Slashdot Mirror
Legal Online Gambling May Return to US
According to a story on News.com, legal online gambling may return to the US. The ban, put into place last year, is now in jeopardy thanks to the efforts of folks like Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee. Frank is of the opinion that adults should police themselves for excessive gambling, and the government should stay out of their way. "Friday's hearing included witnesses from companies that process online payments. In general, they echoed the arguments once used in favor of ending alcohol prohibition and that are now being invoked to decriminalize marijuana: It's better to legalize, tax and carefully regulate an industry than let it flourish with far less oversight in the black market. Some countries already do just that. In the United Kingdom, for instance, Internet gambling is legal and strictly regulated. Some of the larger online casino operators are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange. "
While Frank is a policy wonk, and usually tries to find reasonable solutions to real problems unlike many of his colleagues, I can't help but wonder who is paying for this.
It's kind of interesting to see the Bush Administration in favor of restricting commerce, while Barney Frank (a Democrat) wants to allow a freer (albeit still heavily regulated) market.
From TFA:
""In the end, adults ought to be able to decide for themselves how they spend the money they earn themselves," said Rep. Barney Frank"
Yeah, about that. You see Mr. Frank, you arrange the taking of a very large percentage of the money I work hard to earn every year, and you decide how it should be spent for me. So if you could go ahead and look into that while you're at it, that'd be great, mmmkay?
So it takes online gambling to get Barney to come around? Looks like someone must've spent a lot of time playing online poker.
... what's the problem? Our government tried to outlaw a "sin" in the 20's with a Constitutional amendment, and had to repeal it because it was unpopular and unenforceable. I never thought outlawing it was a good idea anyway. I could care less about online gambling personally, but I am a recovering alcoholic and could certainly see how life would be a little easier if there was no booze anywhere around me. But that will never happen, just like a complete eradication of online gambling will never happen. It's just not practical, and I honestly question whether it's ethical anyway. Besides, it's up to me to stay quit -- not the government.
I happen to like Barney Frank a lot -- he's often the no-BS guy in a flock of honking geese in suits worth more than my car. And sometimes he's an arrogant jerk. But I rarely feel like I'm getting the D.C. sugar-coating treatment from him. So perhaps I'm biased. But still, I just don't see that this is a bad thing.
In a free society, people are responsible for themselves (and their children). If they can build a boat here in Illinois (we can't have land-based casinos, but we can have permanently docked unseaworthy boats -- go figure) where people can freely walk in and piss away their money, why should this be outlawed on the Web? It's a silly, unenforceable, and reactionary law that deserves to be repealed. The Reverend Lovejoys of the world had their year or two of cleanliness on this one, and it's time to go back to rational laws about things that the government should be focused on.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The side effect would be the companies selling the drugs, just like the cigarette companies today, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to the mafia or a street gang.
"GAMBLING IS A SIN" would only equal "NEEDS A MAN MADE LAW" in a Theocracy. I think a good portion of following the teachings of the Bible is that it should be something done out of free will, not a requirement of the state.
We are all just people.
That's why they want to enforce their local monopoly, um, I mean encourage people to play the lottery. If they had banned the lottery, vegas, etc when they banned online gamboling, it would have at least been consistent. As it is, there's no doubt that the government is just looking for more money. So they'll be happy to allow internet gamboling if they can regulate and tax the bejesus out of it, like every other legalized "sin".
It's the heavy taxation and strict regulation I am opposed to. These are all things that should be controlled entirely by private citizens. Good old capitalism can handle these problems and there is no more justification for government regulation than any other industry.
Here is a wild thought, instead of trying to micro-manage every industry where businesses could endanger the health of individuals with poor standards or swindle individuals we start making the executives and investors in ALL businesses criminally liable for the actions. If food or drug processor took an action that harmed or endangered people then the ones who made the call should go to pound me in the arse prison. The same is true of casinos that use rigged machines that constitute fraud. Right now a company can use a dangerous chemical that will hurt people to cut corners and make hundreds of millions doing so. IF they get caught, the worst they face will be a few million in fines and lawsuits and probably will make a net profit on the affair. Even if they break even they will profit from the practice overall since any punk kid can tell you that the cops don't even know most crimes happen let alone catch the bad guys. If you make white collar decision makers subject to the same sort of consequences as the hungry crack addict on the street you can bet the decisions they make will reflect that.
Aside from enforcing criminal law, the only time the government needs to interfere with industry is fix the fundamental flaw in the free market. The flaw is of course companies that are too large to allow real competition. Of course single company monopolies aren't the only problem that needs to be solved, it is common practice now for several supposed competitors to collude in a manner that has the same effect as a monopoly. In both of these situations it is necessary for the government to step in and the right to property has to be considered secondary to the interests of the nation as a whole.
Its more to do with this ban being an illegal act under the WTO rules, with two judgements against the US and the threat of sanctions and fines. As has been reported before, US companies could lose international IP protection via Antigua if something isn't done.
The US HAS to move, otherwise Microsoft faces legal copies of software and Hollywood faces legal movie copies. It was always a stupid law, an illegal law - now there is a scramble to save face.
The biblical prohibition against gambling is derived from several places, even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Coveting, which the bible does explicitly mention, is condemned, and gambling to get rich, or any so-called get-rich-quick schemes for that matter would definitely fit that bill The bible also says that a person is supposed to work for what he gets (condemning laziness and expectations that the world owes one something). Finally, it advises to not put stock in worldly wealth, pointing out that people that love money have seriously misplaced their priorities in life and are unlikely to ever be satisfied unless they change their values.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As far as I know he didn't personally protest at any funerals. But he was one of only three senators that voted against an act who's sole objective was disallowing protests at military funerals.
Now I'm a big 1st amendment supporter, but I'm also of the belief that one persons freedoms should stop when they directly infringe on the right of someone else. and holding a loud hateful protest at a funeral where people are trying to grieve for their loved one definitely falls under that category.
IOU one (1) signature
It's very nice and refreshing to wake up on a saterday morning, read Slashdot, and find out American politicians with a sane view on reality actually still exist. Completely independent of the fact if you like and/or approve of online gambling, softdrugs, alcohol, etc. this is the only way to reduce their harmful effects to a minimum, regulate them, and still respect the choices made by individuals.
I don't know much about Ben Frank's other political views, but he definitely seems more pragmatic (as opposed to dogmatic) than most high-profile US politicians I know of. I think that's a good thing. Where I come from (the Netherlands), the attitude against for example softdrugs, smart drugs, alcohol and other possibly harmful things people can do to themselves is comparable, and from 27 years of experience I can tell this has lead to lower softdrugs usage than in the countries surrounding us, less health issues, less drugs-related crimes etc.
Funny thing is, the Dutch government still has a really stupid and dualistic stance on (online) gambling. Online gambling is specifically prohibited here, as is organising (for example) small-scale poker tournaments etc. The *only* institution that is allowed to offer legal gambling opportunities is 'Holland Casino', which is a government-controlled (but still commercially exploited) casino that has a monopoly on all things related to gambling. This includes, for example, all variants of poker, even though the most popular variants don't even qualify as gambling. Now, over the last few years, playing poker has become a real hype here. Lots of people play it now, and they want to play tournaments against different opponents. What's happening right now, is that small-scale 'illegal' poker tournaments (with buy-ins in the $10-$50 range, or $0.5-$2 cash games) get busted every now and then, and the people entering and organising them are criminalised. This has lead to more people finding their ways to 'Holland Casino' for playing poker, which only offers tournaments starting at $100 buy-ins, or $5-$10 cash games. Just yesterday a study was published that showed a lot of dutch students have gambling debts from playing poker on limits that are way too high for their skills...
And the bible doesn't say drinking is a sin either. It has some warnings about drinking too much, but it doesn't say anything is wrong with drinking in moderation.
But you should enslave, murder, rape, and pillage to excess...
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
People who claim that Democrats are, or are becoming libertarian are wrong. This is a base political ploy to gain the support of Libertarians. I happen to think there are good reasons for Libertarians to hold their noses and stand with us Democrats in the next couple of years, but I also believe that, in the words of our party's founder, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" behooves us to be honest when we solicit that support.
Democrats are not libertarian in the sense that Libertarians use the word. Democrats don't subscribe to the "negative" theories of liberty in which liberty is precisely an absence of government constraint. We have a more utilitarian view of liberty in which opportunity plays an equal role. This means we support interfering with the freedom of the powerful when it constrains the opportunity of the less powerful. Most of us recognize that opportunities will never be equal in society, and in fact for most of us equality of outcome is not a goal; but where the physical well being of the median person can be improved; where that person has the ability to better himself through education or culture; where greater scope of action can be offered through greater opportunity -- there we have no problem taxing people or acting to balance the liberties of the powerful against the liberties of the average person.
For example, our philosophy doesn't have a problem limiting the number of broadcast outlets an individual can own in a market. If somebody has a soapbox, we are happy to see him use it. But also see no problem in denying him the right to buy all the soapboxes in town if that would pose a problem for the average person in getting his voice heard. It's purely a matter of utility for us.
This is a divide in philosophy between us and Libertarians that cannot be bridged.
At first glance, it's hard to see any consistent philosophy in the modern Republican leadership. It alternately talks a libertarian game, then paternalistic, then authoritarian. They also are anti-elitist when it comes to every virtue that does not touch on power or wealth: they are particularly hostile intellectual or education distinction. This alone makes them a pratical enemy of the principled Libertarians.
The most consistent explanation of Republican policy seems to be that they, like the Democrats, subscribe to a utilitarian combination of negative and positive liberties. The difference is that the liberties they favor are for the deserving. The deserving are by definition those that can obtain, hold and wield power, or who are useful to those wielding power. Aside from the lack of economic or political egalitarianism, the Republican political philosophy operates much like the Democratic political philosophy. This explains why it is so easy for a Democrat like Lieberman to become a crypto-Republican. The imperative of holding on to power is a corrupting influence.
So, overall, I'd say principled libertarians have little reason to trust Democrats, but very good reason to distrust Republicans. Democratic ideology is incompatible with libertarianism, but it is restrained (in principle) by political egalitarianism. There is one positive reason for libertarians to support the Democrats in the short term: the increasing fusion of private economic and state power. This is a fundamental principle of fascism, and if allowed to continue on this route much longer our country will become a de facto fascist state. Democrats are not immune to this, as I pointed out. Nobody is. But at least we Democrats in principle oppose this fusion. The blogosphere, for all its faults, may give the Democratic party activists some ability to pull our wavering politicans from the brink.
In my opinion libertarians will have little opportunity to sway the course of events from within their own party, not until they can capture at least one Senate seat. If they could capture one in 2008, and if the Senate remains about as divided as it is, the Libertarians would become very powerful i
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.