Weigh The Merits Of The Online Gaming Legislation

[tryptout 0]

[Note: I've edited the op because it's just not clear that I'm not an anti-gambling wingnut, and well, it apparently came off kind of pompous.] Can we have a reasoned discussion about the legislation?Just keep in mind that reason in politics calls for one to recognize and bracket out one's own personal interests in the course of the deliberation. In other words, though you might have personal financial (or just recreational) interest in online gambling, try to proceed in a disinterested way and really look into whether restrictions might have merit. Also in the interest of reasonable discussion, it would help to avoid terms of absolute evil, i.e., let's agree not to get caught up in questions of whether gambling - in and of itself - is evil, sinful, or any other such. It seems worth inquiring into gambling in social terms, and asking whether it constitutes a social good, or in fact is a socially destructive activity. Here are some reasons - in terms of social good arguments - that people might propose for restricting online gambling. I'm not attached to these reasons, nor is this an exhaustive list. The reasons that occur to me are:1.) It can lead to personal ruin. Desperate people run up debt. They spend inordinate amounts of time in ever-more pathetic attempts to recover losses. They commit desperate acts seeking a way out. These people's lives and their communities are negatively impacted. I don't want my brother losing his money online, because his ruin is going to hurt me when he asks me for money. I don't want my neighbor losing his money gambling online, because his ruin is going to hurt me when he breaks into my car, or when he can't pay his mortgage and his house is sold at firesale prices. I don't want my friend losing money online because I'll miss his company when he starts spending more time chasing his money. I don't want to absorb the psychic pain of any of these losses. 2.) It leads to personal and collective aggrandizement of undeserving individuals. Many people who are otherwise without talent, education, or socially constructive attributes become winners in the online gambling arena. They promote a lifestyle of leisure and narcissism to impressionable members of the social body. They lure others, who do have talents, education, and socially desirable attributes, to the world of gambling. I want my nephew to look up to intellectuals, authors, humanitarians, world leaders, not poker players (as much as some of them might pretend to be something more). I want my neighbor's son to pursue his architecture degree, not drop out of college to 'go pro'. 3.) Gambling produces nothing; all of its activity produces no social good. Engineers build bridges and dams and levvies. Newspaper reporters inform the public. Gambling might employ people in its infrastructure, but it produces nothing. This point is woefully lost on some of the superficial Objectivists (is there any other kind?) who've been going around citing Ayn Rand on the importance of free markets in opposition to the Frist legislation. Anyone who's ever taken the time to consider Objectivist positions knows that there is supposed to be an enduring social good - one by which individual activities will be judged. Newsflash: gamblers are judged harshly against these standards.4.) Taxes. Why should the U.S. allow the fruits of so much commerce generated in its borders be shipped directly out? 5.) Time spent gambling online could be time spent pursuing further education, attending a PTA meeting, teaching someone to read, talking to a friend or family member, finding legitimate channels of political participation (seems to have been no problem once the precious online gambling got threatened).That's just some reasons off the top of my head why making online gambling more difficult might not be such a bad idea. I actually do make money playing online poker. But, as I said, I'm trying to think outside of my own narrow interests, in terms of the social good. You might see parallels with the way many people think about drugs. I'm with the people who say that drugs aren't inherently bad. Yet, the damage they do to individuals, families, and communities; the lost productivity that results from use and abuse; the misalignment of priorities that occurs in the community of users; the costs that result from recovery that are incurred by non-users - all make pretty compelling reasons why drug use should not be allowed to flourish. Personal freedom is important, it's valuable. Free markets are great. Personal freedom and and unregulated markets are simply not the absolute cornerstones of democracy that some people talking about the recent legislation claim them to be. I think that the legislation touches on some very important issues in the both the Classical and Enlightenment tradition around the connection between the values of a people on the one hand, and its laws on the other. 'You can't legislate morality' is just a facile way of distorting this rich thread of thinking in the tradition. Another way to approach the issue might be to conduct a kind of thought experiment: if you were designing a society from scratch, would you allow online gambling to flourish? Would you allow it at all? How would you regulate it, tax it, etc ?

[chrozzo 19]

1.) It can lead to personal ruin. SO does smoking .2.) They promote a lifestyle of leisure and narcissism to impressionable members of the social body. Welcome to America 5.) Time spent gambling online could be time spent pursuing further education, attending a PTA meeting, teaching someone to read, talking to a friend or family member, finding legitimate channels of political participation.The world needs ditchdiggers too...

[Balloon guy 158]

The world needs ditchdiggers too...

I once sent a boy younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. Felt I owed it to him.

[chrozzo 19]

I once sent a boy younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. Felt I owed it to him.

thats too bad

[tryptout 0]

So what are you suggesting Chrozzo when you say that smoking also leads to personal ruin? Are you saying that if the federal government allows smoking, then it should, in the interests of consistency, allow online gambling? Local governments have been able to compensate somewhat for the social costs of smoking by charging high "sin taxes" on cigarettes. Insurance companies pass the costs of smoking back to smokers. The society at large has been made aware of the dangers of smoking, and several public interest groups have successfully lobbied to decrease the incidence of smoking in the media. Further, tobacco companies are still subject to regulation and oversight and still subject to due course of law in U.S. courts. They've paid out some enormous settlements over the past 10-15 years. If you're pointing to poltical facts, ie, that tobacco lobbies make it possible for smoking to continue in the U.S. or that land-based gaming interests might have been instrumental in the Frist legislation, let's leave that aside for now. To be clear: Frist is an ambtious pompous ***. His grandstanding during the Schiavo affair was shameful. In this case, he's disengenuously linked the legislation to terrorism. Further, Politico-social conservativism is a rather messy jumble of ideologies. They just love personal liberty when it comes to owning guns, but don't like it when it comes to online gambling. That shouldn't impede an honest evaluation of whether online gambling should be allowed to flourish without restraint as it has.

[keith crime 8]

I think that the legislation touches on some very important issues in the both the Classical and Enlightenment tradition around the connection between the values of a people on the one hand, and its laws on the other. 'You can't legislate morality' is just a facile way of distorting this rich thread of thinking in the tradition. Rousseau's Social Contract is one easily readable source on this, and Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws is another.

Wow this dude could be the most intelligent poster on FCP ever - or a really annoying twit who wants to tell me how to live my lifemy guess is the latter

[tryptout 0]

It's asking a lot to have you consider the merits of any legislation restricting online gambling in the U.S. I'm inviting you to have a substantial conversation. I didn't say that I wanted to tell anybody how to live his life. That's not the point. Or to be perfecly clear: I don't support the legislation. In fact, I'd like to open up and examine the idea that personal freedom is an ultimate good, against which any proposal must be measured. The texts I mentioned, and that you quoted derisively, are just some influential modern ones that examine the issue. If you like, forget about texts. If you care to participate in the discussion, then just propose some thinking or honestly and respectfully respond to someone else's. If not, well then this wouldn't be the thread for you. Thanks.

[keith crime 8]

The texts I mentioned were a haughty attempt to call attention to how smart I am

FYPAbout drugs, about alcohol, about pornography, whatever that is. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those of you out there who're having a little moral dilemma in your head about how to answer that question, I'll answer it for you - none of your fu cking business. Take that to the bank, cash it, and go **** ing on a vacation out of my life. - Bill HicksSee isn't that much better than quoting Rousseau?

[tryptout 0]

FYP

I'm not sure what your problem is. Do you hate discussion? Some people, it might surprise you, actually refer to what others have written when they address the world in front of them. The Frist legislation opens up, to me, very important issues about the relation between a people's mores and a people's laws. That's something that I'd like to explore if the discussion were to get off the ground. In some circles, citing a text is not a way of 'sounding smart,' but of a way of marking out a field of inquiry. This is not one of those contexts, though I'd hoped that citing the texts might actually kind of mark it as such, if you see what I mean. Are you done now?

[chrozzo 19]

So what are you suggesting Chrozzo when you say that smoking also leads to personal ruin? Are you saying that if the federal government allows smoking, then it should, in the interests of consistency, allow online gambling? Local governments have been able to compensate somewhat for the social costs of smoking by charging high "sin taxes" on cigarettes. Insurance companies pass the costs of smoking back to smokers. The society at large has been made aware of the dangers of smoking, and several public interest groups have successfully lobbied to decrease the incidence of smoking in the media. Further, tobacco companies are still subject to regulation and oversight and still subject to due course of law in U.S. courts. They've paid out some enormous settlements over the past 10-15 years. If you're pointing to poltical facts, ie, that tobacco lobbies make it possible for smoking to continue in the U.S. or that land-based gaming interests might have been instrumental in the Frist legislation, let's leave that aside for now. To be clear: Frist is an ambtious pompous ***. His grandstanding during the Schiavo affair was shameful. In this case, he's disengenuously linked the legislation to terrorism. Further, Politico-social conservativism is a rather messy jumble of ideologies. They just love personal liberty when it comes to owning guns, but don't like it when it comes to online gambling. That shouldn't impede an honest evaluation of whether online gambling should be allowed to flourish without restraint as it has.

i was just staing that smoking leads to personal ruin....much of the timethats all, plus the smoke bothers me

[tryptout 0]

Ok, so nn response to your edit - which is a kind of libertarian extreme, no? - I would ask you to respond to the thought experiment - if you were desigining a state from scratch and were ultimately responsible for its flourishing or its demise, would you allow all the things that you mentioned there?If so, in what manner? Completely unrestrained? Your absolute limit is when something done by one causes harm to another - then there is restraint?

[keith crime 8]

I think I speak for us all when I cite the eminent doctor Theodore Geisel who once famously wroteYou do not like green eggs and ham?I do not like them, Sam-I-am.I do not like green eggs and ham.I could not, would not, on a boat.I will not, will not, with a goat.I will not eat them in the rain.I will not eat them on a train.Not in the dark! Not in a tree!Not in a car! You let me be!I do not like them in a box.I do not like them with a fox.I will not eat them in a house.I do not like them with a mouse.I do not like them here or there.I do not like them ANYWHERE!I do not like green eggs and ham!I do not like them, Sam-I-am.You do not like them.So you say.Try them! Try them!And you may.Try them and you may, I say.Sam!If you will let me be, I will try them.You will see.Say!I like green eggs and ham!I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!And I would eat them in a boat.And I would eat them with a goat...I do so likegreen eggs and ham!Thank you!Thank you,Sam-I-am!

[DonkSlayer 1]

Ok, so nn response to your edit - which is a kind of libertarian extreme, no? - I would ask you to respond to the thought experiment - if you were desigining a state from scratch and were ultimately responsible for its flourishing or its demise, would you allow all the things that you mentioned there?If so, in what manner? Completely unrestrained? Your absolute limit is when something done by one causes harm to another - then there is restraint?

Hey Trypt:The legislation didn't pass in a vacuum of society. It passed in modern day USA. You could've replaced "online gambling/poker" in your original rant with several other items, some considered more of a "vice" than others, and your words would ring true to certain ears every time. Online poker is not the place to start your social revolution.

[tryptout 0]

Hey Trypt:The legislation didn't pass in a vacuum of society. It passed in modern day USA. You could've replaced "online gambling/poker" in your original rant with several other items, some considered more of a "vice" than others, and your words would ring true to certain ears every time. Online poker is not the place to start your social revolution.

DS - Please don't misunderstand my intent. I'm not trying to start any kind of revolution. I'm barely advocating a position. I just offered some reasons (true it was kind of longwinded - - posting snafu) off the top of my head why people might support restrictions in order to open discussion.What kinds of vicious activities do you have in mind to replace online gambling in the reasons given? Drugs? Anything else? Do you think that drug use is a fititng analogy to gambling? Some people would say that the logic by which drugs are considered vicious also largely applies to gambling. Why is anything considered vicious in the first place? Is it simplistic to associate 'vice' with social costs? You say that the legislation isn't occuring in a vaccum. Ok, true. The purpose of the thought experiment was to get a fresh view of things, so that any insights could be applied to the current context. No biggie if you don't want to take it up. What are you getting at when pointing to the context?edit: ok i did kind of rant on objectivists.

[DonkSlayer 1]

DS - Please don't misunderstand my intent. I'm not trying to start any kind of revolution. I'm barely advocating a position. I just offered some reasons (true it was kind of longwinded - posting snafu) off the top of my head why people might support restrictions in order to open discussion.If you're referring to the drugs analogy, then I'd defend that as legit, since the logic by which drugs are considered vicious could also largely apply to gambling.You say that the legislation isn't occuring in a vaccum. Ok, true. The purpose of the thought experiment was to have us see things fresh, so that any insights could be applied to the current context. No biggie if you don't want to take it up. What are you getting at when pointing to the context?edit: ok i did kind of rant on objectivists.

Well, I think that in your OP, you're really advocating some serious social change instead of particularly pointing out problems with online gambling. Hardcore social engineering would do terribly in the modern-day USA. We can debate social engineering in a broader topic than the gambling legislation.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I'm answering this post before reading replies, so I might repeat points already made.

Here are some reasons why online gambling might be something worth restricting. The reasons are:1.) It can lead to personal ruin. Desperate people run up debt. They spend inordinate amounts of time in ever-more pathetic attempts to recover losses. They commit desperate acts seeking a way out. These people's lives and their communities are negatively impacted. I don't want my brother losing his money online, because his ruin is going to hurt me when he asks me for money. I don't want my neighbor losing his money gambling online, because his ruin is going to hurt me when he breaks into my car, or when he can't pay his mortgage and his house is sold at firesale prices. I don't want my friend losing money online because I'll miss his company when he starts spending more time chasing his money. I don't want to absorb the psychic pain of any of these losses.

There are people who are compulsive shoppers. If you google compulsive shopping, you will find many links to stories of people who have spent everything they had, more than they had, and reduced themselves to crime to continue their addiction. So I ask you, where is your outrage for Presidents' Day Sales? And Labor Day, and Valentine's Day, and Memorial Day sales? You get the idea.

2.) It leads to personal and collective aggrandizement of undeserving individuals. Many people who are otherwise without talent, education, or socially constructive attributes become winners in the online gambling arena. They promote a lifestyle of leisure and narcissism to impressionable members of the social body. They lure others, who do have talents, education, and socially desirable attributes, to the world of gambling. I want my nephew to look up to intellectuals, authors, humanitarians, world leaders, not poker players (as much as some of them might pretend to be something more). I want my neighbor's son to pursue his architecture degree, not drop out of college to 'go pro'.

Oh no, not aggrandizement of undeserving individuals!! That's more evil than genocide!There are so many things I can say here, I'll waste too much time, so I'm just gonna give them shorthand.Celebrities? Deserving according to you... how humble of you to judge other people's worthiness. You want your nephew to look up to X, it's up to you to lead him to X. As for your neighbor's son, mind your business. He can pursue whatever he wants.

3.) Gambling produces nothing; all of its activity produces no social good. Engineers build bridges and dams and levvies. Newspaper reporters inform the public. Gambling might employ people in its infrastructure, but it produces nothing. This point is woefully lost on some of the superficial Objectivists (is there any other kind?) who've been going around citing Ayn Rand on the importance of free markets in opposition to the Frist legislation. Anyone who's ever taken the time to consider Objectivist positions knows that there is supposed to be an enduring social good - one by which individual activities will be judged. Newsflash: gamblers are judged harshly against these standards.

Movies produce nothing. All I get from going to movies is entertainment and a memory of it. Hmmm, that's just like when I gamble. I'm entertained, and I have a memory of it. Once again, you are humble enough to judge for society what is good for it. Thanks, but you can stop. There is supposed to be enduring social good? If society doesn't like it, society can ignore it.4.) Taxes. Why should the U.S. allow the fruits of so much commerce generated in its borders be shipped directly out?Welcome to a free market. You want your cut from the commerce, regulate it.

5.) Time spent gambling online could be time spent pursuing further education, attending a PTA meeting, teaching someone to read, talking to a friend or family member, finding legitimate channels of political participation (seems to have been no problem once the precious online gambling got threatened).

I hope for your sake, you spend every moment you're not at work pursuing further education, attending a PTA meeting, teaching someone to read, talking to a friend or family member, and finding legitimate channels of political participation (seems to have been no problem once the precious online gambling got threatened). Because if you ever spend a minute watching tv, hanging out at a bar, playing sports, or any other leisure activity, you'd be a hypocrite. Time spent doing anything could be time spent doing something else.

That's just some reasons off the top of my head why making online gambling more difficult might not be such a bad idea. I actually do make money playing online poker. But, as I said, I'm trying to think outside of my own narrow interests, in terms of the social good.

Society is made up of people. People can decide for themselves what's good for them or not.

You might see parallels with the way many people think about drugs. I'm with the people who say that drugs aren't inherently bad. Yet, the damage they do to individuals, families, and communities; the lost productivity that results from use and abuse; the misalignment of priorities that occurs in the community of users; the costs that result from recovery that are incurred by non-users - all make pretty compelling reasons why drug use should not be allowed to flourish.

There aren't many parallels between online gambling and drugs. Drugs and this country are a pretty unique clusterf*ck. Well, I'll qualify. There are some parallels to Marijuana.

I think that the legislation touches on some very important issues in the both the Classical and Enlightenment tradition around the connection between the values of a people on the one hand, and its laws on the other. 'You can't legislate morality' is just a facile way of distorting this rich thread of thinking in the tradition. Rousseau's Social Contract is one easily readable source on this, and Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws is another.

You can bandy about terms all you want, but I'd like to see where you think the exemption for horse racing fits into this framework. It is not a question of legislating morality. It is a question of personal freedom and the role of government. In their wisdom, our founding fathers recognized that the government should be inobtrusive in the lives and pursuits of its citizens.

[tryptout 0]

Well, I think that in your OP, you're really advocating some serious social change instead of particularly pointing out problems with online gambling. Hardcore social engineering would do terribly in the modern-day USA. We can debate social engineering in a broader topic than the gambling legislation.

That's a big part of what's really getting at me about this. What you call engineering I'm calling (with a grimace) legislating morality. What is the place of legislation that does attempt to reflect/lead morality? Is that the real objection to the legislation, philosophically? Do people object to it because it is such a heavyhanded attempt to legislate morality? Or is it on economic grounds - ie defending free markets? Are there other reasons to object? If the objection is on the grounds of 'legislating morality', then are peoples' views explicit and consistent on this matter? In other words, are there areas where people accept the same type of legislative activity without further thought? Doesn't 'moral legislation' have a place in any lawful society? Isn't that what the the drug laws are?

[DonkSlayer 1]

That's a big part of what's really getting at me about this. What you call engineering I'm calling (with a grimace) legislating morality. What is the place of legislation that does attempt to reflect/lead morality? Is that the real objection to the legislation, philosophically? Do people object to it because it is such a heavyhanded attempt to legislate morality? Or is it on economic grounds - ie defending free markets? Are there other reasons to object? If the objection is on the grounds of 'legislating morality', then are peoples' views explicit and consistent on this matter? In other words, are there areas where people accept the same type of legislative activity without further thought? Doesn't 'moral legislation' have a place in any lawful society? Isn't that what the the drug laws are?

Trypt,I think "legislating morality" should only go as far as to uphold the founding principles of that society...thus perpetuating its viability. For instance, I do not think there is something ethically wrong with a country's choice to fine those who burn its flag....while that country may guaruntee freedom of speech, it also has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the society that guaruntees that right. I believe that there has not been a strong case made yet as to why this particular legislation meets the criteria above. I feel it's based on religious morals and business interests of protected venues such as casinos.Take a look at my new thread in this section; I'd be interested to read about what you think of that.

[tryptout 0]

Razor: perhaps you could catch up the conversation (overlook keith crime's zingers to save yourself time) to its current spot. Recognize that I'm not advocating a position. The reasons offered are just some that people sympathetic to Frist might propose. There are probably plenty more. It would be interesting to hear on just what grounds you object to the legislation.

[tryptout 0]

Trypt,I think "legislating morality" should only go as far as to uphold the founding principles of that society...thus perpetuating its viability....I believe that there has not been a strong case made yet as to why this particular legislation meets the criteria above. I feel it's based on religious morals and business interests of protected venues such as casinos.

That sounds too vague to me. While I definitely agree that the current legislation has been largely motivated by religious, business, and political interests, that doesn't mean that it (or some other restriction) might not actually uphold some important values/principles. What bothers me is that nobody's made a case that it doesn't. I don't want to belabor the drugs analogy, especially since nobody has outright accepted or challenged it. So, quickly, laws against drugs restrict personal freedom in the name of the social good. Drug use has social costs that the people have deemed to much to bear. Hence, drug use has been outlawed. If one thinks that these laws are proper, then he should consider whether online gambling ultimately induces similar costs.I'm tired. At least we're getting somewhere. Thanks DS. Though I'm not sure this post actually goes forward, its good to get more clarity. Open invitation to all who want to think about the issue.

[brvheart 1,752]

I thought is was pretty obvious from the get go that the OP was simply playing 'devil's advocate' in order to get the discussion ball rolling... are all you guys really that retarded?

[keith crime 8]

I thought is was pretty obvious from the get go that the OP was simply playing 'devil's advocate' in order to get the discussion ball rolling... are all you guys really that retarded?

I don't think I was

[Steppin Razor 0]

Razor: perhaps you could catch up the conversation (overlook keith crime's zingers to save yourself time) to its current spot. Recognize that I'm not advocating a position. The reasons offered are just some that people sympathetic to Frist might propose. There are probably plenty more.

You did voice points from a position, so I replied to those. The 'you' in my post refers to the voice that you assumed. Whether it's yours or not is irrelevant.

It would be interesting to hear on just what grounds you object to the legislation.

I object to it on any ground anyone thinks the piece of crap rests on. If you frame your question better, I can have a better idea of what you want from me.

[tryptout 0]

I object to it on any ground anyone thinks the piece of crap rests on. If you frame your question better, I can have a better idea of what you want from me.

<<It is not a question of legislating morality. It is a question of personal freedom and the role of government. In their wisdom, our founding fathers recognized that the government should be inobtrusive in the lives and pursuits of its citizens.>> Razor - this is what you said earlier, so - you object to the legislation because you oppose government's intervention in the personal affairs of its citizens - - is that fair ?Can you see any cases in which there might be valid reasons for government's involvement in the affairs of its citizens?What if there were a new craze of knife fight parties sweeping the nation? Would you object to government intervention in the personal affairs of the citizens maiming each other in their backyards with butcher knives? Each participant has voluntarily agreed to fight. Let them cut each other up? Or send in the cops and bust up the party? Are you committed to the notion that individuals' affairs are absolutely personal? Or would you say that individuals' personal decisions and actions radiate outwards, impacting family, community, city and so forth - ? These are just first questions that occur in deliberating about issues of personal freedom and government intervention. They aren't new questions. Don't make me ask all of them.

[keith crime 8]

Does anyone care about this discussion - especially with this tool acting like he's conducting a seminar?