In case you hadn't heard yet, there's a new effort underway in Congress to make online poker explicitly legal via a federal licensing scheme. It is getting positive reviews from the Poker Players Alliance, Pokerati, Shamus, and many others in this little community of ours.
I guess I'll have to be the maverick here. I am unalterably opposed to this piece of legislation and all others akin to it. I've already explained my reasons here and here, so I won't rehash the arguments. I'll just repeat that I'm convinced that federal licensing would ultimately be far, far worse for the poker world than the current state of affairs is. The feds may look like a welcome partner--even rescuer, at this point--for now, but like the camel asking merely to let its nose into the tent, this move will prove disastrous in the long run.
Finally, I feel compelled to respond to something my friend Shamus wrote earlier today:
Shamus says that Obama could be "counted on" to sign the recent Senate bill, and that this is not merely speculation, but a fact, something that "we all know" (emphasis added). Well, I certainly don't know that. What is the evidence for this assertion? I know of none. Niether Obama nor anybody else has yet signed on as cosponsors of the bill (see here). I certainly haven't heard any such concrete commitment from the candidate or his representatives. I think it is merely wishful thinking at this point.
I guess I'll have to be the maverick here. I am unalterably opposed to this piece of legislation and all others akin to it. I've already explained my reasons here and here, so I won't rehash the arguments. I'll just repeat that I'm convinced that federal licensing would ultimately be far, far worse for the poker world than the current state of affairs is. The feds may look like a welcome partner--even rescuer, at this point--for now, but like the camel asking merely to let its nose into the tent, this move will prove disastrous in the long run.
Finally, I feel compelled to respond to something my friend Shamus wrote earlier today:
Something to look forward to, then, although we all know that if any billThere are, in fact, more than two presidential candidates. As Rich Muny at the PPA makes clear, the only candidate (at least as far as I know; if there are others, I'd love to hear about them from readers via the comments section) who has clearly expressed strong support for making online gambling legal is Bob Barr. (Muny previously gave Barr an A+ rating, Obama a C, and McCain a D, though he has subsequently removed those ratings.) The VP candidate on that ticket is a professional gambler, who is also on record as firmly favoring the full legalization of online gaming.
like S. 3616 were to make it through the Senate and then the House, only one of
our two presidential candidates could be counted on to sign the sucker into law.
Shamus says that Obama could be "counted on" to sign the recent Senate bill, and that this is not merely speculation, but a fact, something that "we all know" (emphasis added). Well, I certainly don't know that. What is the evidence for this assertion? I know of none. Niether Obama nor anybody else has yet signed on as cosponsors of the bill (see here). I certainly haven't heard any such concrete commitment from the candidate or his representatives. I think it is merely wishful thinking at this point.
Posts
8 comments:
You make a good point. I agree with my roommate who notes that a lot of people (especially liberals) believe Barack Obama will somehow support whatever positions they think are important. I suppose it also goes the other way in that a few are ready to believe just about any smear someone is willing to try out (yes, he's both a Muslim and backs a crazy Chrisitan pastor - I see you did well in religous studies).
Frankly, I think he's disappointly centrist. And I'm an Obama supporter.
I understand you don't find Obama or McCain a satisfactory choice. But, in our current system, a vote for any other candidate is a total waste. Your choices are to vote for an imperfect candidate who stands a strong chance of getting elected and who might be open to persuasion to support your position, or a vote for a candidate who unequivocally supports your position but has no chance of being elected. In terms of "expected value", voting for the least offensive candidate who can actually get elected is the only positive choice, however much that option might offend your political sensibilities.
Rage against the machine feels good but accomplishes nothing. Co-opting the system, although distasteful, is the only effective solution. Call me a pragmatist, but a vote for Obama is the only option close to a pro-poker vote in this election.
What you say may be true if one's goals are only short-term ones. But I'm looking at the distant horizon. Getting libertarian values established and/or a viable third party into contention are important goals for me--more important, in fact, than whether some sort of UIGEA fix gets passed in the next few years.
You can never get what you want by voting for what you don't want. A candidate who is unwilling even to take a position on online gambling is not what I want (and one like Obama who is an avowed enemy of personal liberty in other areas, such as the second amendment, is definitely not what I want).
I would love to see a significant third party come to some power in this country. It would really do us a lot of good.
Of those parties with even the slightest bit of clout the libertarian would be the best, imo.
Of course I would have trouble throwing away my vote when I also have more commonalities with one of the major parties than the other.
Yes, I completely overlooked Bob Barr.
Didn't intend more than a hypothetical there at the end -- that if the bill made it to the president's desk, only one of the two major party candidates could sign it. Didn't mean to say he would. (Sorry for lack of clarity -- I shouldn't have lapsed into hard-boiled patois and said "counted on" there.)
As to the larger point, I've also on a few occasions expressed ambivalence about the idea of regulation, including here and here. I nevertheless like these bills being presented/debated because of the way they help keep problems with the UIGEA in the foreground.
"A candidate who is unwilling even to take a position on online gambling is not what I want (and one like Obama who is an avowed enemy of personal liberty in other areas, such as the second amendment, is definitely not what I want)."
Umm, I'm not sure you really want to get into a debate over which party is a better defender of individual liberties, at least not since the Republicans decided the government should control personal moral decisions, and the "unitary executive" should have virtually unchecked and unfettered authority to snoop through your private mail, email, phone records, library records, bank records, etc. with little more than a "because of the war on terror" excuse. The current incarnation of the Republican leadership has all but abandoned the libertarian strain of conservatism which kept the government from regulating individuals in favor a Frankenstein's monster version of conservatism where the government regulates everything but business (Reagan's unholy alliance of the "Moral Majority" and "neocons" coming home to roost).
So, yeah, if you want unfettered gun rights, Obama is not your guy. But if you want the government out of your personal life, the Republican Party sure isn't the answer.
Grange, I don't disagree. As we libertarians like to say, the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is which of your rights they want to take away first.
Well played, sir! Take it down!
Post a Comment