Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
EXACTLY... WTF is up w/ this country??
it's getting more sickening everyday.
This will just open up third & forth party sites that handle the money flow. And then the US will just loose more money to other countries running casinos. Maybe i should throw up a site that makes a pretty proxy for casino idiots?
*bleh Support the US pirate party so we can get somebody with the mental capacity to make internet laws.
Kill your TV
Most of the freedom loving, american, libertarian crowd would say people should be allowed to ruin their lives but I think that is incorrect.
/., sadly after that you lost me.
You had me there, I'm always happy to see people attack libertarianism on
The State exists FOR the people, and not visa versa. As said before me, we invest in the State, and not visa versa. I do agree with your premise, but your phrasing needs some work to be less objectionable. The state does exist to look out for the populances well being, but calling this an investement has scary ramifications, it switches the means and ends. The PEOPLE (meaning their freedom, happiness, and safety) are the ends of the State, and the State is but means for a collection of individuals to achieve the personal ends of freedom, safety, and happiness.
While gambling can lead to serious problems, it also can be a harmless distraction. I find it a bit hypocritical that gambling would be allowed on thousands of indian reservations, and places such as Nevada, but not online. What makes gambling "over-here" okay, but not "over-there"?
We must carefully analyze this, since I have a feeling that this is just a territorial law, not an law based on maintaining the level of individual happiness as a whole. Gambling here, and there, have the same effects on society, and for the most part those taxes from gambling here do not go towards treating gambling (which in itself would be rather odd).
Also we must call responsibility here, isn't it the individuals free choice to choose to gamble? Addiction aside, they still choose to log on to getrichquick.com, go to Vegas, or their local tribal casino. And wouldn't this just be more "Nanny State in action" legislation? Reducing individual responsibility for their actions, and thus reducing the freedom of the individual?
Tax it, don't tell the goverment we need more Big Nanny actions.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Congradulations. You got what you wanted. You imagine yourself safer with no factual basis. Other people are harmed, but you don't care that they are harmed. Actual harm to them results in a supposed benefit to you. And that's all that matters.