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."
What about the RPGs (Puzzle Pirates being the example that comes to mind first) that allow gambling within the game?
Money can be funneled in via purchases of credits/dubloons/tokens, which can then be used in gambling on games within the meta-game. I use YPP as an example because it just recently added poker to its arsenal, although it's had multiplayer gambling for years (especially in tournaments, where you don't even have to convert the dubloons into anything to use them as prizes).
Granted, the dubloons in YPP are meant for purchases of items such as clothing and swords, but they COULD still be used for gambling...
Idiots but for another reason.
This is a very interesting item as far as globalisation is concerned because a number of countries where gambling is a major industry have filed a WTO case against the US for restricting free trade. More specifically it is related to stopping credit card payments to entities in these countries by Visa and MasterCard. Any congress intervention before the WTO proceedings are complete is putting the US on a deliberate collision course with the WTO.
Also, it is a classic case of double standard. Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK. And god forbid if it is against the beliefs of the taleban elders.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Actually, I think "the land of the free" is an intellectually dishonest catchphrase, in general.
We all would love to live in a Land of the Free. It implies we have absolute control over our own actions, and "there ain't nobody that can tell us what to do!" Reminds me a lot of that feeling you get when you turn 18 and start flipping the bird to all and sundry.
The problem is that our actions, when taken in public, can have an effect on an awful lot of people. Riding without a helmet? Great. When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin. Ditto with seatbelts, only now you may have 4 people in comas for the rest of their life, and the cost increases dramatically.
If there was no monetary pain to me, at all, because you didn't want to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, go for it. After all, it is your life. If you can ensure that I don't have to pay a cent more because you want to risk it, I'm all for you not wearing helmets or belts. Or, rather, I'm all for your freedom to do as you wish. It's not my fucking job to keep you alive. I may tell you you're stupid and to put a seatbelt on, but that's just freedom of speech. It's not like you have to do what I say.
Drugs and gambling are somewhat similar, but subtly different. The only downsides to these: people, due to their dependence upon either, breaking the law and stealing shit to fund their habit. The subtle difference is that, the act, itself, does not DIRECTLY (or as-closely-indirectly-as-seatbelts-do) cost me any money. I mean, the justification for outlawing drugs is a: social (we don't want drug use in our community), which is, in my opinion, the antithesis of a "free" community, or b: financial (we don't want drug users stealing our stuff), which, in my opinion, has some grounding. But the problem is that the habit, for all of its power over the person, is too indirect, in my opinion, to be banned. Example: if I'm a billionaire, and I want to sit in my mansion all day and do coke, who the fuck are YOU to say that's wrong? it's my life, it's my house, and I'm paying for it with my own money. Right there, whether you agree with drug use or not - doesn't matter. It's about freedom. Ditto with gambling. But when a crackhead steals my bike to pawn at a pawnshop to finance their need, I tend to get a wee bit pissed off. With that said, I'd probably be just as pissed off if it was just a bunch of punk kids on a dare. Or a hobo who thought he'd take up cycling for unspecified personal reasons. So really, in this instance, it's not the drug use, or gambling, that is bad, it's what people CAN do to finance it. Which is, in my opinion, a separate issue. They may be linked, but they're not one in the same. If you're Michael Jordan and you want to gamble away crazy moneys in Poker, go for it. You've got the money, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. But if you steal something of mine, then you're a thief, and you need a swift kick in the teeth.
Prostitution is way different. That's just the moral police acting like the world will end if they don't "protect the people". I'm old enough, thanks. I can think for myself. Are you going to protect me from credit card debt, too? No? Then shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Legalize prostitution. Tax it. Spend that tax money on setting up education programs for prostitutes. If they have a pimp who is abusing them, protect them. Mandate monthly checkups. STDs.
Nanny state, true. In some ways. However, sometimes your freedom to do something impinges on my rights. In that case, maybe a law is in order. Maybe it isn't. That's what public debate is *supposed* to be about. Instead, it's just a bunch of boiled down, trite sound bites strung together to rally the masses. Phooie.