zlacker

> how can you trust them with driving a vehicle, flying a plane, operating weapons in the military, or even owning a personal weapon?

These are all fairly strongly regulated. Did you choose bad examples on purpose?

>>BobaFl+(OP)
No, but gamblers are allowed to do all those things. and I am not against requiring a license for gambling either, so long as the barrier for entry is reasonable.

>>notepa+Np
Oh ok, I thought you were saying it shouldn't be regulated at all.

So like,what about making gambling work like credit cards: you get a license that allocates a monthly cap based on a combination of credit score and income. It starts very low and scales up to, I don't know, 10% of income?

>>BobaFl+Sr
I wouldn't like that either. Instead, maybe issue licenses to gamblers and like with a credit score, the fact that you have a gamblers license can affect things like getting loans, renting things, what you can buy,etc.. Let others who suffer an increased risk based on interacting with you refuse to do so, or incur additional penalties. Your monthly cap idea still nannies citizens.

We should be free to ruin ourselves if we so wish, but if we are set on a track like that, others should be made aware so they can react as they wish.

Same with drugs, if you get a drug use license, then employers can deny you jobs, you may not be allowed to drive, be trusted with loans,etc..

You get rights, but they come with responsibilities and restrictions.