U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Land of the Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the problem with gambling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I make my income through Internet gambling. However, even before that, I just never saw the problem. Why is it so demonized over there?
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know how it's in the US, but I don't wonder countries are against online gambling: not because of your health, or to prevent fraud, but because of all the money they'll lose their grip on.
More useless legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Nanny state? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the "problem" with gambling -- like the "problems" with prostitution and street drugs -- was that casinos in your neighborhood tend to bring with them a lot of undesirable activity, e.g., the underbelly of Las Vegas. But if the casino is not in your neighborhood, why should anyone care?
easy workaround (Score:5, Insightful)
This will just cause the creation of middleman sites where you park funds with your credit cards and then they transfer the $$ to the online casino of your choice. Paypal would be a good candidate for this. If the govt get's on Paypal's case, then some offshore holding company will come along and for a 1-2% fee do this. The sad thing is that it will probably be owned by a casino and will drive the cost up another 1-2% just to get into a game.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Take prohibition for example: sure, they could tax drugs and "allow" us our god-given right to voluntary association, but prohibition rakes in billions per year for government, and provides them with orders of magnitude more power than regulation and taxing, which can be leveraged for even more profit. Therefore, prohibition is here to stay, at least as long as big government is here to stay.
They will literally sit down and discuss how to maximize revenue and market share, like any business would, and the answer will be determined exactly that way. Don't you love being ruled by other human beings?
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
IF the US were to legalize online gambling, and tariff the hell out of international gambling services, they could not only keep more of the money IN the US economy, but they could still tax the gamblers (capital gains) and the profits of the online casino.
Instead the government has created a situation where they are attempting to dictate morals to the majority aged citizens and are shipping our US dollars overseas for no good reason.
-Rick
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
But doesn't the exact same thing happen with outsourcing - you move production or a call center to India, and you pay for Indian workers, therefore moving money from your domestic economy to foreign economy ? And yet the government doesn't seem to have any problems with that...
Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe gambling laws are all controlled by the state legislatures. Gambling bills come up from time to time that will allows gambling, often limited stakes, in specific areas (Atlantic City, Blackhawk, Deadwood, etc...) When a new gambling bill comes up for a vote, at least in my state, the biggest argument against it is concern about the type of people it will bring in. Most local citizens are more concerned about the potential bad elements, corruption and crime that may accompany the gambling than they are the actual gaming.
Nevada doesn't have nearly the exclusivity it used to. With all of the Indian casinos, riverboats and other gambling areas many people have something available withing a few hours drive. The real problem the government has with online gaming is the loss of revenue. They don't get any tax dollars from offshore gambling. Politicians are wrapping this up in a warm fuzzy "we are protecting the children" blanket, but really it's all about the money.
Re:What's the problem with gambling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because authoritarians presently rule. I'm 54, but the Bill of Rights was a pathetic, toothless joke even before I was born. We aren't the land of the free, many if not most countries are freer (Canada, right on our border, for example). It's not the home of the brave, either; at least, our politicians are all yellow, as are most of my cowardly countrymen.
You allow people to drink
Not in every county. For a couple of decades it was illegal everywhere. You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a beer in most cities.
smoke
Not certain substances (pot, crack, meth, heroin), and in my town nowhere indoors in public.
carry guns
Not really. Walk down a Chicago or New York street with a loaded shotgun and watch how fast the cops arrest or shoot you! Plus you can't transport a loaded gun legally, it has to be unloaded, broken down or disassembled, and can't be within the driver's reach.
and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least)
Only in Nevada. You can gamble in Nevada as well (slots, cards, dice, etc). Most states have some gambling; lottery, and there are riverboat casinos in many states (mine for one) where you can play poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, craps, etc; and we have horseracing and betting on it.
but not to bet on certain outcomes.
See "smoke". Also see "prostitution", my theory is that American casinos are pushing this law. America has the best government money can buy. I have no representation at all, the only people with representation are the corporates.
What I'm sure a lot of foreigners don't understand about the US is that it's a HUGE country, over 6400 km wide and over 3200 km north-south, with its biggest state, Alaska, sitting on top of Canada and with Hawaii way off in the Pacific, halfway to Japan. Our Constitution limits (limited, no longer it seems) Federal power, leaving the individual states to pass their own laws. In theory, at least. There is at present no Federal law against gambling or prostitution.
You have to remember that most US states are bigger than most European countries. It's over 600 KM from Chicago to Paducah, and Kentucky borders Illinois. And Illinois is only a medium sized state! I live in central Illinois, and the closest legal whorehouse is in Canada 300 miles away; Nevada is almost ten times as far.
Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you meant that as a slam, but I absolutely agree with that statement. As an American, I am very concerned about trade deficits. Sure, it strengthens the economies of other nations, but it does so at the expense of the American economy.
It's not a double standard at all, it's just seeking a balanced economic exchange.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
also, consider this example: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/0
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There are zero other factors in this. Prohibit an activity, then run it as a business for your own benefit and strong-arm the competition into shutting down. That's either government gambling or something the mafia might do. You really can't tell the difference.
Re:Idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
Just for the sake of argument, I want you to re-read the above paragraph, but replace "internet gambling" with "internet child pornography." Heck, replace it with "crack cocaine use" or "drunk driving."
Online activities can be outlawed and enforced. It's not sticking your head in the sand to try and eliminate it if it's truly something your society rejects.
Re:Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, if you're that concerned about trade deficits, then we should regulate and encourage online gambling development in the US. As this international industry continues to boom (as it will as India and China grow), I'd rather see some of that money flow through US enterprises and banks rather than Costa Rican ones.
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has really been overpowered/bought out by multi-national corporations who owe their allegience to no government. Our senators and congressmen almost certainly know this but the system has been set up so corporate money is now required to enter politics at any serious level.
What is referred to as the "US" is really 270 million people being pulled along and steered by a tiny minority. They give us the illusion that we have control but where it counts, we do not and have not for at least 30 to 40 years.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.
The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).
We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
Why is popularity always cited in defence of laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note, I'm not coming down for or against online gambling, just making the point that its popularity is a specious argument when it comes to legislation.
No need to worry at all... (Score:4, Insightful)
damn
Hold on, someone's at the door...
Re:What's the problem with gambling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Concern over the risk to society of creating gambling addicts, but that might be a rationalization for the first one.
Historical association with organized crime (which is likely just a consequence of making gambling illegal).
Disdain for how economically unproductive gambling is.
The government-revenue argument is only a partial explanation, since any state that tries to start a state lottery can count on vocal popular opposition.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:1, Insightful)
A libertarian believes in the freedom to own a gun and the freedom to not get shot, because getting shot is an example of being aggressed against. The essential difference between the statist and the libertarian is that the statist will aggress against innocents in order to achieve his ends (i.e. the political means), whereas the libertarian will only attempt to achieve his ends through voluntary trade (i.e. the economic ends) and defense against criminals (for a libertarian, the word "criminal" is defined as a person engaged in the political means).
An example of the political means is gun control laws. Gun control laws threaten violence against any person who buys or sells a gun without following the "proper procedure". The statist doesn't care that failure to follow this procedure does not involve any aggression whatsoever against innocent people; the statist simply sees violence (or threats of violence) as a tool to achieve his ends.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more profitable because it justifies military-scale law enforcement budgets, allows law enforcement to seize assets worth millions of dollars, allows the state to jail non-violent users to use as a cheap labor pool, and neccessitates the construction of prison after prison. We now have a higher percentage of our population in jail that the USSR at the height of the gulags.
Of course, prohibition has also been the largest factor in the erosion of our right to privacy.
I'm all for jailing violent offenders, but let the god-damn tokers out! Put our police to better use, like violent gangs and corporate criminals.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
"Trade" literally means trade... as in they send us stuff we want, and we send them stuff that they want (or we send them a promise to give them even more stuff they want in the future). We trade for it. Get it? Money is just a means of exchange to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
The U.S. trade deficit exists because the U.S. is borrowing insane amounts of money to spend on consumer goods (or the government is doing it on our behalf). The U.S. trade deficit isn't a problem we have with other countries, so much as it is the suicidal economic behavior of Americans. Instead of trading stuff they want for stuff we want, the U.S. is trading the promise for lots and lots of stuff they want in the future, for stuff we want now. If Americans and America weren't loaded with debt, trade between the U.S. and other countries would be relatively balanced.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the problem with trying to make the laws too fancy. The right way to handle this is to outlaw STEALING, not some other behavior (drug use) that someone thinks may be related to stealing. Frankly, I don't care why someone is stealing, I just care that they are stealing.
Can someone say (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think its the population that is against online gambling, or the states, because they're not getting a piece of the pie?