I've seen it stated by PPA members that we have a right to play poker, and this forum actually states that. I'd like to ask some questions regarding the PPA's stance on individual's rights to play online poker.
Why does the PPA believe individuals have a right to play online poker?
I've seen it stated by PPA members that we have a right to play poker, and this forum actually states that. I'd like to ask some questions regarding the PPA's stance on individual's rights to play online poker.
Why does the PPA believe individuals have a right to play online poker?
It can go on and on. In my youth I think I would have happily entered this fray. In fact I did, many times, on issues of similar concern. But I have to say at this point I really do not feel like a discussion of the nature and origin of rights. Instead lets skip all the way to the inescapable conclusion:
If we have a right to pursue happiness then, wouldn't we have a right to pursue it with other venues that make us happy? Perhaps by playing online roulette or other casino games? Or maybe even starting our own poker room or choosing any poker room to play on?
You could argue all day about this issue with somebody and both people would be right because it is completely a matter of opinion. Like the pursuit of happiness argument, yea it makes you happy and yea you have the right to pursue happiness, but lots of things make people happy. Drugs make people directly happy and as long as they do not hurt anyone while they do drugs then why don't they have to right to use? Same with prostitution, I am sure it would be much safer for both the prostitutes and the clients if we made it legal and set up protections. Anyways the point I am getting at is it is totally an issue of mob rule.
My original comment was that we do not have any rights. We have privileges that the government chooses to give to us. If there were such things as "right", humans would not have to of fought for them around the globe since the beginning of civilization; we would have been born with them. Even government given rights, or privileges, are fickle. Don't believe me, make the government angry and see how many rights you have. Look at the Patriots Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
So, if you make the assumption that we do not have rights, then this argument gets a lot easier. Here's my proof: P(x) => Q(x)
If humans have rights, then poker players everywhere have the right to play online poker.
This statement is true vacuously.
My original comment was that we do not have any rights. We have privileges that the government chooses to give to us.
Incorrect. In the U.S. we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as defined by our constitutions, state and federal. This is limited only by what our governmental representatives choose to take away from us through legislation and by what our court system rules is forbidden under these laws.
There is no U.S. federal law which forbids playing online poker. There are very few state laws that address it directly - in most states it is either still a grey area or not addressed.
What you describe is a totalitarian or dictatorial government: your only freedoms are the "privileges" granted by the government.
Unfortunately, our American freedoms are eroded over time, as in the examples you give (the Patriots Act and the National Defense Authorization Act). But that's a whole other topic, not Poker Legislation.
Last edited by PokerXanadu; 07-20-2012 at 01:21 PM.
"In the U.S. we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as defined by our constitutions, state and federal."
Right, the things our government gave to us. That's what I said. Also define the right to pursue happiness, obviously it has limitations otherwise a lot more things would be legal. Same goes for right of liberty, obviously it has its limitations. I would go into further detail on them, but I feel like it's obvious
"This is limited only by what our governmental representatives choose to take away from us."
They aren't rights if they can be taken away.
"What you describe is a totalitarian or dictatorial government: your only freedoms are the "privileges" granted by the government."
No, all forms of government govern how you live your life. It just so happens that totalitarian or dictatorial government systems take advantage of their citizens more than our system does.
Anyways, I want to play online poker as much as anyone else and I do believe that everyone should be able to play online poker. My point was that the OP is looking for something that cannot be found. While I would like to believe that the US government does not give and take rights at whim, they do.
If we have a right to pursue happiness then, wouldn't we have a right to pursue it with other venues that make us happy? Perhaps by playing online roulette or other casino games? Or maybe even starting our own poker room or choosing any poker room to play on?
If you are an anarchist who doesnt believe in government, should you take the incrementalist position of participating in government and voting for Ron Paul because it gets you closer to your goal? Or are you restricted to simply pushing to eliminate all government?
"In the U.S. we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as defined by our constitutions, state and federal."
Right, the things our government gave to us. That's what I said. Also define the right to pursue happiness, obviously it has limitations otherwise a lot more things would be legal. Same goes for right of liberty, obviously it has its limitations. I would go into further detail on them, but I feel like it's obvious
What obvious is that you don't understand our form of government. Those "things" are what our Founding Fathers reaffirmed belong to us as natural rights, and our constitutions define the basis of lawful limitations on those things for the good of the individual and community.
Quote:
"This is limited only by what our governmental representatives choose to take away from us."
They aren't rights if they can be taken away.
LOL. Everything can be taken away, so by your logic rights don't exist. If that is what your point is, then you are simply redefining "rights" to fit your view of things. Rights can taken away in one form or another all the time, all around the world. That doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't protected in other places and times.
Quote:
"What you describe is a totalitarian or dictatorial government: your only freedoms are the "privileges" granted by the government."
No, all forms of government govern how you live your life. It just so happens that totalitarian or dictatorial government systems take advantage of their citizens more than our system does.
I think you missed my point: When a govt says that you have no rights and your only freedom is what the govt grants you as a privilege, then that govt is totalitarian. Non-totalitarian govts still govern you, but not all aspects.
Quote:
Anyways, I want to play online poker as much as anyone else and I do believe that everyone should be able to play online poker. My point was that the OP is looking for something that cannot be found. While I would like to believe that the US government does not give and take rights at whim, they do.
Ah, so you do agree after all that something can be a right even though it can be taken away. Hopefully the door will never be shut on our right to play online poker, as a pursuit of happiness.
If you are an anarchist who doesnt believe in government, should you take the incrementalist position of participating in government and voting for Ron Paul because it gets you closer to your goal? Or are you restricted to simply pushing to eliminate all government?
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
