the voice of the disabled and the ill

[TimWillTell]

I would imagine that many people who are confined to their homes due to disabilities ore disease are extremely happy with the Internet.
Denying those people to place a wager on the Internet or even to play some poker on the Internet, somehow seems to me a violation of those people's rights.

Yet I haven't heard the voice of the disabled and the ill;
I cannot understand this at all.

[Duals21]

I luv play pokah, but I do not think the right to gamble is either a fundamental right under the U.S. constitution or a natural human right. Also, other U.S. Government actions, such as the prosecution of medical patients for cannabis use, are much bigger injustices IMHO.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think the right to gamble is... a natural human right.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you derive natural human rights? You don't think that if a group of people all agree to do something that concerns only themselves they have a right to it?

[Duals21]

Short Answer: Right != Fundamental Human Right

Longer Answer: In a state of nature, obviously, a group of people have the right to do anything but initiate the use of force. But I do not believe gambling is a universal natural right that should always be protected from restrictions against it by the democratic processes of a government that derives its powers from the body politic and that represents the individuals who implicitly choose to enter into the social contract. I believe that there are certain human rights, including various civil rights and property rights, that should be protected no matter what. A majoritarian government has the right to regulate other actions through the democratic process. This is NOT THE SAME as saying that banning Gambling is a good decision. It is only a recognition of the fact that we live in a democracy, and that the ban on Gambling is in some ways an extension of that (I am aware that it was a rider and so forth, but my claim is not that our democracy functions perfectly). From a legal perspective, the government has the constitutional right to regulate rights that are 'not fundamental' with only a rational basis. As in, you only need a single reason, no matter how stupid it is. The Government abridges all kinds of rights (drugs, sodomy, etc.) that it really has no business getting involved in. But it is important to draw a distinction between things that the government does that are just ill advised, and things that are done that violate fundamental rights.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe gambling is a universal natural right that should always be protected from restrictions...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why's it matter where it comes from? The people surrounding me are not Gods, they are just people that want to tell me what to do and have the power to do so.
[ QUOTE ]
against it by the democratic processes of a government that derives its powers from the body politic and that represents the individuals

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know the government represents me?
[ QUOTE ]
who implicitly choose to enter into the social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]
me being born here, and wanting to stay with my family and friends and not having the economic means to move outside of the government's reach !=implicitly entering a socal contract. Not moving in response to theft isn't consent to theft.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there are certain human rights, including various civil rights and property rights, that should be protected no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how do we objectively decide what those certain human rights are?
[ QUOTE ]
A majoritarian government has the right to regulate other actions through the democratic process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does 50%+1 has the right to tell others what to do? Where does this right come from?
[ QUOTE ]
This is NOT THE SAME as saying that banning Gambling is a good decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, it's not a good decision, but you think government has the right to butt in and say so anyway?
[ QUOTE ]
From a legal perspective, the government has the constitutional right to regulate rights that are 'not fundamental' with only a rational basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but I couldn't care less about the legal perspective.
[ QUOTE ]
The Government abridges all kinds of rights (drugs, sodomy, etc.) that it really has no business getting involved in. But it is important to draw a distinction between things that the government does that are just ill advised, and things that are done that violate fundamental rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how do you objectively draw this distinction?

[Duals21]

[ QUOTE ]
me being born here, and wanting to stay with my family and friends and not having the economic means to move outside of the government's reach !=implicitly entering a socal contract. Not moving in response to theft isn't consent to theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your whole line of thinking is in this line. Although you don't want to admit it, and even though we can argue this all day, it seems to me that the fact that you were born in America and haven't left IS implicit consent to live under our form of Government, which as much as you may hate it, is a Democracy. If you object to the form of Government, it is your responsibility to alter it, abolish it, or leave. Any other action IS, in a technical sense, implicit acceptance of the social contract (This includes the FAILURE to alter/abolish, and the decision to stay here anyway). Most people are willing to accept Democracy until it doesn't go their way. Laws against murder and theft that we have agreed upon and protect us are fine, even though they can't be "objectively decided" on any more than any other rules. And although I DON'T PERSONALLY believe that it is true that gambling or pot smoking or whatever does harm, the people that want to regulate it see them as doing direct harm in the same way as murder.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I would imagine that many people who are confined to their homes due to disabilities ore disease are extremely happy with the Internet.
Denying those people to place a wager on the Internet or even to play some poker on the Internet, somehow seems to me a violation of those people's rights

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the arguments I have heard against the recent legislation, this is by far the strongest. The strong voice of the special interest group Disabled and Ill Poker Players Seeking Hold'em Internet Transaction Solutions (DIPPSHIT for short) shall be heard.