[Gerben42]

In recent news:

* The US government passes legislation to stop online gambling
* Bwin has problems in Germany

What's the deal with these governments? Don't they see how silly this all is? Can't they just tax these companies like thy tax casinos?

Also the idea that they want to stop people getting addicted on gambling is flawed. If they wanted that they would have to ban lotteries also. But they don't since it's too lucrative... And these people who help you with good combinations for your lottery tickets are the REAL crooks.

[sceptic]

personally the US crapping all over a UK company stinks and we should boot out all their air bases in response, if the US gave a dam about gambling they would shut down LAS VEGAS

I guarentee if the market leaders were US companies this would not happen

[pclayton]

Between the Indian tribes and Vegas, Washington is covered well.

[keylime]

I gotta admit, even tho I support my gov't fervently....this legislation makes absolutely no sense at all and screams protectionism and cronyism.

[Winstonm]

Just a scrap tossed to the right-wing fundamentalist in an election year. Good thing Carrie Nation isn't still around or we'd have no booze either.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 7 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

Just a scrap tossed to the right-wing fundamentalist in an election year. Good thing Carrie Nation isn't still around or we'd have no booze either.

i disagree.. it's a big chunk thrown to harrahs, et al... and the way they did it is sickening

[hrothgar]

For anyone interested in this topic, NPR's "On Point" is running an hour long program on Gambling and Government starting at 10:00 AM EST, with specific focus on the US "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act"

I listen via the WBUR's streaming audio service: http://www.wbur.org/schedule/

For anyone who can't listen live, the program will be available for download early this afternoon.

[sybarra]

I am as "libertarian" as any one, and hardly believe the government should say whether folks can gamble or not. Certainly between the Vegas/Atlantic City interests and the Indians (Native US) there is ample gambiling "interests".

But do understand the legislation that was passed.....it did not out law gambling per se, but only outlawed credit card transanctions to "foreign" gambling sites.

[Gerben42]

I listened to the program but it was heavily polarized saying that gambling is bad and addictive and all that. Those opposing the bill were basically shut out of the discussion.

[DrTodd13]

Blah blah blah...same paternalistic crap. Government knows better how to run your life than you do. They want to keep you maximally efficient to extract maximum tax dollars from you. Sure, gambling can be addictive and people do suffer as a result but the same is true of big macs. Be consistent, either ban everything potentially hurtful or let people decide for themselves and let their families intervene if there is a problem.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Oct 9 2006, 07:57 PM, said:

I listened to the program but it was heavily polarized saying that gambling is bad and addictive and all that. Those opposing the bill were basically shut out of the discussion.

I agree that this wasn't one on NPR's better broadcasts.

Bother of the main speakers seems to be talking past one another. I also think that they missed some rather obvious points. For example, the University Professor kepts stating that the State Governments should not be "preying" on their citizens by sponsoring lotteries. Coupled with this, he stated that all lotteries should be banned.

However, As I understand matters, State lotteries exist for a number of reasons. Yes, states like to generate revenue by lotteries. However, the main reason that they were created was to try to drive out the various number's rackets. Admittedly, the state lotteries normally have a higher rake, however, there's a lot less worry that folks are going to be able to fix the game.

As folks on the forums know, I'm no libertarian. However, I generally beleive that its a bad idea to have laws on the books that are unenforcable. People like to gamble and they will find a way to gamble. If you make gambling illegal, you're simply going to create an opportunity for oragnizaed crime. I agree that this will cause some problems for individuals with addictive personalities, however, there are plenty of things that addicts can use to destroy their lives.

[Gerben42]

Quote

People like to gamble and they will find a way to gamble. If you make gambling illegal, you're simply going to create an opportunity for oragnizaed crime.

This was the same reason why some soft drugs are now legalized in the Netherlands.

It is not for the government to decide if we want to spend our money on gambling or not. If they would ban everything that is possibly bad for us and possibly addictive, this would be unenforcable and if you plan to follow the rules, so boring that you'd probably become depressed.

[mike777]

I see this argument often but it is faulty on its face. These laws are not unenforcable any more than laws on murder or robberies are.

If you have a better approach that is another debate. If you think limited resources are better spent ok...just prove it.

In fact the Netherlands have many laws concerning soft drugs, directly and indirectly. Just as they have many laws on gambling and sex.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 9 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

I see this argument often but it is faulty on its face. These laws are not unenforcable any more than laws on murder or robberies are.

There is a major difference between gambling or, for that matter, prohibition and murder. Most people don't see the need to go arround killing people. There aren't all that many murders.

In contrast, most people that I know see drug laws, gambling regulations, regulations on fireworks and the like as pretty silly. They see nothing wrong with breaking these laws.

The sheer volume of offesne makes enforcement much more difficult. Admitted, the US does seem willing to incarcerate 7-10 times as many people as other democracies, so maybe we've come up with some kind of brilliant solution. Personally, I think its all an enormous waste.

[Gerben42]

Quote

In fact the Netherlands have many laws concerning soft drugs, directly and indirectly. Just as they have many laws on gambling and sex. 

Sure, they have many laws on all kinds of things. But completely forbidding something outright is not a very Dutch thing to do.

Gambling is a form of entertainment and as such it costs money. A casino, online or offline, is a service that costs money. If people like to spend their money in a casino, it is not the government's job to forbid that! It is also not the government's job to forbid cigarettes, beer, chocolate, coffee or anything else that is addictive.

What IS the government's job is to make sure people are in the know about the addictiveness.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Oct 10 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

Quote

In fact the Netherlands have many laws concerning soft drugs, directly and indirectly. Just as they have many laws on gambling and sex. 

Sure, they have many laws on all kinds of things. But completely forbidding something outright is not a very Dutch thing to do.

Gambling is a form of entertainment and as such it costs money. A casino, online or offline, is a service that costs money. If people like to spend their money in a casino, it is not the government's job to forbid that! It is also not the government's job to forbid cigarettes, beer, chocolate, coffee or anything else that is addictive.

What IS the government's job is to make sure people are in the know about the addictiveness.

But they do outlaw many things that are addictive, ask any criminal lawyer in the Netherlands. This includes not only some drugs/chemicals but behavior that some consider addictive.

In any event if the Netherlands population wishes to legalize actions that have a heavy societial price that is their business. I do note that most if not all of Western Europe and Russia have a birthrate much below the replacement rate and a highly restrictive immigration policy. I just wonder who is going to actually work and pay taxes to support this structure?

I guess since many countries have basically no armed forces to help out Darfur or the Congo(3-4 million dead there) genocide, reducing the law enforcement structure is next to go?

Just a side note but do you have any idea what percentage of the population pays income taxes by working or is it all consumption taxes?

I assume most childern, elderly, stay at home moms and dads and soft drug users pay little or no income taxes?

To give you an idea here in the USA more than 50% of the usa population pay little or no income taxes. Around 1% pay 37% of the income taxes and people complain that is too low

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 10 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

To give you an idea here in the USA more than 50% of the usa population pay little or no income taxes. Around 1% pay 37% of the income taxes and people complain that is too low

Funny that...

The top 1% of of the population also owns rought 37% of all the assets in the country...

(The last figures that I saw documented that the top 1% of families owned 34% of the assets, however, the information data back to 1998. I'm quite sure that the income distribution is skewed much more heavility towards the super rich after 6 years of Bush)

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 10 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

I guess since many countries have basically no armed forces to help out Darfur or the Congo(3-4 million dead there) genocide, reducing the law enforcement structure is next to go?

Folks like you are why so many Americans claim to be from Canada when they travel abroad.

The US spends enormous amounts of money on our military, however, we're having damn little success at "Nation building". I don't see us deploying any resources to Darfur. We ignored Rwanda completely. As I recall, the Belgians and the Dutch are willing to contribute peacekeeping forces to international missions. I'd be willing to wager that their contributions (on a per capita basis) exceed those of the US.

Regardless, given how well we're doing using military force to build a working democracy over in Iraq, its probably for the best that we aren't screwing things up elsewhere in the world.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Oct 10 2006, 04:45 PM, said:

The US spends enormous amounts of money on our military, however, we're having damn little success at "Nation building".  I don't see us deploying any resources to Darfur.  We ignored Rwanda completely.  As I recall, the Belgians and the Dutch are willing to contribute peacekeeping forces to international missions.  I'd be willing to wager that their contributions (on a per capita basis) exceed those of the US.

I just ran the numbers

US GDP is roughly 23.64 times as high as that of the Dutch
The US population is roughly 17.25 times as high

The US pledges 27% of the budget for UN peacekeeping forces
The Dutch provide 2%

Notice the difference in the choice of words. See the Dutch actually follow through and donate the money that they pledge. (The US is right on top of the deliquency list)