Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (41295)	11/16/2005 2:15:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Yes some laws are necessary, and others while not necessary may be very important. I don't see anything in this case that would fall under either category. What would you do, outlaw gambling? That won't get rid of it. It will drive it underground and probably make it less fair. Meanwhile the states are one of the biggest gambling operations themselves with the lotteries they run. Libertarinism and anarchy are indistinguishable in some versions. Yes the most hard edge libertarianism blends in to some of the more ordered concepts of anarchy (ordered anarchy seems like a contradiction in terms but it isn't necessarily so, particularly in theory, practice can of course be a bit more difficult and messy than theory), but that doesn't make for an effective argument against libertarian ideas, at most it makes for an argument against the most extreme forms of libertarianism (and then only with the unstated assumption that any form of anarchy is automatically horrible). What is required to prove incompetence? Missing a credit card payment? Losing a house? Bankruptcy? I wouldn't say any of those, or even all of those together would be sufficient. Something like a legal finding that someone was criminally insane, or a finding that they where incompetent do to having an IQ of about 60 might do the job. Competent adults can and should be allowed to make their own decisions on most things. I think there should be a strong presumption that people (at least those who have reached a certain age) are competent adults, not children, lunatics, or idiots who need to be cared for an controlled by the state. The absence of such a presumption would be IMO extremely dangerous, far more dangerous then gambling. Incompetent in this case not just meaning somewhat foolish, or prone to get themselves in to trouble, but rather unable to function in society without close supervision. Tim