If gambling addiction only harmed the gambler that would be one thing but it doesn't. We should not as a society encourage behaviors which are destructive to that society. We certainly shouldn't make it easy to gamble. For example, require that you place your bets in a physical place instead of being able to do so almost anywhere from your phone.
Moreso, once you grant yourself authority to manage other people's behavior, because sometimes other other people are affected, you declare that individual liberty does not exist.
There's also this.
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the
government answers by taking rights away from good people."
-- Penn Jillette
Why is it that do-gooders always look to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few?
If you want to rail against something, rail against lotteries. As I discussed here and in the past, they are more predatory than any private sector form, they are a monopoly, and they are regressive.
If someone has a vice and it’s harming you walk away. Leave them to wallow in their mud. They will either see their problem and crawl out of the mud and clean up or not. You can’t make a drunk quit drinking, a drug addict stop using or gambler stop gambling if they don’t want too. They need to bottom out and fix themselves. Self rescue.
However, we shouldn't be making it easier for people who weren't addicts to become addicts. Making it very easy to place bets comes to mind or legalized marijuana as well.
I didn’t vote in favor of any of these things to be legal in my state. However my reasons weren’t compassionate. As Peter brought up government is suddenly pushing legalization to collect on these things. I voted against the thing and I voted against the taxation of the thing. By comparison there are far more responsible people who indulge than those that are addicted. Those that want do something because they think it’s fun and aren’t harming anyone in doing it have a right to that freedom. With freedom comes responsibility.
Excellent points! And let us also toss in prohibition against "vice" crimes that the government do-gooders try to eliminate via legislation: drugs, prostitution, pornography, and so on. Irrational behaviors, absolutely, but attempted prohibition is always counter-productive.
“We have a duty to protect people and their families from suffering the tremendous harm related to gambling addiction.”
No we don’t. It’s not my problem and it shouldn’t cost me anything.
I find gambling pretty boring and have no trouble walking away after a designated dollar figure I’m willing to lose. More often I take my designated dollars to the shops and find something I like to spend it on. Now I liked playing marbles as a kid. Players put a certain number of their marbles in the circle. We kept the marbles we knocked out.
You wrote "Scolds such as Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) take the standard alarmist tone by branding gambling with the "public health" canard, and in doing so trying to bootstrap both the authority and the moral imperative to coercively restrict behaviors by and between consenting adults." Goodness gracious! Too bad Sen. Blumenthal wasn't able to exercise 'his moral imperative' when he lied about his military experience. Just another educated elected derelict with no shame.
THIRD slice of chocolate cake?!?😲
Don't judge me.... ;)
🤣😂
If gambling addiction only harmed the gambler that would be one thing but it doesn't. We should not as a society encourage behaviors which are destructive to that society. We certainly shouldn't make it easy to gamble. For example, require that you place your bets in a physical place instead of being able to do so almost anywhere from your phone.
Don't conflate allowing with encouraging.
Moreso, once you grant yourself authority to manage other people's behavior, because sometimes other other people are affected, you declare that individual liberty does not exist.
There's also this.
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the
government answers by taking rights away from good people."
-- Penn Jillette
Why is it that do-gooders always look to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few?
If government were serious about this, it would be racing to dismantle its gambling monopolies. But interestingly, it’s not.
You have to know that when gambling is legalized that massive forces including government will be encouraging it.
If you want to rail against something, rail against lotteries. As I discussed here and in the past, they are more predatory than any private sector form, they are a monopoly, and they are regressive.
Agreed.
If someone has a vice and it’s harming you walk away. Leave them to wallow in their mud. They will either see their problem and crawl out of the mud and clean up or not. You can’t make a drunk quit drinking, a drug addict stop using or gambler stop gambling if they don’t want too. They need to bottom out and fix themselves. Self rescue.
However, we shouldn't be making it easier for people who weren't addicts to become addicts. Making it very easy to place bets comes to mind or legalized marijuana as well.
What business does the government have in interfering in adults' consensual decisions, including the ease with which something can be done?
You have to look at the long term consequences for that society. The behaviors a society may like to indulge in can eventually destroy it.
I didn’t vote in favor of any of these things to be legal in my state. However my reasons weren’t compassionate. As Peter brought up government is suddenly pushing legalization to collect on these things. I voted against the thing and I voted against the taxation of the thing. By comparison there are far more responsible people who indulge than those that are addicted. Those that want do something because they think it’s fun and aren’t harming anyone in doing it have a right to that freedom. With freedom comes responsibility.
Excellent points! And let us also toss in prohibition against "vice" crimes that the government do-gooders try to eliminate via legislation: drugs, prostitution, pornography, and so on. Irrational behaviors, absolutely, but attempted prohibition is always counter-productive.
“We have a duty to protect people and their families from suffering the tremendous harm related to gambling addiction.”
No we don’t. It’s not my problem and it shouldn’t cost me anything.
I find gambling pretty boring and have no trouble walking away after a designated dollar figure I’m willing to lose. More often I take my designated dollars to the shops and find something I like to spend it on. Now I liked playing marbles as a kid. Players put a certain number of their marbles in the circle. We kept the marbles we knocked out.
You wrote "Scolds such as Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) take the standard alarmist tone by branding gambling with the "public health" canard, and in doing so trying to bootstrap both the authority and the moral imperative to coercively restrict behaviors by and between consenting adults." Goodness gracious! Too bad Sen. Blumenthal wasn't able to exercise 'his moral imperative' when he lied about his military experience. Just another educated elected derelict with no shame.