3 ms·

I'm of the opinion that gambling as a whole should not be regulated.The only restriction should be on using other people's money instead of your own. It makes

I'm of the opinion that gambling as a whole should not be regulated.The only restriction should be on using other people's money instead of your own. It makes no sense, it is the person's money and life, and it is theirs to ruin as they wish. We are not properties of the state. If a person cannot be allowed to do what they wish with their own money, because they might harm themselves or others as a result, then how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? Every gun sold to a person is a gamble on whether they use it to cause harm on others (same with the things i listed above). This same logic applies to regulation of drugs in general as well in my opinion. Regulating other peoples lives is not the purpose of the government, especially when they're not harming others or being a nuisance to the public.

csomar 2y ago
> how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? Comparing Oranges to Potatoes. People involved in gambling are not stupid. They are either 1. Not quite smart or mathematically smart, so they don't understand the odds or 2. Addicted to gambling in the same way someone is addicted to Tobacco. Of course, there is 3. Having a little fun with a little money; but this is not the audience that's making money for gaming.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  > People involved in gambling are not stupid. I agree. > Addicted to gambling in the same way someone is addicted to Tobacco Addicted people are still responsible for their actions. case in point: drunken driving. I agree with punishing gamblers that cause harm. but gambling itself should not be regulated. Tobacco, alcohol, hard drugs,etc.. they should all be allowed. But to balance that, punishment for crime needs to be severe when you're an addict.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    > I agree with punishing gamblers that cause harm. The first people gamblers harm is their own family - long before any formal crime has been committed.
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      That's not right, many gamblers don't even have a family. Are you saying people's lives should be regulated so that they don't spend their money in ways that their family wouldn't want it spent? I mean, last I checked, divorce, emancipation is still allowed. How can we regulate what a person does with their hard earned wages from their labor and precious time and then still claim that person has liberties of any kind? If you think about it, this is the one and only fundamental liberty that is foundational to all other liberties. Even slaves get food and shelter as well as some freedom of movement and expression. What they don't get is to be able to buy what they want and own it.
vizzier 2y ago
> vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? 3 of these require significant training or at least licensing and the last one is banned in the majority of western nations. I'm with you that personal responsibility and freedom should be the norm, but active predators (Drug dealers, bookies, social media companies) should probably have limits put on what they're allowed to do.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  I'm not against requiring training on math and statistics for gamblers. For your last statement, I agree, "active predators" should be restricted or punished because their intent is to cause harm at the cost of others for profit. but if they're just selling the "drug", why should that be restricted? You can force them to inform their customers of the harm,but that's about it.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    > "active predators" should be restricted or punished because their intent is to cause harm at the cost of others for profit. This is the entire gambling industry! Do you think they don't know that their best customers are addicts who are blowing their kids' college fund?
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      You're probably right, so regulate and restrict the gambling industry, not individuals.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
> how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? These are all fairly strongly regulated. Did you choose bad examples on purpose?
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  No, but gamblers are allowed to do all those things. and I am not against requiring a license for gambling either, so long as the barrier for entry is reasonable.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Oh ok, I thought you were saying it shouldn't be regulated at all. So like,what about making gambling work like credit cards: you get a license that allocates a monthly cap based on a combination of credit score and income. It starts very low and scales up to, I don't know, 10% of income?
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      I wouldn't like that either. Instead, maybe issue licenses to gamblers and like with a credit score, the fact that you have a gamblers license can affect things like getting loans, renting things, what you can buy,etc.. Let others who suffer an increased risk based on interacting with you refuse to do so, or incur additional penalties. Your monthly cap idea still nannies citizens. We should be free to ruin ourselves if we so wish, but if we are set on a track like that, others should be made aware so they can react as they wish. Same with drugs, if you get a drug use license, then employers can deny you jobs, you may not be allowed to drive, be trusted with loans,etc.. You get rights, but they come with responsibilities and restrictions.
phaedryx 2y ago
The thing is when people around me are "ruining their lives" it does affect me. Crime goes up, bankruptcy goes up, corruption in sports goes up, etc. I agree that people should be given freedoms, but we live in societies and people aren't independent, disconnected, autonomous units.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  Too bad, that still doesn't give you authority over other people, before they do something harmful to you. You can policy sports corruption and crime, regulate bankruptcy more,etc.. but you don't have the right to police people as a whole "just in case". I did not suggest allowing gambling to be used as an excuse to cause harm. You prevent crime by punishing it. You reduce bankruptcy by adding costs to it. (no comment on sports, since I don't think it is a net positive in society to begin with).
coconut08 2y ago
drug addicts and people who lose all their money gambling are a nuisance to the public.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  punish the nuisance then, so long as actual harm is involved instead of simple visual displeasure. not the perceived cause. Stay out of people's lives. Society is also a nuisance to drug users and gamblers. The foundation of liberty is the protection of rights for even the most disagreeable individuals. You don't deserve any rights or liberties if you can't accept the rights of the drug addicts,gamblers, homeless people and many more types of people out there. It is a fundamental aspect of the human experience to self-determine one's fate.
  - coconut08 2y ago
    libertarians are so incredibly cringe its unbelievable. rights don't exist. they are not a law of nature. rights are a human invented concept. rights are both created by and enforced by government. generally speaking we do try to opt for giving people as much freedom as possible, that said if certain things have a high probability of negative externalties the government both can and does make those things illegal.
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      This isn't about libertarianism at all. it's about justice. It is unfair and unjust to punish someone based on probabilities. A innocent person should not be treated like a criminal. A free person shouldn't be treated like a prisoner or a slave. The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime. Citizens are subject to the rule of law. But in exchange for compliance to the laws, we expect a fair and just treatment under that law. That is the contract.
      - coconut08 2y ago
        >The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime you are either being hyperbolic, you are irrationally ideological, or you haven't thought about this enough. surely you don't think that people should be allowed to have nuclear explosives in their house because until they have actually used them they haven't actually committed a crime yet. different people can have different ideas on where that line is but you must acknowledge that it exists.

csomar 2y ago

> how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? Comparing Oranges to Potatoes. People involved in gambling are not stupid. They are either 1. Not quite smart or mathematically smart, so they don't understand the odds or 2. Addicted to gambling in the same way someone is addicted to Tobacco. Of course, there is 3. Having a little fun with a little money; but this is not the audience that's making money for gaming.

notepad0x90 2y ago
> People involved in gambling are not stupid. I agree. > Addicted to gambling in the same way someone is addicted to Tobacco Addicted people are still responsible for their actions. case in point: drunken driving. I agree with punishing gamblers that cause harm. but gambling itself should not be regulated. Tobacco, alcohol, hard drugs,etc.. they should all be allowed. But to balance that, punishment for crime needs to be severe when you're an addict.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  > I agree with punishing gamblers that cause harm. The first people gamblers harm is their own family - long before any formal crime has been committed.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    That's not right, many gamblers don't even have a family. Are you saying people's lives should be regulated so that they don't spend their money in ways that their family wouldn't want it spent? I mean, last I checked, divorce, emancipation is still allowed. How can we regulate what a person does with their hard earned wages from their labor and precious time and then still claim that person has liberties of any kind? If you think about it, this is the one and only fundamental liberty that is foundational to all other liberties. Even slaves get food and shelter as well as some freedom of movement and expression. What they don't get is to be able to buy what they want and own it.

vizzier 2y ago

> vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? 3 of these require significant training or at least licensing and the last one is banned in the majority of western nations. I'm with you that personal responsibility and freedom should be the norm, but active predators (Drug dealers, bookies, social media companies) should probably have limits put on what they're allowed to do.

notepad0x90 2y ago
I'm not against requiring training on math and statistics for gamblers. For your last statement, I agree, "active predators" should be restricted or punished because their intent is to cause harm at the cost of others for profit. but if they're just selling the "drug", why should that be restricted? You can force them to inform their customers of the harm,but that's about it.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  > "active predators" should be restricted or punished because their intent is to cause harm at the cost of others for profit. This is the entire gambling industry! Do you think they don't know that their best customers are addicts who are blowing their kids' college fund?
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    You're probably right, so regulate and restrict the gambling industry, not individuals.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

> how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon? These are all fairly strongly regulated. Did you choose bad examples on purpose?

notepad0x90 2y ago
No, but gamblers are allowed to do all those things. and I am not against requiring a license for gambling either, so long as the barrier for entry is reasonable.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Oh ok, I thought you were saying it shouldn't be regulated at all. So like,what about making gambling work like credit cards: you get a license that allocates a monthly cap based on a combination of credit score and income. It starts very low and scales up to, I don't know, 10% of income?
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    I wouldn't like that either. Instead, maybe issue licenses to gamblers and like with a credit score, the fact that you have a gamblers license can affect things like getting loans, renting things, what you can buy,etc.. Let others who suffer an increased risk based on interacting with you refuse to do so, or incur additional penalties. Your monthly cap idea still nannies citizens. We should be free to ruin ourselves if we so wish, but if we are set on a track like that, others should be made aware so they can react as they wish. Same with drugs, if you get a drug use license, then employers can deny you jobs, you may not be allowed to drive, be trusted with loans,etc.. You get rights, but they come with responsibilities and restrictions.

phaedryx 2y ago

The thing is when people around me are "ruining their lives" it does affect me. Crime goes up, bankruptcy goes up, corruption in sports goes up, etc. I agree that people should be given freedoms, but we live in societies and people aren't independent, disconnected, autonomous units.

notepad0x90 2y ago
Too bad, that still doesn't give you authority over other people, before they do something harmful to you. You can policy sports corruption and crime, regulate bankruptcy more,etc.. but you don't have the right to police people as a whole "just in case". I did not suggest allowing gambling to be used as an excuse to cause harm. You prevent crime by punishing it. You reduce bankruptcy by adding costs to it. (no comment on sports, since I don't think it is a net positive in society to begin with).

coconut08 2y ago

drug addicts and people who lose all their money gambling are a nuisance to the public.

notepad0x90 2y ago
punish the nuisance then, so long as actual harm is involved instead of simple visual displeasure. not the perceived cause. Stay out of people's lives. Society is also a nuisance to drug users and gamblers. The foundation of liberty is the protection of rights for even the most disagreeable individuals. You don't deserve any rights or liberties if you can't accept the rights of the drug addicts,gamblers, homeless people and many more types of people out there. It is a fundamental aspect of the human experience to self-determine one's fate.
- coconut08 2y ago
  libertarians are so incredibly cringe its unbelievable. rights don't exist. they are not a law of nature. rights are a human invented concept. rights are both created by and enforced by government. generally speaking we do try to opt for giving people as much freedom as possible, that said if certain things have a high probability of negative externalties the government both can and does make those things illegal.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    This isn't about libertarianism at all. it's about justice. It is unfair and unjust to punish someone based on probabilities. A innocent person should not be treated like a criminal. A free person shouldn't be treated like a prisoner or a slave. The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime. Citizens are subject to the rule of law. But in exchange for compliance to the laws, we expect a fair and just treatment under that law. That is the contract.
    - coconut08 2y ago
      >The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime you are either being hyperbolic, you are irrationally ideological, or you haven't thought about this enough. surely you don't think that people should be allowed to have nuclear explosives in their house because until they have actually used them they haven't actually committed a crime yet. different people can have different ideas on where that line is but you must acknowledge that it exists.