Haha, here I go talking about drugs again, but they are naturally linked to addiction.

[Lunar]

I'll admit there is a nanny state aspect to this.  After all, if a person is foolish enough to  trust that their offshore operation of choice actually  participates in 'fair' betting (at least according to  standard rules of probability as you would get with real and fair cards, dice, etc.), then I suppose it could be argued that they are every bit as liable for their stupidity as those who trust Nigerian bankers.

Still, I can understand concern about money leaving the American economy to far less than savory characters - which would range from the merely greedy and corrupt to terrorist cells and comunist warlords.

I would however not be opposed to an amendment that excluded certain offshore buisnesses in nations (such as the UK) where gambling operations are well regulated.

So, we should just outlaw people from wasting their money overseas?  When I travelled to Europe, I bought some beers that really didn't do anything for the American economy.  To add to my list of vague questions on this thread:

What exactly, would your criteria be for declaring something "damaging to the economy", and thus worthy of limiting liberty for?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your argument is that a consenual agreement isn't necessarily victimless because it has a chance to be, in your view, a non-consensual agreement.

Actually that isn't my argument; I don't think that an agreement between a man who is addicted to a certain thing and another man who supplies that thing to the man is genuinely consensual, but that has nothing to do with my views on when someone is or is not a victim.

I disagree with the idea that if someone consents to something, then that person cannot be a victim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps. Some things are far, far more addictive than others though. And equally, some additions are more harmful than others.

To answer some other points of yours here, I'm not really the punishment type.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm generally more concerned about how it affects other people. This is the case with gambling a lot more than most addictions (although just in case you don't know this, I don't support banning gambling).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such a person is somewhat unlikely to have a family to feed in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I know that. I don't support legislating against stupidity (although it would be nice to, maybe, have gross stupidity as some form of civil offense for which there is no punishment. Ah, I have an odd sense of humour...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please don't call me a hypocrite. I'm more-or-less teetotal, but I don't support banning alcohol. I don't use banks (my money is in a building society), but I don't support banning those. I don't have a car, but don't support banning them. I don't smoke, but I don't support banning tobacco. I don't smoke Cannabis, but I support making it legal to do so. And so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a democracy, yes (more or less). And if we do not like a particular government, it get's thrown out.

I understand that you don't like democracy though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you support making murder legal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the punishment type. I also hate utilitarianism.

I'm not going to respond to that stuff about addiction for personal reasons.

[Rob]

Was anyone really surprised by this? This is George W. Bush's America, after all. But the margin it passed by is an absolute disgrace, and the Democrats who voted for it can go f**k themselves.

The freedom fighters who opposed this travesty get points from me, regardless of party.

[Citizen James]

I'll admit there is a nanny state aspect to this.  After all, if a person is foolish enough to  trust that their offshore operation of choice actually  participates in 'fair' betting (at least according to  standard rules of probability as you would get with real and fair cards, dice, etc.), then I suppose it could be argued that they are every bit as liable for their stupidity as those who trust Nigerian bankers.

Still, I can understand concern about money leaving the American economy to far less than savory characters - which would range from the merely greedy and corrupt to terrorist cells and comunist warlords.

I would however not be opposed to an amendment that excluded certain offshore buisnesses in nations (such as the UK) where gambling operations are well regulated.

So, we should just outlaw people from wasting their money overseas?  When I travelled to Europe, I bought some beers that really didn't do anything for the American economy.  To add to my list of vague questions on this thread:

What exactly, would your criteria be for declaring something "damaging to the economy", and thus worthy of limiting liberty for?

I suspect that they aren't to happy about "sex tourists" like opebo who support the child prostitution trade.  Actually, I suppose they could do the same sort of thing with that - prevent payments by American banks and credit agencies to international orginizations and vendors known or strongly suspected to engage in child prostitiution.

I suppose you could get a slippery slope from there, as congress is really only permitted to regulate commrice within the US.

I'll admit I have a lot more outrage over the children who are degraded for the amusement of degenerates than I do about dimwits who allow themselves to be conned out of their money by international hucksters; but I am open to the idea that the state is at least allowed to protect it's most naive citizens from their most foolish choices.

And, as always, there's the question of who benefits - are they just the typical con artists, or a front for more sinister groups?  I suppose you could argue that there is really no problem if you buy opium from the Taliban, as long as you don't try and take it home with you there is really no crime.


Devil's advocate.

netas si hsub.