Dumb arguments in favor of online poker

[Sponger.]

I have a right to spend my money
Don't tell me how to spend my money
I pay my taxes, I should be able to spend my money
etc.

No, you shouldn't. This argument is bad, stop using it.

[DING-DONG YO]

You mean the argument that adults should be free to enjoy leisure activities that harm no one including the right to spend money on such activities without interference from the government is a bad argument?

Or do you mean that argument condensed into "Don't tell me how to spend ma money!" is bad.

[Sponger.]

I'd say both of those, but more leaning to the second part. Obviously if you lose your house after getting into horrible debt you aren't just hurting yourself, etc.

There are tons and tons of things that you shouldn't be able to spend your money on, I think that is just so obvious I can't believe people would think it without considering the ramifications of such beliefs.

[Zele]

These arguments are enough for me, but I dont need to be convinced. Also, I believe in legalizing prostitution and mostly legalizing drugs, and last time I checked these views were in quite the minority in the US.

What I mean is I don't think these arguments are dumb, but I do think you're right in that they're not all that helpful in the public debate. If this is all we say, it's easy for undecided (or not-really-decided) voters to pigeonhole the pro-online poker camp as "goofy libertarians."

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the argument that adults should be free to enjoy leisure activities that harm no one including the right to spend money on such activities without interference from the government is a bad argument?

Or do you mean that argument condensed into "Don't tell me how to spend ma money!" is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means that there are legitimate reasons you shouldn't be able to, say, spend your money on assault rifles, or software designed to hack a bank, or etc...

So saying "The government can't tell me how to spend my money" as a blanket argument and using it to defend online poker does more harm than good. If you use it you're using an invalid argument to make a valid point, which undermines the point.

If you qualify it more to define online poker as the type of thing on which government shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from spending your money, then it's ok.

[DING-DONG YO]

That's what I was getting at. I agree that don't tell me how to spend my money is dumb and people should not use it.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that don't tell me how to spend my money is dumb and people should not use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government should have zero control over what people do period unless you are harming other people. Yes there are examples, but playing poker is not one of them.

[va1halla]

So you're saying b&m casinos are ok then i take it.
And you're saying you're not competent enough to be able to manage your own finances, and since a few people are incompetent let's just stereotype everyone in this manner.
For those who have gambling problems that is too bad, but they are going to find a way to gamble be it on the net or a casino or stocks etc.... And will probably meet thier demise in one form or another. I don't believe online poker is that bad I've lost more money in a casino in one night then I have the intire time I've been playing cards online a period of about 2 yr's.
Common sense tells me a smaller and less intrusive govt.
is better for everyone in the long run. But there will never be common sense in govt as long spacial interest groups are involved in the process.

[ginko]

Sponger you are an idiot man lol.

I think there are better arguements, but this one stands.

[Municipal Hare]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if you lose your house after getting into horrible debt you aren't just hurting yourself, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the amount of debt taken on by the average American family, this is a surprisingly thin counterargument. I've never heard it suggested that individuals haven't got the right to risk financial ruin. Do day traders, athletes, salon owners, etc. have some kind of legal-ethical cloud hanging over their heads that I'm not aware of?