Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:01AM   Printer-friendly

2011 ban on interstate, foreign sports betting extended to online lotteries, poker, casinos

Last November, US Justice Department officials, having reviewed the nation's laws, quietly concluded that, oops, interstate and international internet gambling is actually illegal. For some reason, that view was only made public on Monday. And for now, this hot take is not being enforced across the country.

Published here [PDF], the opinion was written by the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, and is effectively a screeching U-turn on seven years of policy. In 2011, the office concluded that 18 US Code § 1084(a), which makes it illegal to use phones and telecommunications to gamble across state lines and the border, only applied to sports betting.

Well, the office was asked to think that over again, and it's come to another conclusion: online poker and similar internet gambling dens are also verboten, not just sports betting. That means e-casinos and online poker rooms with interstate and foreign players are operating illegally, according to the office's legal eagles.

[...] Gambling industry analyst Chris Grove told Reuters while the change won't affect big betting operations located offshore, online state lotteries and e-casinos in the country, whose annual revenues combined are just under US$500m, would be hit.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:38PM (11 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:38PM (#787925) Journal

    There is a moral component.

    Only to the extent that interfering with someone's informed, personal or consensual choices is immoral. I've charted this WRT rights. [fyngyrz.com]

    My grandmother, a very strict protestant, would have said that gambling is sinful.

    Let's at least try not to let the superstitious myth-followers form the basis for how we give the rules a careful examination. That rarely ends well. Which we can show by simply looking at the awful legislation they've managed to put in play over the years.

    To what extent is society allowed to regulate an individual activity, in order to limit the societal costs thereof?

    Well, there are really two levels here. When you ask with "allowed", the answer (for the USA) is at all times in the past, and still presently. Because legislators have that power. I would say that they don't have a legitimate authority to do so, and never have — there's nowhere for such an authority to come from, save voluntary slavery — but the power... yes, that they do have.

    Here's the thing. Many choices are not optimum for preserving funds, health, property. Just some of the things that are poster children for those include: eating out pretty much anywhere (cooking at home is much less expensive); eating poorly (so every fast food restaurant, ever); almost every recreational drug use / chemical indulgence ever, including cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, really spicy foods; buying pretty much anything using an interest-bearing financial lever; suicide tends to be sub-optimum for health; even simply being impolite can have severe follow-on consequences.

    Hell, even allowing people to choose what job they want to take is sub-optimal for society: putting people in the jobs they actually show an aptitude for would be much more logical (as long as we're talking about stepping on informed, personal or consensual choice anyway.) Letting stupid people vote has a tendency to screw things up as well.

    It turns out that most of these anti- laws, the "sin" laws, are just that: laws about things that the religious have dogma guiding them in what's okay, and what's not. Those people are all too often willing to subsume individual liberty in service to their fictions; regardless of whether the people they are enforcing their will on agree with their particular form of crazy or not.

    It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that stepping in and making people's informed, personal or consensual choices for them by force or threat of force is a step way too far. Despite the fact that it's done all the time by those in power (notice I didn't call them "the authorities"... not an accident.)

    But there are certainly those out there who are perfectly willing to step in and force others to do what they think, or at least claim, is best. Often, as with your grandmother, some religious adherent tries to stand on a basis of morality, completely without the self-knowledge that their entire worldview is based upon both a fiction, and at that, a fiction that was cobbled up in the context of a completely different (and primitive, and highly inferior) society.

    Now let's talk about the other side of liberty, or at least, its rational underpinnings. The part that says if you interfere with me, I am now free to come right back at you. Consider what that means if you intend to interfere with my informed, personal or consensual choices. There I was, drinking my large coke, or having a cheeseburger, or betting my money, and here comes a law that says "oh no you don't." That law is completely, utterly outside the bounds of liberty, as such comprises nothing less than a completely uncalled for interference in my life and it is the first swing in a fight where there was no sufficient justification for the interference with me in the first place.

    Consequently — though I don't use drugs recreationally, don't smoke, don't gamble, and don't frequent prostitutes — I view the laws interfering with informed, personal or consensual choices WRT things as acts of aggression worthy of resisting on every level that is even remotely practical.

    TL;DR: No. The major moral component here is the immorality of interference with individual liberty; and individual liberty is far more important than restraint of informed personal or consensual choice for any reason at all you could possibly bring to the table, or which anyone else has brought to the table, ever.

    --
    Life without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:13PM (#787939)

    this person gets it. what happened to all the real americans?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:35PM (2 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:35PM (#788001) Homepage Journal

    Thanks for your reply - that's exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Let me continue to argue the other side...

    First, as to religion and its influence on society: Yes, there are negative aspects. Certainly, religious zealots have always enjoyed telling other people how to live their lives. But don't underestimate the positive aspects. The "protestant work ethic" has been a huge driver behind Western progress. "Do under others as you would have them do unto you" - that's a large part of why we can successfully work together in units larger than the local village. In other cultures, strangers are to be taken advantage of. The fundamental principles of Christianity permeate Western culture - and the more I've gotten to know other cultures, the more I appreciate the benefits that brings us - even those of us who are not religious.

    On the subject of society interfering with purely personal decisions: I agree with you that this should never happen. However, there are very few decisions that are truly purely personal.

    Example: If you get drunk, that's on you. But if you drink, decide to drive home, and run someone over - well, it wasn't just a personal thing after all, was it? Games are fun, there's nothing wrong with gambling. Right up until someone gambles away the family home, and puts his family on the street - turns out that the gambling affected others after all. Visit a local prostitute, that's fine - unless there is so much demand for young-looking girls that criminal syndicates start kidnapping children and forcing them into prostitution. Exercising personal liberty is great, but one has to really consider what consequences the activity may have for other people.

    And that is the moral authority to regulate the activity. Drinking, yes, but no drunk driving. Gambling, yes, but in controlled environments where addiction can (hopefully) be caught before it leads to disaster. Prostitution, yes, but with checks to prevent human trafficking and the spread of disease. In virtually all cases legalization, but in virtually all cases regulation.

    tl;dr: In my view, the goal of regulation is to ensure that the exercise of personal liberty really does only affect that one person, and not anyone else.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:05PM (1 child)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:05PM (#788041) Journal

      The "protestant work ethic" has been a huge driver behind Western progress.

      The actual meat of the "Protestant work ethic" existed before there were Protestants, before there were Christians, and before the OT was dreamed up. So, no. Sure, Christians co-opted something good there, but no, it wasn't a matter of them contributing it. It was already there. The only way you can give Christians credit for this is to observe that they basically took over (plenty of violence and not-working-together was involved in that, too) and kept it in play in their eventual takeover. Where and when convenient. Pretty much like everyone else had done.

      The fundamental principles of Christianity permeate Western culture

      Yes, they do, and they have. And it is wise to consider not only that they do, but how they got there, and what they arise from: Subjugation of women, brainwashing, pillage, witch burnings, the crusades, blood libel, torture, the inquisitions, scientific repression, vilification of sexuality, pograms, censorship, financial parasitism, burying babies in the walls of monasteries, diddling the altar boys, pushing back against birth control... etc.

      And lovely architecture. There's always that. I love churches. In fact I bought one and turned it into my home. 😊

      I think it is (at least) short-sighted to credit Christianity with the good things around us, unless they consist of Christians right now actually doing good things right now because of Christianity (and here you have to successfully argue that without Christianity, they wouldn't be doing it... which makes them assholes anyway), or unless it can be shown that Christians actually invented (whatever it is) because of Christianity. Which is usually, though not always, dubious. Cooperative, productive civilization is not 2000 years old. Or even 4,000 years old if you want to go all the way back to the OT's genesis.

      Certainly doing good is not limited to Christians — nor is doing bad. People almost always seem to land somewhere around the median of people doing stuff, and that's probably the source of everything from the golden rule to families, associations, towns, cities and nations working together. It's not about God, or Christianity — it's about common sense.

      Today, Christians are not clearly a force for good. Even if one credits Christians with everything good up until now (and I certainly don't, but), and one forgives them their many and varied trespasses (again, I certainly don't, but), as a more-or-less monolithic political and social entity, they are presently a consistently corrosive force upon the legal structure, the social structure, and science.

      With that in mind, I've ended up with no respect for Christianity at all, other than that guarded feeling consequent to watching something dark exert harm upon people I care about, which is bad enough, but also realizing that these religions also present a similar risk to me and mine, which is arguably worse in some ways. I can't think of anything at all good that Christians espouse which wouldn't be just as true or likely coming from an atheist, or a Muslim, or really, anyone who has taken the baby step of realizing that working with people is more successful than working against them. I can, however, tick off an almost endless list of bad things done in the name of, and because of, Christianity.

      But if you drink, decide to drive home, and run someone over - well, it wasn't just a personal thing after all

      This is very simple: Drinking was. Driving wasn't. Running someone ever wasn't. These are not a consequence of drinking. People drink all the time and don't do these things. These were consequences of direct and grievous trespasses against other people's liberties, and as such, ought to be dealt with severely. It's important here to not confuse choice in compliance with liberty against making choices that violate liberty.

      I have no objection at all to legislation requiring us to be in possession of our senses and our reflexes when controlling machinery of any type. This is fundamental to liberty: you have no right to non-consensually put others at risk other than in self-defense. See the chart. [fyngyrz.com] So the problem you identify is about a lack of consent, and I think it should be very clear that I am steadfast against any such thing. However, we also need to be clear that the problem wasn't drinking. The problem was driving.

      Right up until someone gambles away the family home, and puts his family on the street

      And if they do that in the stock market, it's somehow... better? If they do it by switching jobs and finding out that it was a bad idea, and now they're in trouble? If they chose a government job, and it turns out that some ignorant lout causes a government shutdown, and their choice has ended up well on the side of "oops?" People tend to do these things because they think they are likely to benefit. As soon as you start interfering with those choices, you've stepped over a very important line. Yes, people can lose their homes. And more. The question here is if it's okay for someone else to tell them they can't choose to take a chance. I don't see that is ever going to be okay. You'd have to argue that shortstopping any financial risk was okay in order argue that intervention in wagering is okay.

      Both ways present problems. The one, risk to the individual making the choice, and risk to whatever things they are supporting (or not.) The other, an attack on personal liberty. Society can deal with either; but the strategies are different. On the one hand, crush the people under a repressive heel; on the other, a social safety net protecting said family to some extent. Given that the former is pretty much bad no matter how I look at it, and the latter is pretty much good no matter how I look at it, I'm for the former. Gambling's not the only way to fall through the cracks. We should have a reliable safety net no matter what. If it's about being a decent human being — and I assert that it is — then the choice is clear.

      And about family: The adults are where they are consequent to their own choices. The children and/or pets, if any, are the wards of the adults, and should remain so until or unless the adults fail to care for them. That's the dividing line right there, IMHO. So yes, if the adults make choices that have follow-on consequences affecting the welfare of their wards, then society has a right to step in. But not before. Imagine a gamble that pays off. Choose your venue: Wall street, Las Vegas, the lottery, mortgaging your home, starting a new enterprise on a shoestring, perhaps leveraged by credit card debt... what about when one of these risks pays off? Would you argue that society should step in and slap hands just because they tried? To the direct detriment of said wards? My position is clear: it's your family, it's your home, and yes, it's your right to risk it. It's not my right to say "no, you can't take that chance."

      Visit a local prostitute, that's fine - unless there is so much demand for young-looking girls that criminal syndicates start kidnapping children and forcing them into prostitution.

      Here, you're conflating trespass against consent with actual consent. The bottom line of liberty is defined by informed, personal or consensual choice. When you talk about the lack of same, we're not having the same conversation at all. Further, the implication that the former leads to the latter is specious in the extreme. These violations of other's liberty are crimes already; they should remain crimes. Allowing actual informed, consenting adults to go about their chosen business has nothing to do with it. Let us not forget that in the absence of sane regulation of things people desire to take part in, black markets are most likely to arise, along with the warts thereof: violence, dubious quality, lessened access to pretty much everything from normal access to the law and courts to the risks of running (or being) contraband. And so it goes with drugs, prostitution, etc. Oodles of health and safety problems people worry about when the word prostitution arises are not consequences of prostitution, but rather consequences of the dark, unregulated corner prostitutes must operate in because of bad law. Recreational drugs, same thing.

      Exercising personal liberty is great, but one has to really consider what consequences the activity may have for other people.

      Yes. That's what "informed, personal or consensual choice" means. If I turn up on your doorstep with an axe and split your head open with it, the problem is that I am a murdering asshole, not that axes are legal. If I would do it with an axe, I would do it with a hammer, etc. The problem is that I grievously ignored consent and attacked you, and in that case, deserve to be squashed quite completely for my transgression against your liberty.

      But: if you wanted to exit this mortal coil, and I assisted you in doing so with your informed consent and mine... that's something else entirely. A difficult thing, and yet, a reasonable thing. I can see making sure that's the case — a great reason for regulation — but no reason at all to characterize such a thing wrongful.

      And that is the moral authority to regulate the activity.

      No. Therein lies the moral authority to regulate infringements upon people's informed, personal or consensual choices. Not to regulate any activity which does not so infringe. You don't get to drive drunk because of this. You don't get to enslave non-consenting people (which, I have to tell you, is going to be pretty much everyone) because of this. You don't get to assault people because of this. On the other side of the coin, you don't (well, you shouldn't) get to tell people not to drink, not to gamble, not to buy and sell sexual activity (or ditch-digging, or toilet cleaning, etc. ad infinitum.)

      --
      Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday January 18 2019, @05:15PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday January 18 2019, @05:15PM (#788305) Journal

        On the one hand, crush the people under a repressive heel; on the other, a social safety net protecting said family to some extent. Given that the former is pretty much bad no matter how I look at it, and the latter is pretty much good no matter how I look at it, I'm for the former latter.

        --
        Every once in a while declare peace. It confuses your enemies.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:05PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:05PM (#788011)

    Only to the extent that interfering with someone's informed, personal or consensual choices is immoral.

    Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups can in fact form shared moral understandings that bind on a population larger than themselves.

    Let's at least try not to let the superstitious myth-followers form the basis for how we give the rules a careful examination. That rarely ends well. Which we can show by simply looking at the awful legislation they've managed to put in play over the years.

    Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1, and probably much higher. And many have no compunction about destroying those who disturb their nice order of things, anywhere from symbolically to literal destruction. The only thing restraining them from doing so.... are their morals. We could also remember that the careful rule examiners have no basis for proving a better record at things. They also tend to annoy the vast masses they are outnumbered by, for example by suggesting they are superstitious myth-followers. (And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in and that you might be wrong, or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.)

    I would say that they don't have a legitimate authority to do so, and never have — there's nowhere for such an authority to come from, save voluntary slavery — but the power... yes, that they do have.

    Except that one cannot be a willing slave. Slavery, by its definition, is an unwilling act. If one willingly cedes power or service (without reservation) one is not a slave. But let's run with it... individuals have ceded whatever natural rights or power they have to a larger collective group. Whether you like that or believe that is moral or not doesn't change the fact that it exists.... unless you have a larger group willing to override them. So what you have instead is a collection of a group of people who set down standards that all, including you, shall follow. I agree it is best when that includes a basic degree of liberty. Which is why (if you're USian) you have the rights you do have. The error is in thinking those rights are unlimited. For example, planning to overthrow the political order. You might not like that your rights are limited in this regard, but they are on a very practical level.
    Get enough people together who decide you don't matter... and you don't. Unless you assemble more people who do, but you do face an uphill battle because they don't have compunctions that you do regarding liberty and collectivism.

    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:40PM (3 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:40PM (#788049) Journal

      Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups

      Yes. Such as the Nazis. As it turns out, the group can be quite wrong. As is the case with Christians, Muslims, mommy-law enthusiasts, and other adherents / sycophants of those advocating the infringement of informed, personal or consensual choice. When the group is wrong, someone ought to (at a minimum) point that out. Likely do more than that.

      I do respect the liberties of the individual above those of the group. Were that it were so everywhere and everywho; but it isn't. Yet we can still shine light on the matter, which is what we are doing.

      Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful[sic] rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1

      ...yes, well, let's also try to remember that no matter how many children believe in the tooth fairy, there still isn't one just because someone imagined there might be, and told them a story about it. Likewise, adults and [insert whatever entity here.] And deceiving people isn't often a positive thing to do.

      And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in

      Good. It's pretty much a waste of time to point out that there's exactly as much evidence for a God or gods as there is for the tooth fairy. Oops. Well, it was my time to spend. 😊

      or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.

      Okay, we won't talk about the blatant hypocrisy either. So next:

      Except that one cannot be a willing slave.

      Absolutely wrong. Slavery is a state of being controlled, rather than controlling. Not a matter of willing or unwilling. However, liberty is something you have, that you can certainly choose to compromise to any degree — that is its nature, after all. You can do it in small ways, like work at a job you hate, you can do it in large ways, like become a soldier, oath-bound to obey orders even unto death, and you can do it completely, by agreeing that your life now belongs to another, hook, line and sinker, to do as they will (and frankly, joining the military really isn't too far off that mark.) Your reasons, given that you are well informed, are sufficient in any case. A complete transfer of your liberties to the whims and caprices of others is slavery, regardless of if it was done willingly or not. Yet there remains a difference: what is mine to give, I can (or should be able to) give. What is taken without my consent is sufficient cause for violence. But that difference is not the state of slavery. Far from it. The issue is consent. One can certainly consent to a course of action that contains all manner of unpleasantness out of your control (or the opposite.) Again, the military is a fine example of that.

      In all cases, it is my lawn you must stay off of, unless I say "come ahead" and/or "here, it's your lawn now because [reasons.]"

      --
      It's only when a mosquito lands on a man's testicles
      that he realizes violence is not always the answer.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @12:40AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @12:40AM (#788088)

        Yes. Such as the Nazis. As it turns out, the group can be quite wrong. As is the case with Christians, Muslims, mommy-law enthusiasts, and other adherents / sycophants of those advocating the infringement of informed, personal or consensual choice. When the group is wrong, someone ought to (at a minimum) point that out. Likely do more than that.

        I do respect the liberties of the individual above those of the group. Were that it were so everywhere and everywho; but it isn't. Yet we can still shine light on the matter, which is what we are doing.

        Yes, you do win the Godwin award! Congrats! Whether the group is wrong or not isn't the issue. The issue is that the group can enforce its will on you, should it elect to do so, whether that is right or wrong. And sure, that's exactly what the Nazis did. That they were wrong is irrelevant to that they did in fact do it, and continued to do it until stopped by a power with greater force to achieve its will. What do you make of the rights of liberty for those dead in the gas chambers, God rest their souls? That their morality was completely wrong did not keep them from enforcing it on all those in their domain. So yep, group morality triumphs again over individual morality... both in what the Nazis did and ultimately in their defeat.

        Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful[sic] rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1

        ...yes, well, let's also try to remember that no matter how many children believe in the tooth fairy, there still isn't one just because someone imagined there might be, and told them a story about it. Likewise, adults and [insert whatever entity here.] And deceiving people isn't often a positive thing to do.

        [Citation needed]. Deceipt may indeed be ethically justifiable for any number of reasons. (Why do people convince kids about the tooth fairy, BTW? Are they all just plain EEEEvil?) But that aside, it's significant enough for this purpose to realize you are seriously outnumbered and have provided no more proof that your beliefs are any more true than the majority.

        And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in

        Good. It's pretty much a waste of time to point out that there's exactly as much evidence for a God or gods as there is for the tooth fairy. Oops. Well, it was my time to spend. 😊

        Yes, except that they have no obligation to prove to you whether it is true or not. They do not require your consent for them to bind you to their principles, literally or figuratively. Better find yourself a group that can counter them and give you your space to be at liberty. Witness any number of places still in the world today where disagreement results in death. And should you ever succeed to as seriously outnumber the [insert name of faith]'s faithful, you will have the same privilege whether or not you choose to exercise it. You can provide your visions of liberty for all. Until you are then defeated in your season.

        or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.

        Okay, we won't talk about the blatant hypocrisy either. So next:

        No, you can talk about it all you want. Just because it exists does not invalidate that it exists. But it's no more relevant if the hangman putting the noose around the heretic's neck agrees or disagrees with the heretic if the hanging is still carried out. There certainly are "heretics" among the "faithful" who choose to act "faithfully" for any given faith.

        Except that one cannot be a willing slave.

        Absolutely wrong. Slavery is a state of being controlled, rather than controlling. Not a matter of willing or unwilling. However, liberty is something you have, that you can certainly choose to compromise to any degree — that is its nature, after all. You can do it in small ways, like work at a job you hate, you can do it in large ways, like become a soldier, oath-bound to obey orders even unto death, and you can do it completely, by agreeing that your life now belongs to another, hook, line and sinker, to do as they will (and frankly, joining the military really isn't too far off that mark.) Your reasons, given that you are well informed, are sufficient in any case. A complete transfer of your liberties to the whims and caprices of others is slavery, regardless of if it was done willingly or not. Yet there remains a difference: what is mine to give, I can (or should be able to) give. What is taken without my consent is sufficient cause for violence. But that difference is not the state of slavery. Far from it. The issue is consent. One can certainly consent to a course of action that contains all manner of unpleasantness out of your control (or the opposite.) Again, the military is a fine example of that.

        In all cases, it is my lawn you must stay off of, unless I say "come ahead" and/or "here, it's your lawn now because [reasons.]"

        I disagree with what being a slave is. A conscript is a slave. A freely enlisted soldier is not. Despite both of them placing themselves under others control unto death if necessary. The question is whether the cessation of rights was done willingly. But beside the point.
        Yes, you are free to have your lawn and keep everyone off it or give it away. Right up to the moment when the group surrounds you makes a collective decision (or assents collectively) that your lawn is necessary. Then all the liberties you established for yourself (or think you possessed by some divine right) will be found to be nonexistent as you are evicted by processes of eminent domain. Or lynched. The outcome will be the same. Liberty does not exist in a vacuum but is always found in relationship to a larger structure. Or more properly, your liberty will always be circumscribed by the powers which are larger than you. I can walk all over the face of this planet.... right until the atmosphere is burned away by solar expansion, nuclear war, or people with more arms than I burn the oxygen out of "my" "free" air. Then my liberty is at an end by the forces which were larger than I can counter. So I'm pretty glad I live in a place that lets me walk around some until the tidal wave or earthquake or natural death takes my liberty.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday January 18 2019, @01:25AM (1 child)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday January 18 2019, @01:25AM (#788103) Journal

          Okay, I'll leave it there. Last word on this is yours. Thanks.

          --
          No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:34PM (#788348)

            Well, I'll take that last word then to say thank you as well. I don't disagree with you at all that the liberty of the individual is of extreme importance. Just that it takes a group to make that happen. (See a couple of posts below). So thanks for the stimulated thinking and I hope your vision is realized and we get to a point where your chart is in fact the law of the land.

    • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:55PM (1 child)

      by shortscreen (2252) on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:55PM (#788055) Journal

      Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups can in fact form shared moral understandings that bind on a population larger than themselves.

      A group that wishes to enforce a moral standard against its own members certainly has that right. But they need to use their own power, not government power, to do so. The only reason to use government power to enforce moral standards is to target people who would not opt-in to self-policing, or in other words, people who are by definition NOT part of the group.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:22PM (#788333)

        The only reason to use government power to enforce moral standards is to target people who would not opt-in to self-policing, or in other words, people who are by definition NOT part of the group.

        Correct. My point is that "they need" and "they should" are good ideals to have, but not ones that can be relied upon without the numbers to back it up. History shows that when a group is sufficiently large they will bind all individuals to their moral codes. Personally, I believe this is to try and ensure survival of the group. And I'm not convinced it is not wrong (that groups should likewise have a desire to survive), even though we find many times the moral code enforced is repulsive to the minority and there are groups that I would prefer not survive. But the fact is that it happens.

        One cannot expect that one individual's liberty will be sufficient to overturn either mob rule or democratic rule (if there is a difference....) if it is in disagreement with having individual liberty. But a majority or supermajority group of people who believe in liberty, or who make liberty a shared moral norm: that's got power.

        It is better, irony notable, to form a group who believes in individual liberty and freedom in sufficient numbers to become the majority who can make that freedom and group's non-judgmentality (*itself* a morality if that wasn't clear earlier) the code which binds all. To tell other subgroups that they may enforce their other morality only on the subgroup unless what they do impinges on another. That majority group, then, does still need individuals willing to defend those ideals, which clashes somewhat - it absolutely requires individuals who are willing to fight and die, together, to promote the cause of individual liberty. We're probably closer to being able to achieve that ideal in the United States than at any other time in its history. And the risks have likewise never been higher. And it will probably never be perfect.

        All I'm trying to note is that the vision that fyngyrz promotes (which is very well thought out on the individual level) has to become that group morality of the majority in order to succeed. Or

        the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

        Source [monticello.org]. But it takes a majority willing to be the fertilizer or the mob wins.