From HRC to Libertarian - One Poker Player's Path

[schroedy]

My response to Mrs. Clinton's initial request for (more) financial support:



_____________________ __________________ __________________

I have long been a "positional" and "financial" supporter of Mrs. Clinton's. I recall my (then) 8 year old daughter who was studying the Presidents in school asking me with earnest curiosity, why out of all 42 Presidents, not one had been a woman. Jokingly, I pointed out that you COULD get 42 straight tails by flipping a coin. A short discussion of the women's suffrage and more general liberation movement followed. To which she replied, "Oh Dad. You're talking about the stone ages." Thus, Mrs. Clinton's candidacy has symbolic as well as political positional impact for me. I would love to be a vigorous supporter. (My daughter is 22 today.)

However, in light of recent activity of the Department of Justice in the oppression of online gaming, generally, and in particular as it affects online poker, I will not be supporting any candidate for any office unless they overtly come out in support of legalization and regulation of online gaming, or at least poker. I understand that the Libertarian party has had discussions with World Series of Poker main event champion Greg Raymer about the Vice Presidential slot on their ticket. Because I am certain that Mr. Raymer's views on online poker correspond to my own, I will be supporting the Libertarian ticket, unless and until a democratic candidate comes out overtly in favor of the legalization and regulation of online poker. This issue may seem trivial to you, but it clearly represents BY FAR the issue in which the policy and activity of the federal government mosts affects my day to day life and livelihood.

Everyone that knows me knows that my vote was (and my contributions were) HRC's to lose (in fact many were quite sick of hearing me extol her virtues). However, I cannot continue to support her unless she overtly opposes the recent activity of the DOJ with respect to online gaming (or at least poker).

[pvn]

So you're not really concerned with the restriction of freedom, you're concerned with the restriction of things *you* want to do.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not be supporting any candidate for any office unless they overtly come out in support of legalization and regulation of online gaming

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really know what libertarian means.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he cares what libertarian means. The OP wants to vote his pocketbook. It's as American as apple pie.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I am saying is that a society that operates without rules/regulations is operating in anarchy. It's not that Libertarians don't believe in regulation, it's that we don't believe in regualtion that treads on our civil liberties. Express legalization and regulation of online poker, when done properly protects our civil liberties and is therefore within the libertarian philosphy. Unless, of course, I'm completely misinformed (wouldnt' be the first time, meh).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I am saying is that a society that operates without rules/regulations is operating in anarchy. It's not that Libertarians don't believe in regulation, it's that we don't believe in regualtion that treads on our civil liberties. Express legalization and regulation of online poker, when done properly protects our civil liberties and is therefore within the libertarian philosphy. Unless, of course, I'm completely misinformed (wouldnt' be the first time, meh).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear how you think regulation by the federal (as well as any other) government protects civil liberties. How can regulation do anything but restrict freedom?

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK -- let me ask you this -- are libertarians for driving on always on the right hand side of the street? Or just driving wherever you please?

Are libertarians in favor of a single national currency? Or people just make whatever exchange medium they can come up with?

Are libertarians opposed to laws prohibiting murder (as in regulating an individual's choice to commit murder)? etc.

My caption was a misnomer in any event. As my administrative law professor used to put it. There is no one on the planet that is opposed to regulation -- what they all want is for government to regulate the other guy, and leave them alone.

The poster who said I was voting my pocketbook understood the thrust of my point. And not just voting. I think I have donated $750 or $1000 to HRC's various senate campaigns and actively promoted her presidential candidacy in the past. However, as the original post indicates, I cannot support her for now unless and until she supports legalization of online gaming.

And her campaign has been informed.

But it's probably better to just pi$$ and moan and 8itch about things on 2+2.

God forbid anyone should actually do anything in a forum where the actions might actually have impact.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
are libertarians for driving on always on the right hand side of the street? Or just driving wherever you please?

[/ QUOTE ]
A libertarian would say you should drive on the side of the road that the owner of the road wants you to drive on.

[ QUOTE ]
Are libertarians in favor of a single national currency? Or people just make whatever exchange medium they can come up with?

[/ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are not in favor of a forced national currency. If the free market were allowed to operate, gold would likely become the unit of currency (as indeed it did before currency was regulated) and private banks would create financial instruments based on stored gold.

[ QUOTE ]
Are libertarians opposed to laws prohibiting murder (as in regulating an individual's choice to commit murder)? etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where you would get a split between libertarians. Many would say there should be laws preventing the initiation of force. Many others (ACists) would say that there should be no state period and again, the free market will deal with the issue of murder.

I'm curious, why did you donate to HRC in the first place? What policies did you like?