Slashdot Mirror
Push To End Online Gambling Ban Gains Steam
The Washington Post updates a story we discussed last spring about a push in the Democratic-controlled congress to legalize some forms of Internet gambling in the US. "Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers. ... The federal government, which rarely prosecutes online gambling, would net billions of dollars in tax and licensing revenue if it were legalized, proponents say. ... The outlook on Capitol Hill, however, is uncertain given a slate of unfinished business... [and] nervousness among Democrats about November midterm challenges. ... [A politically conservative poker player said] 'There's a part of the party that always believes this isn't something people should do. But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue.'"
"So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?"
They are not the same, Equities are investments, I don't know of any gambling site that pays dividends, do you?
"flipping houses" is more in line with gambling but that's the fault of the house flippers, buying a place to live is what buying housing is supposed to be for, the house can be used in myriad of different useful ways. But allowing legalized gambling with what are essentially criminals what exactly does that add to society?
So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?
Kind of a straw man, eh? A key feature of gambling against the house is that, over the long run, the house will always take its cut. The more you play, the more you lose. Not all risk-taking involving money is like that - you can make tons of money in the stock market, for example, if you do it right.
It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).
I also had more available cash to "gamble"
A fairly common event in the lives of addicted gamblers is to gamble cash that you don't have available. Since you'd be bankrolling yourself with credit cards rather than really shady loans, you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.
you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.
Yeah, but at least Vinnie can't get Uncle Sam to bail him out when he makes a series of stupid decisions and runs his business into the ground.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).
No guarantee, but there are plenty of safeguards. The two biggest online poker sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt, each take colluding very seriously and if a player suspects something, they are encouraged to report it. With respect to one person playing several seats, there are also ways to detect and prevent that too. The above two risks you mention are very minimal and not really something to worry about at all.
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved: you are supporting constructive industry, whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your "bet" in the market.
I suggest you research financial futures trading, commodity futures trading, currency futures trading, all of which are legal and no different than betting on whom gets three queens, and re-evaluate your position. Also if a company is not issuing stock, but is paying its $0.5M/yr exchange fee, its not necessarily constructively making money, not all that different from selling bonds or taking out a commercial loan and paying interest, could be constructive but not necessarily, nor is it the only way to raise money for constructive purposes.
Hey, I sell a bumper sticker that says "if electricity comes from electrons, what does morality come from?"
I like that. Google shows you're not alone. We can have nearly identical beliefs yet given dramatically different input data, get opposite conclusions. That's not indicative of a philosophical difference as you originally claim.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Maybe one can argue that at least with speculation you're putting that money in the hands of small (or large) businesses that might do something with it, instead of casino or online gambling where you're just putting money in the hands of organized crime. Even when it's legal it's really the same types running it (just look at Vegas or Atlantic City).
Unless it's Indian gaming, maybe we should make a law that allows reservations to run online gambling websites. It would make about as much sense.
I read the internet for the articles.