6 ms·

The idea of “consenting adults” is a libertarian fantasy unsupported by evidence. Between low IQ, impulsivity, addictive personalities, etc., a large fraction o

The idea of “consenting adults” is a libertarian fantasy unsupported by evidence. Between low IQ, impulsivity, addictive personalities, etc., a large fraction of the population needs guardrails imposed by society for the sake of both themselves and the people around them. Sports betting has significant negative impacts. For every $1 a household spent on betting, it reduced savings by $2. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/online-sports-betting-is-draining-household-savings https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/online-spor.... This impacts not just individuals, but spouses and children who don’t “consent” to the negative impacts this has on their lives.

Cornbilly 1y ago
I'm generally a libertarian-leaning person and I completely agree. Some things are just too destructive/addictive/etc to allow easy and free access to them. And it really saddens me to see American children being introduced to gambling at a younger and younger age via things like loot boxes, blind boxes, and trading card game speculation.
- scotty79 1y ago
  > And it really saddens me to see American children being introduced to gambling at a younger and younger age via things like loot boxes, blind boxes, and trading card game speculation. I wonder if that makes them more or less vulnerable later in life. Are lootboxes a vaccine or a devastating childhood infection?
  - LocalH 1y ago
    As normalized as it's become, I think it's more an issue of desensitization than potential "vaccination"
    - scotty79 1y ago
      But people being sensitive to gambling mechanics is exactly what puts them in trouble.
- yndoendo 1y ago
  I live were gambling machines can be in restaurants and bars. Saddest thing I saw was the 10 year daughter of a nice restaurant taking part. It was one of the owner's daughter play pull-tabs. She didn't even discourage it or try to teach her daughter how you loose in the long run.
int_19h 1y ago
The society is not separate from "those people". Indeed, given the results of referendums, it would seem that the society is in fact mostly those people. So, who should be imposing guardrails on them, exactly, and how do they justify it in a democracy?
- rayiner 1y ago
  Most people know that they could use a little help from society. After all, people voted for gambling bans in the first places. What changed is we went through a libertarian phase as a country where we promoted individual choice as an end in itself and demonized any attempts at social regulation of choices. As we see the effects of that, I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine getting the pendulum to swing back at least partially so people might decide gambling bans were a good idea after all.
jacquesm 1y ago
> Between low IQ, impulsivity, addictive personalities, etc., a large fraction of the population needs guardrails imposed by society for the sake of both themselves and the people around them. I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate. And I even agree on the betting bit: it's bad. But then again, so is voting for criminals and yet, we allow it and arguably that causes a lot more damage than betting.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate Did you ask OP if they think that, or are you just assuming that?
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  And this is why I don’t believe secular democracies have any enduring qualities.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Other than being better than the alternatives.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 1y ago
  > I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate I’ve been blessed not to have addictions to substances or gambling. But I’m a snacker and could afford to lose 25 pounds. (Cardiovascular issues present in south asians at a lower BMI than for others, apparently.) I’d love social reinforcement to help with weight management, e.g. portion sizes when eating out.

Cornbilly 1y ago

I'm generally a libertarian-leaning person and I completely agree. Some things are just too destructive/addictive/etc to allow easy and free access to them. And it really saddens me to see American children being introduced to gambling at a younger and younger age via things like loot boxes, blind boxes, and trading card game speculation.

scotty79 1y ago
> And it really saddens me to see American children being introduced to gambling at a younger and younger age via things like loot boxes, blind boxes, and trading card game speculation. I wonder if that makes them more or less vulnerable later in life. Are lootboxes a vaccine or a devastating childhood infection?
- LocalH 1y ago
  As normalized as it's become, I think it's more an issue of desensitization than potential "vaccination"
  - scotty79 1y ago
    But people being sensitive to gambling mechanics is exactly what puts them in trouble.
yndoendo 1y ago
I live were gambling machines can be in restaurants and bars. Saddest thing I saw was the 10 year daughter of a nice restaurant taking part. It was one of the owner's daughter play pull-tabs. She didn't even discourage it or try to teach her daughter how you loose in the long run.

int_19h 1y ago

The society is not separate from "those people". Indeed, given the results of referendums, it would seem that the society is in fact mostly those people. So, who should be imposing guardrails on them, exactly, and how do they justify it in a democracy?

rayiner 1y ago
Most people know that they could use a little help from society. After all, people voted for gambling bans in the first places. What changed is we went through a libertarian phase as a country where we promoted individual choice as an end in itself and demonized any attempts at social regulation of choices. As we see the effects of that, I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine getting the pendulum to swing back at least partially so people might decide gambling bans were a good idea after all.

jacquesm 1y ago

> Between low IQ, impulsivity, addictive personalities, etc., a large fraction of the population needs guardrails imposed by society for the sake of both themselves and the people around them. I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate. And I even agree on the betting bit: it's bad. But then again, so is voting for criminals and yet, we allow it and arguably that causes a lot more damage than betting.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate Did you ask OP if they think that, or are you just assuming that?
nandomrumber 1y ago
And this is why I don’t believe secular democracies have any enduring qualities.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Other than being better than the alternatives.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 1y ago
> I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate I’ve been blessed not to have addictions to substances or gambling. But I’m a snacker and could afford to lose 25 pounds. (Cardiovascular issues present in south asians at a lower BMI than for others, apparently.) I’d love social reinforcement to help with weight management, e.g. portion sizes when eating out.