Online Gambling Getting Harder?

does there really need to be another reason?

"why is there such a need to fight online gambling?"

If Aaron's mom and my mom started a blog it would be #1 for 'fatty texas hold'em'

I would say. Gambling is a blight on society - always has been. Fathers ruining homes. People losing their jobs. Nothing good here. Sooner or later the house always wins (or bans you in the case of pro blackjack players). There is no upside.

Why is gambling allowed to exist? People will do it anyway.

Some people will always gamble. Some people gamble responsibly and recreationally. But it should be discouraged and controlled.

Moreover the revenues from gambling have almost always belonged to the state when gambling has been legal. If people insist on losing their money, let's at least put into the public treasury where it can pay for roads, schools and Olympic teams.

Allowing international internet gambling - laissez-faire economics - is simply foolish. That's national treasury money going abroad.

On the other hand, this legislation was enacted by a bunch of right-wing hypocrites who believe in laissez-faire economics, or at least pay lip service to such a system - whenever it is to their advantage, like the pillaging of Iraq through closed-door privatization of their national companies (including oil).

Right decision taken by the wrong people for once. Too many loopholes as well to allow for effective enforcement.

What is dangerous about it, is that it starts to open the doors to the wide taxation and regulation of internet commerce. That's the storm coming down the coast. And it's coming at last. My crystal ball doesn't yet show what it will bring...

Will we be looking at traffic restriction (as in China) or just commercial regulation?

Allowing international internet gambling - laissez-faire economics - is simply foolish. That's national treasury money going abroad.

No. It's not national treasury money. It's my recreational dollar. That I earned with my hard work. Some people, apparently, can't tell the difference and think the government is somehow entitled to this money.

On the other hand, this legislation was enacted by a bunch of right-wing hypocrites who believe in laissez-faire economics, or at least pay lip service to such a system

Yes. Unfortunately they are hypocrites only paying lip service to Laissez-faire economics.

... whenever it is to their advantage, like the pillaging of Iraq through closed-door privatization of their national companies (including oil).

Closed door is not Laissez Faire economics. Duh?!?

Will we be looking at traffic restriction (as in China) or just commercial regulation?

If people like you are making decisions then Probably both.

People will simply use a 3rd party banking service that is outside of the control of the US, something like PayPal based elsewhere. All this bill does is create opportunity for a clever middleman to rake in boatloads of cash and perform global money laundering designed to keep the feds confused.

FWIW, a good friend of mine and my wife's nephew both hunt "big fish" on these gambling sites and make tens of thousands annually cleaning out people on poker sites with apparently big bankrolls that bet way too many hands.

So much for their income.

Read between the lines, this bill simply says "you can gamble as long as we can tax it"

one another.

Take your freedom and put it with the two million (mainly poor black) prisoners in penitentiaries (7X - 20X the incarceration rate of civilized nations, 10X the murder rate) brought on by your inability to share the wealth. If you can find the space, of course.

-------------------------

The rationale behind the privatisation of the Iraqi national companies is that private companies are more efficient and therefore that the entire economy should be in private hands.

(That the privatisation is basically pillaging in this case (selling something valuable - collective national property - to hostile insiders - foreign oil companies) doesn't change the underlying rationale of efficiency.)

The efficiency premise has been shown to be false in many circumstances, including the distribution of electricity and water, which form natural monopolies and/or are essential utilities. It is madness to put essential utilities in private hands as the entire society can be held hostage by the owner.

Arguments for and against public ownership are summarised here.

Let's try to focus on the subject at hand, which is the coming regulation of our business environment. Whether we be contributors or polluters.

The American federal government's stand on gambling is a much more sensible position than their stand on drugs for instance.

Both are pleasures/addictions which can do great social harm, but from which people cannot be prevented. Like alcohol for that matter.

It makes far more sense to regulate, control and tax these activities than to try to outlaw them.

(But now I've brought up the whole war on drugs sham...)

In short, this is a decision which makes a lot of sense. Let's hope for a few more of those.

What worries me is potential decisions like no Saudi/Iranian/Chinese will be able to access American websites and no American can access to Saudi/Iranian/Chinese websites. Or ridiculous taxes on internet commerce between the United States and Europe.

As the internet makes up a larger and larger share of the economy and international relations continue to detiorate (in large part due to the PNAC crowd in power now), the temptations for one or another government to go down that road will become much higher.

It is the long term impact of such online protectionism and restriction which remains unclear for me.

Pandora's box has, as it were, been opened wide with this decision.

How is my recreational freedom to gamble even remotely comparabe to the:

Freedom . . . to shoot rob and murder

?

It's not, of course.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine

of so-called freedom.

In other countries, where your puported freedom is less important and men live in greater harmony with their land and their countrymen and the world, men are not free to bear firearms. And therefore are less inclined to murder and violent crime.

If you cannot see the connection, I would suggest that it is more the weakness of reason in the reader than in the writer.

Be careful who you quote -

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. - Thomas Paine

I wonder what Thomas Paine would think of your scrabbling to earn your living with spam AdSense sites and the rest of your activities to undermine the usefulness of the internet for personal advantage.

People like you are what make the world such a troubled place, people like you are what makes bomb fall.

Some day go out and try to do some good for a change.

Stop worrying about yourself and worry about others for a change.

In this case, freedom is just another synonym for selfishness.

That's just nonsense. People spend their money on what they want to spend it on. Some people spending it on things others might think are iresponsible, whether that be a rap CD, televangelist contribution of blackjack hand. Equating it to anything harming others is offensive at best and moronic at worst.

More to the point, Leach has said that playing games on computers has no socially acceptable purpose. That sort of extremism is the problem to be dealt with by anyone in the Internet or marketing industries.

Then shouldn't we be banning alcohol, tobacco, religion, adultery, stock market, video games, fatty foods, and every stressful job in the world? I would imagine those have been responsible for ruining many more families than gambling.

Perhaps we simply disagree in our definition of "freedom". There is absolutely no reason I should be told that I can't spend my money on something such as gambling. Blight on society? Perhaps to you. Vegas still seems to be growing fairly steadily over the years and for some reason I find poker shows on TV all the time. This "blight on society" seems to be entertainment to some.

And who is the judge of what is bad for society? Why is betting $500 on a football game worse than betting it on a stock? Why is choosing to use my money to entertain myself gambling any different than the guy who chooses to pay for front row tickets to a Rolling Stones concert? Personally I think any movie or TV show with Jay Mohr is a blight on society, but I haven't requested the government ban banks from allowing payments to him.

As for "gambling ruining families", that is simply not true. People ruin families. This society has grown into a giant blame game with no one taking responsibility for their own actions. The guy who drinks himself to death destroying a family is responsible, not Budweiser. The guy who smokes a pack a day is responsible for himself, not the cigarette company. Sometimes people need to look in a mirror and be responsible for their own actions. Everything in this world can be addicting, but we can't go around banning them all.

And putting the banks into this mess is ridiculous. Are we going to demand hotel owners not rent rooms to individuals who may be having an affair? How about the ATM machine near the bar that people may use to purchase alcohol? If you want to ban gambling, ban it, and enforce it on your own. Creating laws like this is a cowardly way into having private companies police the people for free.

This whole thing is ridiculous and another step in this country losing freedom. It's a crusade to destroy an industry based on moral beliefs. There are many things in this world that I feel are bad for society, but I don't believe it is my right to deny those individuals their freedom to pursue it.

Nail on the head, personal accountability, what a concept.

"It's not my fault I'm fat as I'm not eating too much. THE COOKIE DID IT! It just jumped in my mouth! Not to mention that damn pizza chased me for 5 blocks and then when I was winded caught up and wedged itself down my throat one slice at a time."

cookies are damn good ;)

great post thePhenomenal

of his or her destiny is such a trite mantra of 21st century American liberalism.

I don't see what is so wonderful about thePhenomenal's post. The same crap you'd find in any modern self-help book.

To take his position to the extreme would be to suggest anarchism and the absence of government as the ideal of human society.

As someone who has lived in societies across the scope from the extreme liberal/lawless to the extremely conservative/paternalistic government, I can tell you that anarchy looks lousy close up. Consequences include private armies and an explosion of kidnappings, extortion, robbery, rape and murder.

There are about 20% of the people in any society who do about 80% of the work. Some would make the argument the 80% don't deserve to eat and the 20% of hyperproductive should enjoy 80% of the material wealth. I wouldn't make that argument. Just because we are fortunate of mind and limb, blessed in education and occasion, and enjoy a position of advantage is no excuse to exploit, demean or devalue others.

To argue that gambling and drugs are not addictions to which many otherwise sane and responsible and kind people are vulnerable is either disingenuous or ignorant. It goes against a century of addiction study.

To suggest that your own dislike of a TV personality deserves the same attention from the state and that your annoyance is akin to the plight of those suffering from these illness is sophistic egocentrism of the stupidest sort.

Sophomoric selfishness doesn't need another pat on the back.

Perhaps you need to check a dictionary as seldishness and accountability are too totally different things.

Using addiction as an excuse to dismiss your actions and claiming anyone that believes people are in control of their own actions and should be held accountable are spouting Liberalism, now THAT's disingenuous.

You must be a lawyer as that sounds like the logic being used in courts to deny accountability for everying from assault to murder and I don't buy it as I hold myself fully accountable for everything I do, whether addicted or not, it was my choice in the first place.

"He wasn't in control of his facilities, he took PCP and lost control" - well BS alert, you were in control when you took the PCP and people are full aware of what PCP can do, so putting yourself in a situation where you know you'll be out of control means you're accountable for creating the situation in the first place.

Just because some acitivities may be addictive doesn't make everyone that does them an addict nor does it relieve people that have addictive personalities from personal accountability as nobody twisted their arms to start those activities in the first place and everyone has the ability to stop, even addicts, they just don't WANT to stop as it's hard. Wah.

I don't really buy it that it's all that hard to stop as I've seen a few friends that were so-called "addicts" go cold turkey one day and never look back, it's all a matter of choice. Regardless of the chemical dependency or any other thing, you can choose to get past it and choose to not do something again and if you claim contrary then shutter AA/NA/GA today as they're just a waste of time.

Sophomoric selfishness doesn't need another pat on the back.

Nor does blaming everything except your own culpability.

Finger pointing away accountability is pretty childish.

I'm not the one with the addictions (gambling or otherwise). And yes I have control (more or less) of my own destiny.

But I admit the possibility that others are not.

If I set a higher standard for myself, that is my affair.

Holding all humankind to the same standard (differences in intelligence, education, upbringing, opportunity) - is just stupid.

You've all spent too many long nights with Ayn Rand and her modern yellow press clones...

Individualism is a gross simplification of existence, comforting as it may be to the contemporary would-be business mogul.

Altruism and social responsibility are more important than ever, as the income gap increases.

I dont know what you're smoking, Ronsard, but somebody should try to tax THAT.

They can be addicting, just like most anything in this world. A lot of people seem to be addicted to fatty food. The same guys sit at the local bar every evening on my block. Sex has destroyed marriages, families, and in cases destroyed people emotionally. Three addictions that I don't see you fighting. Why aren't you calling for an end to alcohol, we don't need it to survive? Why aren't you calling for an end to fast food, we have healthy foods? Why aren't you calling for an end to all sex, we certainly have the science to reproduce without it. Three addictions that I would imagine trump the problems online gambling would cause.

I'm not really sure what to say here. I'm talking about legalizing online gambling, not calling for lawlessness and anarchy in the streets. I guess I don't see how rape and murder would explode because I can play some Texas Holdem in my living room.

We just have different styles of government I guess. I don't want to be like China. I want to be able to spend my money how I want. I don't want a government to tell me what I have to do with my money and where I can and can't spend it. "Fascism is capitalism in decay".

Seriously, have you seen Jay Mohr's work? This is a much bigger problem than you think.

After that last diatribe I'm convinced Ronsard must a speech writer for the democratic party as he thinks we all need babysitters and we're too stupid to control our own lives. Legislate, go forth and legislate us all into a simpering heap of goverment hand out junkies because we're weak and too simple minded to control our own destiny.

Hell, some people almost die just from the small of peanuts so wouldn't the "socially responsibile" thing be to ban peanuts?

You can't save everyone and everything from themselves, it's just silly and ruins life for everyone else.

Why aren't you calling for an end to alcohol, we don't need it to survive?

This is about the first time I've ever been tempted to waste a beer pouring it over someone's head.

Have you not paid attention?

Without alcohol there'd be a lot of ugly virgins in the world and some nerds would never get laid.

I'll end my posting on this topic with another quote from my favorite George Carlin rant that sums up my opinion on people and their problems:

Whatever happened to natural selection? survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own! Simple as that! Simple. Nature. Nature. Nature knows best.

Kind of like the gang wars, why stop them?

Seems like one side or the other will eventually exhaust itself of gang members and resolve itself.

May not be socially responsible but it ultimately let's the gene pool eliminate that type of behavior thus hopefully producing a better society in the end.

Back to the topic -> Leave the casinos alone!

I work hard and play hard and whether it's buying a 60" plasma TV, a new Mercedes or placing $200 bets on a crap table, it's MY MONEY and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it.

End of story.

Ronsard must a speech writer for the democratic party as he thinks we all need babysitters

are they the ones pushing filtering the web? using the child porn angle to push other agendas?

Kind of like the gang wars, why stop them? ... May not be socially responsible but it ultimately let's the gene pool eliminate that type of behavior thus hopefully producing a better society in the end.

The past lives on in people's minds and we repeat mistakes. It is hard to be a well balanced person if grave tradgedies occured in your immediate family, even if it happened to someone other than you. Those who kill others hurt other families, and the damage lives on long past the death of a gangster or someone caught in cross fire.

You're discovering why forums disallow political threads. Trollers bait hyperbolics to make their points and the issue goes overboard.

Ronsard seems to be an educated and eloquent person. It's a shame he chooses to play here. One has to wonder why.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,70660-0.html

Although many website operators insist internet gambling ads are legal, a recent crack down by U.S. authorities has led some website operators to disgorge online casino advertising revenues and spurred others to rethink their advertising policies, jeopardizing millions of dollars in revenues.

On April 3, the United States let pass a deadline requiring it to bring its internet gambling laws into compliance with World Trade Organization, or WTO, rules. A WTO tribunal last year found the U.S. ban in violation of its international trade commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Nice to see the issue is important enough to tell the WTO to fuck off.

Its all about votes not morality. The govt doesnt give a stuff one way or another but it recognises that millions of voters gamble.