zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
The older I get the more I hate gambling. When i was younger I tended to think "hey it's their choice" but i've realized how unfair our society is in terms of things like this.

Food, gambling, etc. are all backed by hordes of brilliant well paid people trying to get you to ruin your life so they make money. On the other side is just regular people like us stressed out trying to survive.

This isn't some "freedom" issue, it's an incredibly huge power asymmetry and I think "we the people" need protection from these forces

>>snapca+0M2
How shall we as a society decide who is to be denied agency in this way, because someone else determines they are to be infantilized, deemed incapable of exercising full responsibility for their own -- entirely voluntary -- actions?

Can you propose a universally acceptable formula or philosophy? Shall we just consult you on a case by case basis to determine when and where a putative power differential exists, and exactly when such a differnetial becomes large enough to verge into "unfair"?

>>pjlega+vc3
Why is that the standard? We're in the real world not magic libertarian logic automaton world. We have the ability to judge social harm and weigh it against the benefits and make nuanced decisions

edit: like how we've managed to do with literally every single other law?

>>snapca+Wc3
You mean the way we passed the current laws that allow such gambling, which you are now complaining about?

By that standard, we're done, the matter has already been concluded in favor of "allow gambling."

>>pjlega+ae3
Yes, and I think that was a huge mistake. What is your point again?

edit: things can improve, women can open bank accounts without their husband approving it now! We decided something, re-evaluated and made a better decision

>>snapca+mg3
This takes us back to the beginning: how shall we determine when the social process has failed, and what constitutes "improvement"?

Society has already spoken on this matter. It seems that your criteria amount to nothing more than "when I personally dislike the results of the social process, the social process has failed, and we ought to revisit it."

So I ask again the question you've begged: by what formula or philosophy are we to determine when a social decision such as "allow gambling" is bad? Is there anything beyond your personal feelings on a topic that we can turn to as a criterion?