Monday, October 02, 2006

More Government Control?


I am not sure how I feel about this one in a sense.

The legislation, part of a port securities bill passed by the House and Senate on Saturday, prohibits the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers for online gaming.


On one hand, I know that gambling has caused many more problems than it has solved. You can see examples of that in everyday life, just drive past a casino at 2:00 pm and wonder why the parking lot is full. On the other hand, isn't this just a case of the government legislating morality?

Look at the bills sponsor, Jon Kyl. He is quoted as saying that online gambling is a moral threat. Other statements seem to indicate that this is moral legislation:

Gambling can be highly addictive, especially when it's done over an unregulated environment such as the Internet

If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their Blackberries as they wait in line at the movies.


I hate to pull out the old slippery slope argument but; isn't alcohol,caffeinee, pornography and even the internet itself addictive? When you start legislating morality, when do you stop?

I am curious how my libertarianesque buddies over at mtpolitics.net view this.

5 comments:

Wulfgar said...

'Don't know if I qualify as libertarianesque, but this legislation is wrong on many levels.

1) Attempts to control the Internet are wrong-headed from the get-go. It is the largest distributed intellect that humans can (currently) imagine, and will find a solution to every "problem"/roadblock placed in it's path.

2) It won't stop addicted gamblers from going into debt. It will just shift the burden onto banks and cash-advance usery-enabling pirates and crime goons.

3) It is a blatant attempt to control personal behavior through legislation ... doomed to failure on it's face. And this legislation is the poster child for why the 'slippery-slope' argument exists. You shouldn't hate applying it when it directly applies.

4) It's counter-productive. It doesn't solve the stated problem at hand; it simply encourages more violation of the law.

Craig said...

Pretty much what Rob said.

I would add the following maxim as food for thought, though: All legislation is legislating morality; it's just a question of whose.

Shane C. Mason said...

All legislation is legislating morality; it's just a question of whose.

Can I say that is cynacle? Seems so, in a way. I would say that you are right to an extent, but wrong in another. In my mind, it is OK to legislate actions that allow one person to impede on anothers right to the pursuit of happiness or on ones safety. For instance, saying 'Don't kill people' is positive because I can not pursue happiness when I am dead.

However, telling an adult that they can not smoke pot is not OK because the smoking of pot does not impede on anyone elses rights.

craig said...

In my mind, it is OK to legislate actions that allow one person to impede on anothers right to the pursuit of happiness or on ones safety.
Hmmm...

Have to chew on that one for a while.

Anonymous said...

INDEED.....