zlacker

I used to think this, but do you really see the liberalization of gambling laws as having a positive effect? Would you describe the previous state of it being illegal as some kind of dystopia? Do you care at all about the wreckage it creates in the lives of individuals and their families?

>>snapca+(OP)
I think laws should be viewed from the lens of human rights and the idea of what might be an actual justifiable application of violence, and not a naive “positive effect”.

It would have a positive effect if I went around summarily executing everyone accused of child exploitation, for example, but it would be insane and unjust. There’s a reason we don’t do it that way.

Threatening people with violence for what other people view as misapplication of their own resources is incredibly unjust.

If you don’t have the freedom to destroy yourself or your own resources, you don’t have freedom.

It isn’t the legal system that causes this wreckage (although you might disagree, “lifting” a ban isn’t an action - it’s cessation of the threat of future enforcement action), and it isn’t the legal system that is the appropriate solution to the problem. All bans are, practically, are the threat of someone pulling out a gun to force you to stop. If you personally aren’t willing to go to that length, you shouldn’t vote for or support such policies.

Are you willing to pull a gun on an addict to stop them from indulging in their addiction? If not, what possible moral justification do you have for instructing a cop to do same?

>>sneak+x
If stats showed that instances of gambling related social ills increased massively after liberalization would that impact you at all? is your ideology truly consequence-free?

edit: Also yes, I would use physical violence to stop someone I cared about from destroying their lives with gambling if it would help. I would hope for the sake of your loved ones you would be willing to do the same

>>sneak+x
I do not have to be willing to take out a gun for the ban, and neither does a cop. Cessation of easy online gambling would be enough for some high proportion of the problem. All that takes is the court shutting the company down and serving a cease and desist to their website. You may claim this requires a gun but as far as I know that's never been the case.

>>_dark_+cj
The only reason that a ban like that works is because there is the threat of a gun. You can pretend that it doesn’t require a gun but that’s what the ban is: threat of arrest if you don’t comply.

It does require the gun, but it doesn’t require that the gun get pulled out, because everyone knows the police WILL do so if you resist them. It’s implicit. The cop does have to be ready and willing to do so (contrary to your claim), or everyone would ignore the ban, as it would have no teeth.

People don’t obey laws that are inconvenient to them because of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because the police will draw down on them and force them if push comes to shove.