Slashdot Mirror
US Outlaws Online Gambling
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
Funny how the Republican Abramoff machine that took bribes to protect casinos against new competition is still cranking out its legislation product, even after Abramoff is headed to jail. Maybe they're just hedging their bets in case they get jailed for protecting Republican boy rapists.
Why the "cause celebre" of the lobbyists who paid to elect Bush and his Republican Congress being passed by them surprises anyone is the only mystery here. Or is it pure "chance", according to some coincidence theorists?
--
make install -not war
You're a MORON. Just because you disapprove of the law doesn't mean you have the right nor the moral obligation to violate it at will. The law was created by a legal government with which the people have agreed to a social contract for the past 230 years. You do NOT have the right to opt out, otherwise everyone would opt out in their own selfish interest and the world would revert to a state of war of all against all that Hobbes predicted.
Your libertarian garbage has been tried repeatedly in idealized communities with upper-class people (so you can't blame the masses for their failure) and has failed horribly each time. Locke would puke if he saw what you wrote. It's funny how far people have perverted his views.
Sure, violate the law in your own "moral judgement." Then go to jail, and suffer all the shit that goes on in the big house, and the vast majority will neither care nor empathize.
On the contrary, that's precisely what it means. No one gets to legitimately obligate anyone else by fiat. That is based in English common law (and Roman law before that.) It predates US law and is still the basis for it. I can't sign you up for a loan, and you can't sign me up for slavery. Further, the government can't sign me up for anything either, except by using coercion, because I do not consent. Does the government use coercion? You bet. Each and every day.
(A) no it isn't, (B) I don't, and (C) the laws are not a consequence of the "belief of the masses." Our current laws are a consequence of a very small group of people who are completely out of control, in gross and extreme violation of their charter, essentially owned by corporations and PACs, and generally lower than pond scum.
Now, these may be people that you want to control your life by virtue of some imaginary nonsense you've cobbled up, but I decline. I do respect the power they wield and I am wary of it, and modify my behavior so as to not get caught in the gears, but that is in no way indicative of any respect I have for the government itself. Only its weapons and coercion have my respect, because frankly, they're the only things the government can offer that are worthy of respect.
I'll do what I choose to do. That'd be because you have absolutely zero input on my choices. Are we clear?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The problem here is that many people think if it is lawful, it is "OK." Similarly, many people think that if it is unlawful, it is "not OK." This is simply self-deception.
It is not OK to burn down your house, presuming only that you have not burned down someone else's. Your right to swing your fist ends where the next person's nose begins. That principle arises more or less immediately in the attempt to get along in units of multiple individuals, no matter how you characterize the unit. That is one of the basic human rights; it uniformly works towards harmony, supports effort sharing, privacy, and much, much more.
Similarly, you don't get to coerce me into doing things on your behalf I do not wish to do, because you are effectively "swinging your fist" by using coercion. And of course, vice-versa; I don't get to do this to you.
If we can agree that we should pursue a shared goal in some manner, that's fine, and our behavior should be governed by the form and extent of our agreement.
This is how I expect a society to be able to progress. Shared mutual interests. Shared mutual respect. Mutual agreements. The problem with a government of coercion is that there is no "mutual" characteristic, there is only force. Your agreement is not required. Hence, the ethics of the government are bankrupt.
On the other hand, tolerating a government like the US government is how I expect a society to regress. And unsurprisingly, that is exactly what we see today. Habeas corpus? Vanished. Right to speedy trial? Vanished. Torture? Order of the day. Privacy? Gone. Ex post facto revisionism and double jeopardy? Business as usual. Corruption, particularly financial, in government? Uniform and extraordinarily deep. Right to representation? Gone. Land and and monetary and property grabs? You bet, no problem, and no recourse. Suppression of the ability to pursue happiness (specifically, happiness that does not trample other person's toes)? Of course. Devaluation of currency? You bet — that dollar you hold is backed by trillions in debt, which means that every time you use it, you are devaluing your work and work product to a degree you can't even comprehend (which is why most people can't see the problem, of course.) This government has invaded other countries, utterly failed to deal with numerous problems at home that it is chartered to deal with, stepped all over literally thousands of issues it has absolutely no charter to legitimately be involved in at all (like marriage, drug use, mutual wagering etc., the government regularly lies to our faces about its goals, activities, and past performance... and sure, I could go on and on.
The government was constituted as a servant of the people. That was intuitive, cleverly done, and well thought out. Unfortunately, paper is not much of a controlling element, and the government has mutated itself into the all-powerful mother of the people, and mom is a frigid, grasping old hag with fangs, bad breath, and endless debt that sucks the very life from her (forcibly) adopted children.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.