SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Monday January 08 2018, @03:34PM
from the 1-in-365,214,231-chance-of-getting-the-good-stuff dept.
from the 1-in-365,214,231-chance-of-getting-the-good-stuff dept.
Loot boxes in video games give the player a random item, perhaps a weapon or a skin, typically in exchange for payment. Should they be viewed as a legal sweepstakes or as an illegal lottery? This video examines the legal issues and explains how loot boxes could be structured to avoid running afoul of gambling laws (which vary by state) in the U.S.. The video concludes that many current implementations of loot boxes are really illegal lotteries, and conjectures that major game companies use them anyway because the risk of being prosecuted isn't enough to dissuade them.
Previously: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Default, n.:
The hardware's, of course.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @03:51PM (69 children)
... of the inalienable right, endowed by the "Creator" (read: universe), to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Fuck off, authoritarians.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aiwarrior on Monday January 08 2018, @04:22PM (34 children)
I get the liberty part but happiness, in gambling?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:24PM (21 children)
You don't get it, but a gambler does.
Now, go away, and play with your own inscrutable toys.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Monday January 08 2018, @05:00PM (20 children)
I do not get it, but as you stated that there is happiness in gambling I honestly assumed you are a gambler and you could lighten my world view. I am not debating your argument, I even said I do understand the liberty part, I just wanted your deeper insight into the issue.
Sad. The snark and self-righteous libertarian dogma get in the way of the flow of ideas these days.
Tell me, what do you want liberty for, if the concept is just a dogma? The irony is huge.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:15PM (6 children)
I don't know what you're trying to convey other than "I don't like your tone".
If you're truly interested in the flow of ideas, then you wouldn't be so easily butthurt.
(Score: 1) by WillR on Monday January 08 2018, @06:09PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:14PM (2 children)
The only condescension is coming from the AC who is looking down upon people he doesn't understand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:39PM
Yeah, which was the point of the comment you responded to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @08:34PM
I am looking down! And apparently from a very great height! What are the odds?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:11PM (1 child)
You are such a tool, aiwarrior had the most mild reasonable reaction that was not "butthurt" in any way. You have an attitude problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:25PM
It was just more "I don't understand you" nonsense, with a hint of "therefore you're probably wrongheaded" garbage.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @05:38PM (12 children)
There is happiness in gambling in the same way there is happiness in alcohol. Or drugs I suppose. It makes you feel great for a short time. Then the alcoholic wakes up in vomit, and the gambler wakes up in debt -- possibly to some bad people.
My advice to the alcoholic: Alcohol won't solve your problems. Neither will water or diet coke.
Similar advice for the gambler.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @07:32PM (7 children)
Advice can regularly be both welcome and helpful.
So-called "laws" that ultimately rest on the threat of lethal force while violating the exclusive self-ownership of free human beings can go violate themselves and the horse they rode in on.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @09:01PM (6 children)
Laws might not be primarily to protect the person you think is being protected -- but rather to protect the rest of us from the consequences of their life failure. This might be true whether we are talking about (A) a law to protect from one's own stupidity or (B) a law to protect from being conned or taken advantage of by another.
We already have plenty of (B) type laws already.
Laws of type (A) protect us in a couple possible ways. One is from crime from someone who becomes too poor to eat and would turn to robbery. Or who is to fixated on getting their next fix and would do just about anything to achieve that goal regardless of harm to life or property, including their own. Or someone who becomes so poor that society decides to create some kid of welfare or public assistance rather than see the alternatives I have just mentioned.
The core problem is that "free human beings" are not free to do anything they want. They have to live in a world with other people. That means some restrictions on what one can do that affects others directly or indirectly. If they don't like that, then they need to find a place to be free where the consequences cannot possibly affect anyone else. Or society tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to create such places, with names like "Toxic Waste Overlook Prison" or "Happy Halls Insane Asylum".
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @10:05PM (2 children)
Is there some reason you chose to conflate stated intent of a law with the consequences of the law? Civil asset forfeiture in drug cases doesn't protect anyone from the scourge of drug addicts or their dealers, but it does generate an ample revenue stream for an avaricious police force. It doesn't protect us, but that's one of the pretexts for the existence of that sort of law.
Fine sentiment except that nobody is saying let's make theft and fraud legal.
Who gets to decide that you deserve a padded cell?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @11:00PM (1 child)
I wasn't thinking about civil asset forfeiture in anything I was writing. But that is a great example of a law having very unintended consequences. (Or were they perhaps intended?)
I had mentioned prisons and threw padded cells in at no additional charge. We seem to do it today. We decide that someone should get a padded cell as an alternative to prison if they are doing things that the rest of the population they must live with thinks that their exercise of their freedom is too harmful to everyone else. . . . but mooooom! I want to be a cereal / serial killer and enroll in AP courses for it!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @11:44PM
So why are you equating libertarianism with AP courses for serial killers? I'm not quite seeing the connection myself. I'm pretty most libertarians would be on board with keeping serial killing illegal.
The point is saying that laws protect us, when they often don't is part of the problem. Just like speaking of governments as competent and not corrupt when they often aren't. Libertarianism and similar philosophies would be nonexistent, if the world were good enough that one didn't have to worry about these sorts of things.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @10:34PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @11:06PM (1 child)
There are examples where I feel likewise. TSA is a great example.
And here is another example. I am willing to give up freedom to take certain drugs (eg, meth, heroin) when they seem to be related to large harms to other people that follow.
Now . . . we seem to have a large problem with prescription opiod drugs. Yet some people take them occasionally, responsibly and without any problems.
So it's easy for me to demonize certain things, say certain drugs, for example. Or shops that sell skateboards and related criminal paraphernalia -- even though there are people who skateboard responsibly, don't cause destruction to other public / private property, etc.
Too bad I can't wave my magic wand and solve all the world's problems.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by Barenflimski on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:18AM
Anything "easy" should be banned. If you act like that, the world ends up like that. It starts with you. Think about it.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday January 08 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
You confuse a gambler — someone who gambles, like e.g. a wine drinker drinks wine — with a gambling addict, the equivalent to an alcoholic. Not every wine drinker is an alcoholic, and not every gambler is a gambling addict.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @08:49PM
I'm not confused about the difference. However I should have qualified what I meant more clearly.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 08 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)
Yes, this is true.
I love gambling. I mean I really get off on it, there's probably some chemical feedback thing going on in my brain.
Luckily I married a woman who has no interest in gambling, and has dissuaded me from gambling in the past. I have got to the stage where I understand I could have a problem, and don't feed the monkey on my back, so I have never lost my house and family.
I am well aware that not every potential addict is in my position however, so i am really happy that gambling is very heavily regulated in my country.
All that libertarian stuff sounds appealing, but I wouldn't want to live there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:22AM
Typical authoritarian. You sooth your self-loathing by projecting your weaknesses onto others.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 08 2018, @04:54PM (3 children)
Adrenaline, and dopamine - yeah, they make you "happy" for a short time.
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Monday January 08 2018, @05:03PM (2 children)
This was the point I was going to get. That "gambling" is like a drug in the sense that it rushes, takes the effect and it's excreted by the system, living the being in a statistically worse off situation.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
Clearly, there is a lot more going on for people who enjoy gambling; not every gambler is some simpleton cranking on the slot machine like a mindless, drugged-out automaton.
There are loads of statistics, and game theory, involved in calculating odds—there are oodles of rules to learn, and social skills to hone, which makes a lot of gambling an intellectual pursuit; there is a certain milieu that is enticing to people, such as blue suede shoes, scantily clad women, and cigars, and tasty alcoholic beverages; there are memories of fun outings with friends, of letting loose, and indulging in a certain degree of hedonism; there is the camaraderie of fellow travelers, and the nostalgia of past victories.
Please.
You're the reason we cannot have nice things; you walk into the voting booth with your complete inability to place yourself in someone else's skin, which makes you entirely dangerous and totally unworthy of participating in the coercive action inherent in politics. There's a reason that schooling children used to involve debate tournaments where the students were required to argue both sides; this taught them to seat their minds in someone else's reality, if only temporarily. You need to practice this skill, because you are sorely lacking here.
(Score: 2) by https on Monday January 08 2018, @05:35PM
...and if you'd actually done that, you'd remember that some people's reality is disconnected from it.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday January 08 2018, @06:49PM
I suppose it all depends on how many barrow loads of disposable income one has.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @07:59PM (3 children)
Yes. People gamble by choice. It's not your place to decide what they should try to make themselves happy.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:49AM (2 children)
And you are happy to let your underage kids gamble because this makes them happy?
Because those loot boxes are sold to kids - some would say, mainly to kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Barenflimski on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:21AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:16AM
It would be vastly better than having Big Nanny tell me how to raise my kids. The loot box scheme can be quite educational so yes, I would permit this as long as they control their spending.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday January 08 2018, @08:54PM (2 children)
Here is a game I like to play at the casino: Walk around the slots and try to find a person smiling.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @12:44AM (1 child)
That sounds clever... until you think about it.
As an example, I find playing board games fun. However, I frequently don't smile when doing it. Likewise if you looked at the audience in a (non-laugh-out-loud-comedy) movie, how many would you find smiling? How about most of the audience of a sports arena for most of the game? How about the players of a video game?
I guess 90% of them could be bored and there for other reasons. I suspect it is more likely that your metric is flawed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:17AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by chewbacon on Monday January 08 2018, @04:24PM (6 children)
Some people need mommy and daddy (government) to step in and tell them they need to stop or protect them. Then some guys just can’t stand others paying to get an advantage on Battlefront II, they wind up smashing their mom’s salt shaker collection she keeps stored in their basement bedroom. Don’t like the game? Don’t fucking play it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)
You cannot protect a person from himself without constructing a Tyranny.
At most, without a Tyranny, you can protect one person from another person (but, of course, only in a way that does not try to protect a person from himself).
If you want a Civilized Society, you must allow a person to destroy himself.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (2 children)
So let me rephrase what nanny-staters appear to really want: What should a civilized society do to protect dependents from the harmful effects of the self-destruction of their caregivers?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:43PM
There's nothing wrong with defending a Dependent from an Abuser, or finding a Dependent new guardianship; society already does that.
The problems occur when you try to help the Dependent by controlling the Abuser, including by forcing the Abuser to support the Dependent; if you want a civilized world, help each Dependent,* but allow each Abuser to destroy himself and to cut himself out of society.
* Ideally, this help should not be coerced from anyone, just as it shouldn't be coerced from an Abuser. A civilized society must be built on the will of each individual, not on the will of a particular group.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:07PM
The problem is not in the question, it's in the definition of who is a dependent. Some go as far as to make everyone wards of the state. That has the obvious implication that none of the "dependents" should have a say, the State knows best - a classic authoritarian maneuver. The problem that your question evokes is what happens when the "civilized state" is the self-destructive caregiver? Who will rescue the dependents in that case?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @05:42PM (1 child)
You can't protect someone from himself. But you can and probably should protect him from being taken advantage of. Now where to draw the line is not easy.
If someone messes up their life and becomes unemployable by, let's just say, gaming, is that worse than if they used drugs instead to destroy their life? We pass laws against (certain) drugs. Maybe we shouldn't? We don't pass laws against gamers. Maybe we should? Probably not as they seem to be harmless except the swatters.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @07:43PM
Line-drawing is quite easy: when someone lies to someone else and profits from it, that crosses the line into criminal fraud.
Good news! We already have laws against fraud.
(Score: 3, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:27PM (25 children)
Yes and no. I could make a case that your gambling is predatory and robs others of their happiness (like children of gambling addicts), and leads to general disarray in a society. Legislating against things that lead to breakdown of society is not only in society's best interest, but also is an ethical obligation of the society. So all you libertarian nuts can just pack your hobo-bag and head on over to your libertarian paradise of Somalia, where no oppressive laws will stand in the way of your happiness. But please leave your children behind, they deserve much better.
Aside from that, loot boxes are a shitty mechanic of double fiat currency (usually convert cash to some fiat currency that can be used to buy some keys at arbitrary price, sorta like timeshare-points but even more shitty) that tries to market abundant goods as scarcity. The loot boxes "drop" in the world ever so often, so they are RARE, but somehow you always have more boxes than keys... that's weird! I should buy enough keys to open all the RARE boxes, I'm missing out as the boxes are clearly the RARE thing here!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:53PM (24 children)
Somalia is a failed state; there was a single-party, socialist (indeed, "scientific communist") government.
The inevitable implosion of this kind of regime left a power vacuum; a culture that is based around authoritarianism will naturally fill such a vacuum with more authoritarians, one of the simplest forms of which is the warlord.
A warlord is a kind of government; a warlord and his men constitute an organization that allocates resources by coercion rather than well-defined agreement in advance of interaction.
Nevertheless, the dissolution of Big Government has vastly improved the lives of Somalians.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday January 08 2018, @04:59PM (23 children)
That's a fine dance, AC, but you're rather missing the point.
In the absence of a strong, competent, non-corrupt government, you reliably get a chaotic hellhole. Libertopia doesn't exist, and never will. It's a few centuries too late to pretend that we don't know this by now.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:04PM (7 children)
Libertopia does exist; it's just so sophisticated that it doesn't fit into your naive notion of a particular geographic border with a particular national hymn and celebrated with particular sacred set symbols; libertopia is the voluntary exchange amongst individuals, which comprises the very phenomena that actually make society productive, and on which every government attaches itself like a parasite.
A government is like that guy who jumps in front of a parade march and pretends to lead it.
It's the height of naivete to pretend that this one particular monopoly (a monopoly built fundamentally on violent imposition, no less) is going to be different. Yes, this time, it won't be corrupt, amirite? No. Governments are just organizations of men, and men are not angels; the Dear Leader is not formed of finer clay.
It's a few millennia too late to pretend that we don't know this by now.
The only way forward is to accept that self-interest is a thing, and to build one's philosophy of society around it, rather than to ignore it naively. We got a whiff of this approach in the founding of the United States, which clearly introduced the notion of a Separation of Powers, the idea of which is to pit various authorities against each other so as to diminish the dangers of a monopoly.
Alas, the implementation is largely just smoke and mirrors, as each "branch" of this kind of Western representative democracy is itself a violently imposed monopoly.
The right way is to take this separation of powers to its limit, and that means that society should be organized as much as possible through a free market on goods and services, including the goods and services that have traditionally been the sole domain of a self-styled, self-imposed "government" (this includes the enforcement of agreements between individuals). If you view yourself as being a member of civilized society, then you should delight in asking the question "How can we do this or that with as little coercion as possible?" You should be uncomfortable with the fact that there is imposition, and you should want to do everything possible to organize society in a way that mitigates feelings of resentment.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:15PM (3 children)
Rambling rant, inherent selfishness perspective, lack of awareness about reality and human nature, yup I'll call that PAR!
Next up "FORE! Incoming libertarian screeeeed!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:28PM (2 children)
... but you can't make him drink.
I'll leave it to the Dear Reader to decide who the horse is.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:41PM (1 child)
So using confirmation bias that is dependent on the reader's personal opinions? Quality stuff, you must be the same libertard AC who never has valid support just rambling ideas about freedom and small to non-existent government.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:10PM
Obviously, it would be better for you to tell us what to think, Glorious Leader AC!
But sure, blame on confirmation bias what can be better explained by an inadequate argument.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:22AM (2 children)
(First off - I've upvoted you. I didn't think that 'Flamebait' mod was fair.)
That's... just a bunch of words. What's to prevent the most brutal warlord from ruling the roost? Private security and an armed populace? We're back to Somalia.
No-one is saying government is, or needs to be, perfect. My position is that imperfect big government is generally better than too little government.
There's a lot of variety in the world's governments regarding how much corruption seeps in. Some countries, like, if I understand correctly, Singapore and Japan, seem to be doing really rather well on that front.
That's exactly what we're doing here in Europe - we want a capitalist society with enough tax to pay for big government, strong regulation, and a welfare state. There's still self-interest. It's not communism.
Yes, government is imposed by force, and you don't get to 'opt out' except by leaving the country. This doesn't strike me as terribly profound, though. The alternative is so much worse, that the observation is little more than quaint.
Sounds to me like a religious argument for extreme deregulation. No, deregulation doesn't always work out well. You want nuclear engineering and bridge engineering to be deregulated? Guns for anyone who wants one? No driving licences or pilot licences? Who pays for care for those with crippling life-long disabilities? What about externalities?
Here I agree. I'm arguing for a 'golden mean', not for unlimited totalitarianism. There is indeed a tradeoff, and as you say we should always lament the diminution of our liberty when making laws. Nonetheless, strong laws are, in my view, worth it overall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:58PM (1 child)
That's just it. Your idea of "government' does not solve any of the problems you worry about. Your house is built on sand.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @12:36PM
It does, actually. I rather like that the NHS exists, and that the state will pay to care for those who can't care for themselves. I rather like that my government regulates who gets to design skyscrapers or buy a gun.
The free market is not, as you seem to think, a silver bullet. Market failure is real. Under-regulation is real.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:21PM (14 children)
Which in the case of Somalia was better than the government that came before which managed to check none of those boxes.
The absence of "strong, competent, non-corrupt government" is why the libertarians are so high profile these days.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday January 08 2018, @10:21PM (13 children)
I'm British, so to me, that reads like a joke. I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Libertarianism has zero traction in at least my country. We want better government, not minimal government.
In the US, it's currently the usual two-party affair, but with a cult-of-personality thrown in.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Monday January 08 2018, @11:37PM (8 children)
I second this.
Libertarianism is not a popular theory in any other Western Democracy. Why? I suspect a combination of two reasons:
It only takes a handful of sociopaths to destroy a libertarian utopia. Failing to recognise that some people are sociopaths is the fatal flaw of libertarianism IMO.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @12:13AM (3 children)
Higher proportion of free lunchers and authoritarians. It's not that popular in the US either for similar reasons.
Well that would explain how a libertarian movement takes root then.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:45AM (2 children)
More like the USA has a higher proportion of stupid ignorant people.
For example, the healthcare thing.
If you were one of those who had to pay taxes, universal healthcare would still be the cheaper option for you.
Even a selfish but intelligent sociopath would realize that lots of OTHER people wouldn't be able to tolerate hospitals that intentionally shove the poor out of ER to die in the streets because the poor couldn't pay for treatment.
Treating the poor in ERs is more expensive than treating them via other channels - like normal GPs and clinics.
It's also even more expensive if the poor commit crimes to get money to get healthcare or worse to go to prison and get healthcare in prison (yes it does happen - more than a few people have committed crimes to get healthcare or just "food and lodging" ).
Delivering healthcare (or food and lodging) via the prison industry is far more expensive than just giving it to them "free".
It may cost you in other ways when ERs are closed down due to costs: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html [nytimes.com]
One day you might need an ER but there are fewer ERs near you and they are too busy...
The USA's healthcare costs are really higher:
See also: https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ftotHealthExp_pC_USD_long-1.png [ricochet.com]
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/toddhixon/files/2012/02/MaryMeeker-graph-e1329513274401.jpg?width=960 [forbes.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:52PM
Than not paying US prices for universal health care? Right. My take is that even with prisons and ER care, sociopaths are paying less now than they would under a universal health care system, US-style.
Wouldn't be their problem. Don't think you're getting the point. The vast majority of people who claim on SN that people are acting against their self-interest, merely don't understand the self-interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:25PM
Unless that intelligent sociopath were running a long con on all of us and massively profiting from the popular delusion. I submit the health "insurance" complex.
The problem that the USA has is that too many people who aren't sociopaths (yet always temporarily embarrassed millionaires) don't understand how they're being manipulated and scammed by sociopaths. Only a gaslighting sociopath could successfully sell people individual aspirin tablets at $10 each.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:18AM (3 children)
You've got that backwards.
Only libertarianism embraces the reality that men are not angels, and the self-interest is the root of all motivation—your altruism, too, is selfish. If you ignore this fact, as all non-libertarian philosophies do, then you are doomed to construct a naive form of society.
Western society's success stems from the libertarian aspects of society; libertarian principles (consciously acknowledged or not) are what have made the West so successful, despite the fact that authoritarians make every effort to conceal or deny this fact.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:00AM (2 children)
What on Earth are you talking about? Modern moderate lefties (myself included) want a hybrid system that combines capitalism with a benevolent welfare state. You seem to want to pretend that this is the same as full-bore communism.
Disagree. Capitalism, maybe, but not libertarianism. Modern Europe is nothing short of anti-libertarian, but compared to most societies it's pretty great.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @11:01PM (1 child)
... compared to the ones in the field. However, he was still a slave.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:36AM
Very poetic. What's your point?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @11:45PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:44AM (2 children)
There might be something there worth exploring, but as you say, it's not exactly libertarianism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:48PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:38AM
I suppose that's a fair point. Privatisation, for instance, has a streak of the libertarian to it.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday January 08 2018, @10:09PM
Our Founding Fathers said they were entitled to life, liberty, and PROPERTY. Let me tell you, our great gaming industry is all about the property. As you know, I had two beautiful casinos in Atlantic City. So I know all there is to know about gaming. And let me tell you, our Founding Fathers would be very upset if they knew what's happened to our gaming industry. The political correctness. I asked Congress, why is it only Indians can have the reservations, only Indians can have the gaming? Why aren't they approving it for everybody? Why are they being discriminatory? Why is it that the Indians don't pay tax, but everybody else does? I do. Do the few hundred members of the tribe deserve to make all the money they're making?
It’s obvious that organized crime is rampant on the Indian reservations. This thing is going to blow sky high. It will be the biggest scandal since Al Capone and it will destroy the gambling industry.
We're going to judge people by whether they have Indian blood whether they're qualified to run a casino or not? You look at some of the reservations that Congress, in its great wisdom, has approved. I will tell you right now, they don't look like Indians to me. And they don't look like the Indians. Now, maybe we say politically correct or not politically correct, they don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians to Indians. And a lot of people are laughing at it. And I hear how tough it is and how rough it is to get approved. Well, you go up to Connecticut and you look. Now, they don't look like Indians to me. Why doesn't Congress approve it for everybody, then? If it's supposed to be non-discriminatory, why don't they approve for everybody? Why is it only Indians?