#287739 - 08/10/2006 20:58
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account?
Right now the best ways to fund online accounts are Neteller and Firepay. They act like middle-men between the banks and poker sites (kind of like pay pal). While most sites accept credit crards, most credit cards don't allow you to deposit funds into gambling sites. Whether Firepay and Neteller are going to shut down because of this legislation, I don't know. Both are taking a "wait and see" kind of attitude.
Actually, putting money in isn't any kind of issue for me. I have very strict guidelines about how I manage my bankroll so that I'm never at risk of going "broke" (in the sense of losing my gambling bankroll). If I loose too much money, I just move down to cheaper tournaments or stakes. More of an issue is cashing out- I want to make sure I'll be able to take money out if I so desire.
The REAL issue is if sites stop accepting US players though. The largest site, PartyPoker, has already announced they'll stop taking US players when Bush signs the legislation (which is supposed to happen on Friday). Personally, I don't like PartyPoker so it isn't an issue for me. PokerStars, my favorite site, still hasn't announced what they are going to do. The other two sites I play on, Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet, have said they will stick with it no matter what, of coruse if people start getting extradited and such then they might have to change their tune.
Anyway, it's a wait and see kind of thing. TigerJimmy is correct about one thing- the new legislation doesn't actually make online gambling illegal. All it does is make the funding of illegal online gambling illegal, but since the legality of online gambling is still ambigious in most states, this might not have the teeth some are claiming it does.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287740 - 09/10/2006 02:31
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Actually, the law doesn't target individuals at all. It prohibits financial institutions from allowing transactions *to* sites for the purposes of "illegal internet gambling". Since the Wire Act has not been ammended as part of this legislation, its not really even clear what "illegal internet gambling" is, particularly as applied to poker. Financial transactions *from* sites to your bank account are not covered at all by this legislation, so there is absolutely no issue with removing winnings. Since the vast majority of players are long-term losers, however, restricting the ability to fund their accounts amounts to shutting them down when the lose their current stake. Using an offshore account is a way around the issue, since the US legislation targets the activities of financial institutions located in the US. The only issue then is whether the site will allow US residents to play on them. As Jeff mentioned, some have said they will no longer allow US residents to play. This is considered by many in the industry to be an overreaction, since the law absolutely does NOT prohibit US players from playing poker online. The law doesn't prohibit *individuals* from doing anything -- it targets financial institutions. PS: TigerJimmy is correct about more than one thing 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287742 - 09/10/2006 23:51
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
BTW, you do realize that you are the reason I am a winning player (or at least, winning as much as I am). I have become quite invovled in the 2+2 MTT community, and that improved my games by leaps and bounds.
Glad I was able to help a little! That's very satisfying. 2+2 has a really low signal to noise ratio, but if you want to be an expert poker player, its really your only option.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287743 - 11/10/2006 21:08
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Well, for those interested at all in this issue, Poker Stars has decided to stay. It will be very interesting to see how this "poker is a game of skill" thing works out, since I don't believe the skill/luck is what the issue is over. Still, it'll be interesting to see how and if the US responds.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287744 - 11/10/2006 21:22
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/07/2002
Posts: 828
Loc: Texas, USA
|
I've been following this thread off and on. I too am fairly dis-illusioned with the prospects of voting this year and more importantly, next. It seems it is always a choice between the lesser of two evils. An interesting article linked from CNN today from Lou Dobbs (I'm vaguely aware of who Lou Dobbs is but pretty sure if he's writing for CNN, he's not middle class. Anyway...) Dobbs: Middle class needs to fight back nowQuote:
I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously -- in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests.
So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.
So would something like this have any significant effect? If so, what percentage of voters would you need to result in change? 5% 10% 25% 50%?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287745 - 11/10/2006 22:23
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Mach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Wow. Fewer people voting in primaries. Sounds like a great idea. 
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287746 - 11/10/2006 23:14
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/07/2002
Posts: 828
Loc: Texas, USA
|
I'll see your and raise you a  which is how I feel about the issue I can't see how primaries do anything other than validate a flawed system that will ultimately result in my vote not counting. Which brings me back to don't vote or vote for corrupt / more corrupt. I would be interested it see the statistics on voter turn out by state, against candidate campaign funds. I'm curious if there is a correlation lobby $ and results assuming most funding is corporate or special interest. Any links? Edit (still looking for campaign funds): In Texas where I am registered: 2004, 1.5 million voters out of 12.3, registered voted in 2004 primaries. 7.4/13 voted in the general election (20%) 2000 1.9 million voters out of 11.6 registered voted in 2000 primaries. 6.4/12.3 voted in the general election (30%) 1996 1.9 million voters out of 9.7 registered voted in 1996 primaries. 5.6/10.5 voted in the general election (34%) http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide
Edited by Mach (12/10/2006 00:01)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287747 - 12/10/2006 19:47
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
The whole skill/luck this is silly. Most games have an element of randomness in them and are unarguably skill games (consider Scrabble, or bridge). The obvious game with no randomness is chess, although even that game has a somewhat random element of what mistakes your opponent makes. This whole skill/chance thing is a red herring. The real issue is that casino table games (craps, roulette, blackjack) are rigged so that it is impossible to beat the operator in the long run. Even though the players *know* this when they play these games, it is still considered immoral for some reason. However, the casino offers a service in exchange for this -- a venue, dealers, and the promise to take your action and pay you if you score a big win. The other argument is that gambling causes "addiction", which I think just means that people do it a lot because they like it, to the detriment of other priorities that authorities think should be more important to them. This is a confused misapplication of a medical *metaphor* onto behavior (see Thomas Szasz). Sure, some people *enjoy* gambling, but what's the matter with that? The real issue is whether people should be allowed to do what they want with their money. Since this whole thread diverted to a religeous discussion (appropriately, IMHO, since the religious debate is closely related to a debate about values), I offer this quote from C. S. Lewis (why can't we have more Christians like him?): Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287748 - 12/10/2006 19:50
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Also Full Tilt. Actually, most sites are continuing as before. This new law does not address playing poker online, as has been discussed above. There is a fairly comprehensive list of sites continuing to offer services to US players here: Official Statements from Various Poker Sites
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287749 - 13/10/2006 09:40
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31594
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
This is a confused misapplication of a medical *metaphor* onto behavior (see Thomas Szasz). Sure, some people *enjoy* gambling, but what's the matter with that?
I haven't read the Szasz thing to which you refer. But I think you underestimate the power of psychological addiction. Because the risk/reward cycle of gambling can produce a specific chemical reaction in the brain, it can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug.
I don't believe it makes casinos any more immoral than other purveyors of vices, but I do think it's right for them to be watched and regulated by the government. The state of Nevada does, I think, a pretty decent job of at least keeping the casinos honest. Whether they're doing the best they can to help the addicted, I don't know.
As was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the online gambling law isn't about morality or addiction. It's about the government's inability to collect tax revenue from the online casinos. Lawmakers will sit on their lazy asses and do nothing most of the time, but start taking away their money, and you see them spring into action.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287750 - 13/10/2006 09:56
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
the online gambling law isn't about morality or addiction. It's about the government's inability to collect tax revenue from the online casinos.
Again, you're wrong. The bill had been introduced independently and failed. Only when it was attached to legislation that "had" to pass did it get through. It was introduced by Frist, whose state currently has no gambling of any nature, so it wasn't losing any money. And he's closely associated with the religious right. (He was one of the main Congressmen trying to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case, for example.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287752 - 13/10/2006 12:15
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Also Full Tilt. Actually, most sites are continuing as before
Yeah- but Stars I felt was most important just because they are such a huge player. Also, while both Full Till and UB seemed to take the "We're blasting ahead no matter what" approach, Stars seemed to take a more cautious, evaluating approach. I feel their decision to stay bodes well for the long term of things.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287753 - 13/10/2006 21:58
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
I haven't read the Szasz thing to which you refer. But I think you underestimate the power of psychological addiction. Because the risk/reward cycle of gambling can produce a specific chemical reaction in the brain, it can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug.
Tony, everything produces a "specific chemical reaction in the brain, [that] can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug." Sex, breathing, concerts, dancing, sunshine, skydiving, reading, surfing the internet, porn, exercise, eating chocolate, etc, etc, etc.
This is not the point, and is another red herring. Everything in a human body is some form of chemical reaction. But notice carefully what is happening here: the word "addiction" is reserved for socially unacceptable forms of compulsive behavior. Nobody is trying to outlaw jogging or skydiving, even though those things produce the exact chemical reactions you are referring to. So does participation in some evangelical ceremonies. Once you use the social pejorative "addiction", then you can use this made-up concept to justify intruding in people's lives.
This is a very important point. It is the way that modern society pronounces certain behaviors to be heretical. The medicalization of unattractive behaviors is nearly identical to calling certain behaviors heresy and outlawing them for that reason. The "medical" psychological profession has taken the role of the priesthood in our society. If you look closely and objectively at what is happening here, you will come to this inescapable conclusion. The truth is that humans have changed very little in the last 500 years, but our social context has changed tremendously. We modern westerners don't think we have such a thing as "heresy". Well, of course we do. We just don't call it that, and we rely on pseudo-scientific jargon to lie to ourselves.
Please read Thomas Szasz, I promise you it will change the way you (as a thoughtful, intelligent and rational thinker) view the world.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287754 - 13/10/2006 22:13
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31594
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way.
I do, however, have a different personal definition for the word addiction, which doesn't match what you're describing, and doesn't match the dictionary definition either. I guess, using my definition, it could be a social pejorative, but for good reason: For me, something goes from enjoyment to addiction as soon as it starts harming you and your loved ones, yet you keep doing it because you can't will yourself to stop. This is something you can say for gambling abuse and drug abuse, and can't always say for a lot of other things that carry the moniker. So, to sum up: for my definition of the word, I think it's possible for gambling to be truly an addiction for some people.
I agree that some people might use pejorative words like "addiction" or "disorder" to describe behaviors that they simply believe are immoral, even when those behaviors don't hurt anyone. I have always considered that kind of attitude to be wrong, no matter what word they use.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287755 - 13/10/2006 22:14
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
Actually, putting money in isn't any kind of issue for me. I have very strict guidelines about how I manage my bankroll so that I'm never at risk of going "broke" (in the sense of losing my gambling bankroll). If I loose too much money, I just move down to cheaper tournaments or stakes. More of an issue is cashing out- I want to make sure I'll be able to take money out if I so desire.
The problem is that the money you win comes from recreational players who are net losers at the game. They need to be able to buy in again, or you're going to be left playing against other net winners and you'll be in a very nasty survival-of-the-fittest proposition. No fish, no profits, unless you are a really good player that can beat other somewhat good players. Unless you play full time, that is a very difficult thing to do.
So, the REAL issue is that the legislation drives fish away. Pros will continue to play even if they need to go to some lengths to establish off-shore accounts (or even residences). The fish won't, and the games will get much tougher. My prediction is that the shark:fish ratio will move from 2-3% up to 20-30% because of this, but we'll see. All of the Party sharks are moving to Stars and Full Tilt. Not all of the Party fish are doing so. That means a higher concentration of sharks at the sites.
The good news is that most modestly-winning players are pretty bad themselves, but win because most of the fish are truely horrible. So for the best players, the games will stay beatable. I actually prefer to play against these players, because their game is rational and they have some understanding of it it means that they become "readable". Most "good" players don't mix their game, so once you learn how they play, you've got them. The really horrible fish are actually tougher (especially if they are aggressive), since they play completely irrationally you can't logically deduce how they are playing and what they hold -- the game becomes a pretty boring hand-holding contest. My winrate is higher in mid-stakes NL games than in the smaller stakes NL games for this reason. I gain a bigger edge because hand-reading skills come into play, since my opponents are playing logically but badly instead of just badly. In the smaller stakes, I just make sure I hold better hands and "let the math do it's thing."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287756 - 13/10/2006 22:17
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31594
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Now that's a fascinating take on it. Very interesting.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287757 - 13/10/2006 22:23
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
OK, cool. But let's ask ourselves a really important question: can these people really not "will" themselves to stop, or is the fact of the matter that they simply don't want to stop? For most people engaging in the behavior you describe, I submit that their values differ from those of society. For many, they would rather get high than keep a steady job, or would rather gamble than pay their bills. If you ask some of them this question (I have), they will come right out and admit it -- if they are comfortable that you aren't trying to change them.
While I disagree with these choices, because I believe that "Self-Ownership" is philosophically axiomatic, I necessarily believe that it is a person's right to make those choices in their life. Note, however, I do not believe these choices should be acceptable excuses for other behaviors that harm others, such as theft, child abuse, or whatever. It's fine with me if someone wants to spend their life stoned, but it's not OK if they endanger their children as a result. Since endangering children is already a crime, we do not need to legislate further.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287758 - 13/10/2006 23:18
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
But let's ask ourselves a really important question: can these people really not "will" themselves to stop, or is the fact of the matter that they simply don't want to stop?
Answer: It doesn't matter. The bottom line is it's their choice, not ours, and so no one has the right to force them to stop without infringing on all of our individual liberties. But you already knew that.
There's no such thing as oppression for your own protection, yet that is the reasoning behind laws such as these.
The only person who should decide what is harmful to my well-being is me. I'd rather die a free man, than to live under the will of others.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287759 - 14/10/2006 01:13
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
It matters because its possible that a person is not competent to make these decisions for themselves. I don't think anyone would argue, for example, that a 4 year old orphan should have the same rights to self governance that an adult has. Severely mentally handicapped adults may also fit into this category. Society has a responsibility toward these people who genuinely can not take care of themselves, and, as their caretakers, reserves the right to impose limits on their behavior. Society does not have the right to foist its "care" on people just so it can regulate their behavior. One should be able to opt out.
As Szasz would say, it is necessary to distinguish between the "unable" and the "unwilling". Failure to make this distinction is the cause of all of these problems. When we say someone "can't" stop gambling, or drinking, or whatever, we are putting them into the category of "unable", along with 4 year old orphans and the severely mentally handicapped.
We need to be extremely careful when making that judgement (that the other person can't take care of themself), not just because it opens the door to tyranny, but also because it takes from that person their Self Ownership -- their humanity. This is what prohibition and other regulations advanced by those "moral busybodies" really does, it denies people the opportunity to be responsible moral agents -- it denies them the opportunity to be a virtuous human being. Virtue is not a property of behavior, it is a property of intention, which means it is a property of choice. You do not make a society virtuous by regulating the people (removing choices), they become virtuous in so far as they regulate themselves (make wise choices).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287760 - 14/10/2006 02:23
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
The one thing that you only implicitly touch upon is the fact that many of these people, regardless of whether they are unwilling or unable, follow their "addictions" (for lack of a better term) to crime. And, yes, you point out that that crime is already illegal, but I think society at large has a responsibility not only to punish and rehabilitate those that commit crimes, but prevent people from commiting them in the first place. Since these sorts of "addictions" are a strong precursor for future criminal behavior, it makes sense to regulate it, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that this particular law didn't go too far, nor that it wasn't created for moral rather than societal reasons.
And, just to be clear, I'm totally on board with the concept that there are redundant laws that make already illegal actions illegal again, and there are laws that make otherwise licit actions illegal solely because of their possibility to lead to illegal actions, and that those laws are, 99% of the time, infringements on civil rights. However, there are occasions when the benefit to society at large has to trump the rights of the individual. I haven't really put a lot of thought into it in regards to gambling "addictions", and, again, I think that this law, at the very least, went way overboard, but I can believe that there are legitimate arguments for restrictions.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287761 - 14/10/2006 02:37
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Please read Thomas Szasz, I promise you it will change the way you (as a thoughtful, intelligent and rational thinker) view the world.
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287762 - 14/10/2006 03:11
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
Oooooh, the post monster ate my post.
In summary:
Addiction: Continueing to persue a behavior despite the adverse consequences.
Physical Dependence: The physical need for a drug to function.
They're different, though often intertwined. Having an addictive personality is probably genetic.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287763 - 14/10/2006 04:58
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31594
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.
Is he a scientologist? Just curious, because from what I understand, they've got some pretty crazy ideas about psychology. On the other hand, so did Freud and Jung...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287764 - 14/10/2006 08:30
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.
How does he do this, exactly? This is like saying that because Christian Scientists say that quantum theory "proves" the existance of a supernatural deity, then scientists working on quantum theory help lend credibility to Christian Science. This is ad hominem nonsense.
Quote:
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.
This is a valid arguement. Can you give a specific example or two?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287765 - 14/10/2006 08:37
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
Is he a scientologist?
No.
Politics makes strage bedfellows, that's all.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287766 - 14/10/2006 08:44
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
I think society at large has a responsibility not only to punish and rehabilitate those that commit crimes, but prevent people from commiting them in the first place.
Aside from the philosophical arguments against this, it should be obvious from history and observation that this just plain doesn't work. Those who will break laws to support their "addiciton" will break laws to engage in it. The War on Drugs shows the absolute futility of this line of thinking. Other examples abound.
Even if it *did* work, one would need to show causality to make a sound argument for such tactics. Part of the reason that drug addicts engage in crimial activity is that using those drugs is itself a criminal activity. Abolish the war on drugs, and watch the crime you are referring to drop to nothing, just like it did after the repeal of alcohol prohibition.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287767 - 14/10/2006 09:52
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
But people who won't stop gambling, which is not illegal, often turn to crime to support their habit. I agree that some addiction-related crime exists because the addiction is illegal, but that's not the sole cause. But, for example, heroin addicts don't (just) steal needles, they steal other stuff to pawn in order to pay for their next fix. You might be able to argue that legalizing it would lower the price and help alleviate that problem, but there's some sort of evidence in the fact that that sort of crime happens at all. (This is not intended to speak towards the crime associated with the distribution side.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287768 - 14/10/2006 10:15
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Statiscally, African-Americans commit more crimes per capita than white Americans. If we were to outlaw being African-American, by putting them all in gas chambers for instance, then we would see much lower crime rates.
But we can't do that because that would infringe on the liberty of human beings, just like outlawing gambling, drugs, or guns does. It's a slippery slope...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index