(no subject)

[acroyear]

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Stop the Presses!:

Folks, we might be witness to an earth-shattering event: the Worldnutdaily actually printed a column that makes sense. I know, I know, it doesn't seem possible. But it's true. Read this column by Walter Williams, which bashes Congress for passing a bill to ban internet gambling (only the House has passed it so far, actually). Forget about the ongoing violence in the Middle East, this may well be the opening of the seventh seal and the start of armageddon.

a quote that column  -WorldNetDaily: Congress gambles with our liberty:

If people want to gamble online, they are going to gamble online. The only thing the act will accomplish is, like Prohibition, make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people. It will turn banks and other financial institutions into government snoops. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, "If an adult in this country, with his own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we bar it." I second that and add, since protection of "the children" often serves as an excuse to restrict our liberties, that if children get involved, let their parents, not Congress, deal with it.

Frank: an activity that harms no one

See, that's the problem. There are people harmed by addictive gambling, just as their are people harmed by pretty much any addition including alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, and of course, blog reading on the internet.

To "their" eyes (the "freedom? what freedom?" crowd in the Right), they are protecting families from themselves, as the families of the addicts are the ones that suffer, often to the extent of needing government assistance. This assistance omething the Right also wants to do away with as its liberal socialism in action at the rich's taxpayer expense.

It all adds up - restrict the addictive activity and they can cut back on the support programs.

Of course, it completely ignores the fact that enforcement of the law will cost billions more than the social support costs do, as demonstrated by the "drug war"'s costs over the last 2 decades (especially in our courts and prisons).

But when did facts ever get in the way of "supporting the family" and "protecting the children"?

Like this fact: just how many children out there have credit cards and are using them on the internet without their parents supervision?

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

There's way too many things in this I could comment on, but I'll just note this one thing:

The only thing the act will accomplish is, like Prohibition, make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.

Creating or changing laws does this. Hence, breaking the law makes you a lawbreaker. Duh.

The gun lobby has been using this stupid argument for years for every regulation that might save a few lives. They talk about "law-abiding citizens" at the same time they argue against laws. Sheesh.

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

I dislike the idea of "no harm" or "saves lives." I think those are bad arguments.

In an adult society, adults have the right to harm themselves. They even have the harm each other if they choose. Assult is illegal. Boxing is legal. Both involve men hitting each other. Both cause harm. Gambling causes harm to a person and his/her family. So be it. The inevitable side-affect of freedom is bad choices. That will always be true, no matter what the laws are.

As for saving lives, some rights cost lives. They cost lives to secure, and their continuing use costs more lives. That doesn't mean that those rights are bad. Often enough, the alternative is what was considered worse. The question is not whether something is harmful or costs lives, but whether something is TOO harmful or costs TOO MANY lives.