zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. czhu12+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-09-27 17:56:25
Well, I'd argue the net negative effects are people who enjoy responsible sports gambling aren't able to do it anymore.

The state can of course, claim that no one should be gambling on sports anyways, so its not a problem that people lose access, just as it can with any other vice. People who have no interest in sports gambling would of course, not care either way.

If there is no value assigned to having the freedom, in and of itself, then of course, banning anything becomes trivial.

I think under this criteria, as long as we can have an "effective" ban (ie: no black markets are created) on anything that is not healthy for people to participate in, it would be worth banning.

So basically, anything that is unhealthy, but not yet banned, is only allowed because the state cannot yet find an effective way to ban it.

replies(1): >>throwu+Q2
2. throwu+Q2[view] [source] 2024-09-27 18:10:40
>>czhu12+(OP)
There is lots of value to personal freedom. You are free to bet with your friends and play poker or whatever.

That doesn’t mean that corporations should have the freedom to exploit society for profit while being a total net-negative. Enabling a vice in the name of "freedom" isn’t a virtue.

A little black market gambling is completely fine as long as the bookie is the one committing crimes and not their customers.

[go to top]