Take my poker but let penny auction sites live...BAD

[DominionSeraph]

It is, in fact, dictating the behavior of the person because it is bad for the individual.

Nope. There is behavior by persons all over the world that is bad for them yet has no bearing on America.
|Bad for the individual| is beside the point.

The social consequences are based on the poor outcome for the individual.

Affirmation of the consequent. That brings be back...
p implying q does not mean q implies p. q can be dealt with as a separate entity.

The cost to society is not an independent summation of an individual in question. Again, murder may be good for one person, but this doesn't mean that that adds up to it being good for society. Society encompasses more than just him.
Just as a murderer's good isn't meaningful to the social calculation, gambling's individual bad isn't meaningful. This isn't a moral stance on the individual, it goes beyond him.
Whether or not X is good or bad for the individual really doesn't matter. Such is beyond the government's ability to regulate. The government sits between people. It regulates the intersection. It can do much with little there.

The problem with dictating the limits of individual freedom based on what is bad for the state is that the very act of curtailment of freedom is also bad for the state. Further taking the rights of the individual to make a choice is bad for the individual. Generally speaking, when maximizing the outcome for everyone we must give great weight to individual freedom; most importantly because we must have epistemological humility.

Well let's see now... I do not have logical surety that someone raping the female members of your family will cause you or them psychological harm.
Guess it should be allowed then, eh? Liberty!
If they are raped once and they show evidence of harm, does it necessarily follow that a second time will harm them? Why no! So rape tiem is still on!

No empirical evidence for a series ever proves the rule. However, this does not disallow us from going ahead under the impression that reality follows certain rules.

You're going to have to do better than that. A cry of "But, solipsism" does not irrevocably undermine one's ability to act pragmatically. Values are internal, after all. One can still move forward according to them without absolute knowledge that anything in the environs is true. Knowledge of internal states is sufficient.

That said I reject the premise on which you base your argument. The maximization of outcome for the social system is a nebulous, undefined goal that can be redefined at the whim of the plutocracy/bureaucracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Water can be used to drown people. So I guess you reject the premise under which one is allowed to drink.

Wondrous hypocrisy. You're disallowing the liberty to use a system based on your fear that it won't be for the greater good.
So you do not reject my greater premise -- you in fact are in complete agreement that liberty may be curtailed.

Welcome to the realization that you were a socialist all along. Now perhaps we can work on the details of that rather than humoring the conservative delusion that there was ever an "other side of the fence."

The goal of law must not be the maximization of outcome for the state but the maximization of outcome for the individual's rights. In this way definition of "maximized" is determined by respect for the individual (this is an appeal to kantian deontological ethics), the other way around we have a natural pressure to disenfranchise/ remove protection for minorities that are perceived by the power elite to adversely impact the state.

Rights only have value in reference to the value of their outcome. The concepts did not appear out of nowhere with the label, "Absolute good," attached, they were defined by and took on the value of their outcomes.

The law can define anything as a right and anything as not. If there is no link to outcome then there is no means to differentiate between behaviors. You may be granted only rights to behaviors that will lead to your death, with the government making sure that you have the maximum outcome of death. I bet you'd be thrilled with that, eh?

"Rights" are a synthesis of man and his environment. "Rights" are the moved, not the mover.

But it is the protection of individual rights that justifies the curtailment of by the state of how far I can swing my fist. If not then the state should only regulate the murder of those that are beneficial to the state.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my god it's so funny that you'd believe that shit!

I'm going to bold and capitalize this so you don't miss its importance: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT. IT DOES NOT HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES AT ZERO COST WHICH IT CAN DIRECT WITH PERFECT PRECISION. THIS MEANS THAT IT HAS TO MAKE SACRIFICES -- NAMELY, SPECIFICITY.

We play around in the realm of generality because we cannot operate on the level of regulating everything on an individual basis. The costs are too high both in straight output as well as in acquiring enough intimate knowledge to make every decision.
The government plays fast and loose because it has to, not because you are "an individual."
There are over 6 billion individuals outside of the United States. If this was about some set of absolute human rights then the American government would be responsible for all of them. But it's not. It is not responsible for protecting their rights/curtailing their intra-socially disruptive actions. So that is obviously not where it gets its justification to act.
If it can treat them differently (and it does), its justification must come from elsewhere than the promotion of "individual rights."

Not because it is bad for the state but because it is one person eliminating another's right to life.

People kill each other all over the world and the US Government doesn't give a shit. Why? Because their "right to life," is irrelevant to our state.
It is their irrelevancy that causes them to have no right, not a lack of right that causes them to be irrelevant.
Hmmmmm.... but say they had nukes aimed at the US and their killing each other was creating an increasing likelihood that those nukes would be launched. Now suddenly the goings-on in their country are relevant to our state. They have not suddenly gained rights; it is the mere fact that they can have an effect on that fulfills sufficiency for our regulatory attention.

So how does this correspond to regulation of US citizens? US citizens affect US citizens. We live together and have interconnecting threads that run deep. Pull on one and others move. That is what gives the government justification to regulate Americans.

Just as We the People regulate the larger world, we regulate ourselves. The results aren't the same -- regulating ourselves trends towards equilibrium in the Game whereas we don't mind forcing inequality externally (we don't have to live with those people so it doesn't matter if they take a hit), but it's all the same system of regulation. The only reason the results are different is because we can differentiate. If we could not slice a difference, "they" would be the same as "us."

(Do you see how this also accounts for racism within society? If you have a means to differentiate and can keep them from having influence over you, "fair" need not apply.)

Oh... look at that. One model that can account for... pretty much everything!

The rest of your post was just you running circles within the system I just showed to be far inferior to mine, so it's being dropped as baseless. While I enjoy entering and deconstructing fantasy lands, you still may not yet realize that yours is a fantasy and may mistake my treating it as true for the purposes of casual play with treating it as true because it may have the seriousness of Truth, causing you to infer, "Strength."
Humoring one's opponent by playing in their minutia can distract from the bigger picture.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Your post is below the minimum threshold of intelligence needed to warrant a point by point rebuttal. Its inanity is self-evident and self-defeating.

Funny how it completely missed you that you have no grounds for rebuttal. That post was an expression of my perceptual position. You hold no cards when it comes to what is in my head.

Now I perceive that I just pwned you. Would you care to rebut the position that that is actually my perception, He-Who-Has-Just-Been-Pwnt-By-The-God-Known-As-DominionSeraph?

 

[matt0611]

Government should only regulate actions that an individual directly harms someone against their will.

I can't murder someone because it infringes upon their right to life.

I can gamble my money voluntarily if I want to, this may even negatively effect society but its irrelevant because my own liberty to make my own choices in life is my right.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Government should only regulate actions that an individual directly harms someone against their will.

I can't murder someone because it infringes upon their right to life.

I can gamble my money voluntarily if I want to, this may even negatively effect society but its irrelevant because my own liberty to make my own choices in life is my right.

Enjoy the heavy metals in your food supply.

 

[matt0611]

Enjoy the heavy metals in your food supply.

Heavy metals in my food supply is someone infringing on my rights.
They are committing fraud and/or negligence in selling me harmful poisonous food that I did not know about.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Heavy metals in my food supply is someone infringing on my rights.
They are committing fraud and/or negligence in selling my harmful food without my knowledge/

No, you are infringing on THEIR RIGHT to be negligent. It is YOUR CHOICE to buy their product. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that what you are spending your money on is what you want. If you do not want heavy metals, the free market gives you the choice to NOT BUY IT. It is your capitalistic civic duty to choose the winners in the economy, not the government's, so why would you choose those who have heavy metal contamination? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET!

Of course, this doesn't work because we as consumers have to make decisions based on incomplete information because we do not have the resources to gather every relevant fact for every situation, which is why we need the government to employ its power of persuasion to ensure that the whole of the information (aka reality) is coerced into coinciding with our liking.


(Damn conservatives can't even parse their own beliefs. Because, of course, it's not really a coherent system -- just a thousand little instances of, "Me, me, me, me, me.")

 

[matt0611]

No, you are infringing on THEIR RIGHT to be negligent. It is YOUR CHOICE to buy their product. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that what you are spending your money on is what you want. If you do not want heavy metals, the free market gives you the choice to NOT BUY IT. It is your capitalistic civic duty to choose the winners in the economy, not the government's, so why would you choose those who have heavy metal contamination? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET!


Damn conservatives can't even parse their own beliefs. Because, of course, it's not really a coherent system -- just a thousand little instances of, "Me, me, me, me, me."

No, if they sell me this food to eat, they list whats in it, hamburger, corn whatever. If they do not disclose that there is poison in there and I am harmed by this they are committing fraud. They are liable for damages to me and anyone else effected in court. They are also liable for any bad publicity they will now get once everyone knows that their food is laced with poison.

You are not free to hurt other people by deceiving them.

I understand my beliefs perfectly. It is you who is just attacking a straw man.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No, if they sell me this food to eat, they list whats in it, hamburger, corn whatever. If they do not disclose that there is poison in there they are committing fraud.

It is the government that says they have to properly list what's in it. But you said that the government can't infringe on their rights! Lying is Freedom of Speech! Simply saying nothing and letting you run face-first into a brick wall is just them exercising their Freedom to Live in Peace. By your model, the government cannot make them act to your benefit, it can only make them refrain from actions that directly harm you. "Putting a piece of contaminated food on a shelf," does not directly harm you. It is an act between the food and the shelf, not with you. You picking that piece of food up and eating it is what's causing you the problem, and that's YOUR action, not theirs.
If you pick up Colt revolver and shoot yourself in the head, is that Colt's fault or yours?

You are demanding that the producers regulate your behavior of, "Picking up contaminated food and eating it." But I thought that you wanted FREEDOM? That is not freedom for you OR for them!

They are liable for damages to me and anyone else effected in court. They are also liable for any bad publicity they will now get knowing their food is laced with poison.

(I'm kinda getting the feeling that this guy is gonna be incapable of catching on.)

I understand my beliefs perfectly. It is you who is just attacking a straw man.

*sigh* No, matt. I'm just six steps ahead of you. You are waaaaaay far down into not understanding what's really going on here. And I can't honestly say that I can direct you to the next step. It would probably take tortuous explanation that I'm not sure I'm willing to try and possibly (probably) fail at. So I'm probably just gonna drop this right here. You're no threat to anybody, so I'm not seeing the point in rubbing your stupidity into everyone's faces.

 

[matt0611]

It is the government that says they have to properly list what's in it. But you said that the government can't infringe on their rights! Lying is Freedom of Speech! Simply saying nothing and letting you run face-first into a brick wall is just them exercising their Freedom to Live in Peace. By your model, the government cannot make them act to your benefit, it can only make them refrain from actions that directly harm you. "Putting a piece of contaminated food on a shelf," does not directly harm you. It is an act between the food and the shelf, not with you. You picking that piece of food up and eating it is what's causing you the problem, and that's YOUR action, not theirs.
If you pick up Colt revolver and shoot yourself in the head, is that Colt's fault or yours?

You are demanding that the producers regulate your behavior of, "Picking up contaminated food and eating it." But I thought that you wanted FREEDOM? That is not freedom for you OR for them!



(I'm kinda getting the feeling that this guy is gonna be incapable of catching on.)

Fraud is not freedom of speech.
Sorry, fraud is illegal.
If you sell food with the premise that it is safe to eat and its not you are liable.

Its amazing you can't understand this simple concept.

I have freedom of speech but I cannot threaten you, I cannot say "give me your money or I will kill you", I don't have that right to threaten violence on you, even though I am not actually hurting you.

I also do not have the right to sell you food on the premise that it is safe to eat when it is not. I have deceived you and I am now liable for hurting you.

The action of the company selling their food on the premise that it safe to eat and not poisonous when it is, is what the government is regulating since this is illegal.

Please stop telling me what my beliefs are, you obviously don't understand them.

 

[actuarial]

Government should only regulate actions that an individual directly harms someone against their will.

I can't murder someone because it infringes upon their right to life.

I can gamble my money voluntarily if I want to, this may even negatively effect society but its irrelevant because my own liberty to make my own choices in life is my right.

I have freedom of speech but I cannot threaten you, I cannot say "give me your money or I will kill you", I don't have that right to threaten violence on you, even though I am not actually hurting you.

See bolded. You don't seem to be consistent in your approach.

And a company selling you poison filled food is only against your will if you don't have the choice to choose another company, or to grow food yourself. Neither of those restrictions exist.

 

[matt0611]

See bolded. You don't seem to be consistent in your approach.

And a company selling you poison filled food is only against your will if you don't have the choice to choose another company, or to grow food yourself. Neither of those restrictions exist.

Threatening force harms someone. You can't intimidate people on threat of violence.
Are you seriously arguing that its not?

Don't see any inconsistency.

If I walk up to you and point a gun at you and threaten to kill you unless you give me all of your money, this is threatening you with violence and is 100% wrong and illegal.

A company selling me food laced with poisonous chemicals without my knowledge is negligence and/or fraud. It harms me.
That is illegal.

Don't know how to explain it any simpler.

 

[actuarial]

Threatening force harms someone. You can't intimidate people on threat of violence.
Are you seriously arguing that its not?

Don't see any inconsistency.

If I walk up to you and point a gun at you and threaten to kill you unless you give me all of your money, this is threatening you with violence and is 100% wrong and illegal.

A company selling me food laced with poisonous chemicals without my knowledge is negligence and/or fraud. It harms me.
That is illegal.

Don't know how to explain it any simpler.

On the threat thing - you're now adding in robbery. Stop moving the goal posts. If I walk up to you and say "One day I'm going to kill you" and then walk away what harm does that do to you directly?

You keep adding "without my knowledge". You only have the knowledge because of government regulation on the matter. You haven't established that in this limited government utopia that a company would actually be required to list ingredients. And why should they if people don't require it by voting with their wallets?

 

[matt0611]

On the threat thing - you're now adding in robbery. Stop moving the goal posts. If I walk up to you and say "One day I'm going to kill you" and then walk away what harm does that do to you directly?

You keep adding "without my knowledge". You only have the knowledge because of government regulation on the matter. You haven't established that in this limited government utopia that a company would actually be required to list ingredients. And why should they if people don't require it by voting with their wallets?

I'm not moving the goal posts at all.
You cannot threaten me with force.
You cannot come up to say that you will kill me.
This is a threat. Its that simple.

Threatening people with bodily injury is wrong, an infringement upon their rights, and is 100% illegal and justified for the government to intervene.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[actuarial]

I'm not moving the goal posts at all.
You cannot threaten me with force.
You cannot come up to say that you will kill me.
This is a threat. Its that simple.

Threatening people with bodily injury is wrong, an infringement upon their rights, and is 100% illegal and justified for the government to intervene.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I know it's a threat, and I know it's illegal. Online poker is illegal.

My question is your justification and how far it goes.

What right is being taken away? The right to always feel safe? I don't remember seeing that in the constitution.

 

[matt0611]

I know it's a threat, and I know it's illegal. Online poker is illegal.

My question is your justification and how far it goes.

What right is being taken away? The right to always feel safe? I don't remember seeing that in the constitution.

Not all of your rights are enumerated in the constitution. (See amendment 9)

Where does it say in the constitution I can't steal from you?
Its clearly a violation of your rights.

Yes, you have the natural right as a human being to your life and threats against your life infringe upon your rights. This is my view.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The question is: do we do what seems like what is optimal for a desired end state or do we do what is optimal for respecting the rights of people.

This simple deontological vs teleological argument is at the core of many ethical debates. I do now and alwase will side on favoring the rights of man over social engineering. Even if it is not the right or responsibility of my government to enforce such a perspective outside of its own boarders.

I've well defended this point of view and nothing in the lengthy rebuttal countered these points, but I will reiterate: Emperical evidence shows that respecting persons, instead of justifying means with ends, has lead to the greatest societal good over time, even though local problems tend to crop up.

 

[nonlnear]

The question is: do we do what seems like what is optimal for a desired end state or do we do what is optimal for respecting the rights of people.

This simple deontological vs teleological argument is at the core of many ethical debates. I do now and alwase will side on favoring the rights of man over social engineering. Even if it is not the right or responsibility of my government to enforce such a perspective outside of its own boarders.

I've well defended this point of view and nothing in the lengthy rebuttal countered these points, but I will reiterate: Emperical evidence shows that respecting persons, instead of justifying means with ends, has lead to the greatest societal good over time, even though local problems tend to crop up.

There's another, less abstract question which doesn't get asked enough: Even if one desires to legislate against personal liberty in the name of the supposedly optimal desired outcome, is a legal remedy even capable of bringing about the desired change? For example, does criminalizing drugs (or prostitution, etc.) actually reduce their consumption, or just make a set of high risk behaviors even riskier without bringing any true benefits to the table (other than making certain smug people feel even more self-righteous).

If properly applied, your test of optimality for a desired end is a reasonable way to evaluate that side of the issue, but too often a proxy for measuring the optimality for a desired end (generally eliminating or reducing a vilified behavior) is simply to take the act of criminalizing a behavior as reasonable assurance that the behavior will be reduced without any real justification.

Historically, gambling (like alcohol and marijuana consumption, prostitution, and others) is one of those behaviors that legislation has very little capacity to affect overall behavior patterns.

 

[BudAshes]

Other forms of entertainment do not masquerade as something other than expenditure.
If my car breaks down and I need money for repairs, I may be tempted to go to the casino to risk what I have for the possibility of monetary gain. I will not be tempted to go to the movies. It's obvious that what the movies are selling (entertainment) is not what I'm in need of (money).

Gambling for pure entertainment is perfectly legal. Let's play now:

I'll flip a coin. Y'all post whether you think it's going to come up heads or tail. If you're right I'll quote all the correct responses and reply with, "You're a winner!"

We can play this all day long.

If this takes off perhaps I start charging $8.75 for entry and $10.25 for a bucket of popcorn...

Anyway, good devil's advocate. I always like it when somebody comes up with a challenge presented well enough that it can illuminate some of the vast extent of my positions.
(Now if somebody could only pose a question that I haven't already posed to myself and wrung through the wringer. It's been a long time now since I've been faced with a situation that required a mind expansion, and I miss the flurry of activity and the joy of discovery that goes along with it.)

^^^douchebag^^^

lol sorry just thought that needed to be added