Former U.S. Congressman: iGaming ban is a "losing bet for liberty"

[The Buzz]

Kudos to retired Republican Congressman and Libertarian Ron Paul, who penned an opt-ed for Townhall.com expressing his objection to what he calls the National Security Agency’s "exploitation of the incidental loophole" that turns Section 702 into a "routinely-used justification for wiretapping America citizens, including General Michael Kelly and (allegedly) other members of Donald Trump's campaign staff and transition team."

Given the way the federal snoop state uses every inch of (unconstitutional) power granted them to take a mile of liberty, the last thing Congress should do is pass legislation giving the surveillance state a new excuse to spy on us -- especially if the legislation also violates the Tenth Amendment. Yet Congress will do just that if it listens to the special interests pushing the Restoration of Americas’ Wireless Act (RAWA). RAWA makes online gaming a federal crime. Thus, it gives federal agents another excuse to monitor our Internet usage.

Paul goes on to say that the "irony" is if Congress passes RAWA, they would be helping terrorists and other criminals.

Criminalizing online gaming is not going stop individuals from seeking out opportunities to gamble online, any more than prohibition stopped people from wanting to drink alcoholic beverages. Instead, just as prohibition lead to the rise of organized crime, banning online gambling will ensure that only criminals (and terrorists) will run online casinos.

In contrast, if Congress leaves regulation of Internet gambling to individual states and the free-market, websites owned and operated by legal casinos would likely dominate the online gaming market. In order to avoid any legal troubles, as well as bad public relations, these sites would likely use technology that enables them to identify those prohibited from gambling online. Those who support RAWA should ask themselves who is more likely to use this technology: a website controlled by legal casinos who want to stay within the boundaries of the law or an offshore website controlled by a drug cartel or a terrorist organization?

In closing, Paul writes:

RAWA usurps state authority over gambling in order to further empower the surveillance state to snoop into our personal lives. Instead of ending online gaming, RAWA guarantees the online gambling marketplace will be dominated by criminals. Congress should reject RAWA rather than gamble our liberties away.

Read the entire column here: https://townhall.com/columnists/ronp...berty-n2334356

[stillshadow]

Ah, good old Ron Paul. What year was that, 2008, that we actually thought he had a chance to be the presidential nominee? It's staggering how much probably most of us disagree with the majority of cititzens' choices for both puppet parties.

Is a Paul/Sanders old guy ticket too much for hope for in 2020?

[Sherlock]

I am really curious about one thing:
Does anyone think that if in theory US gambling is allowed and regulated, that the affiliates would be better off.

I really do not know how about all affiliates alltogether. But I know I would be the net loser. And even for all affiliates I think the deadlock and development of cryptocurrency gambling is the best possible outcome.

But I would really like to here some arguments against. Like that affiliates will not be used as a toilet paper like in the GB, France, Portugal, Romania etc.

[Muppet]

Concerns of affiliates should come a distant second to those of the people actually risking their money, the players. And right now American players are at high risk of falling victim to the worst predators in this industry, both operators and affiliates. So yes I believe regulation would be a net positive, even if not necessarily so for myself.

Though I have to shake my head at how ingrained the terrorist bogeyman is in American culture now, such that it is used to justify all sorts of stupid arguments. His high level argument may be right but suggesting that terrorists are going to open up internet casinos if a federal law bans it is just absurd and dishonest and does him no favours. Its just as stupid as the argument that terrorists are financing themselves with online gambling sites now by the pro-banning crowd. There is absolutely no evidence of this at all and if you looked at the beliefs of the most commonly cited terrorist groups today I think you would find that their extremist beliefs are anti gambling.

[Sherlock]

Yes it is so stupid that I am almost tempted to fire some bomb to close the circle and becoming the mythical mix of a terrorist and affiliate.

I do not agree with the argument that the recent US market is more predating people than other markets. After all all gamblers lose.

I agree regulation indeed would be net positive. For the new cartels which will ursurp all the yields. The net positive also means that people will lose more and there will be therefore just more "victims".

Thank you for the response. Interesting that you put the interests of the industry above yours.

[Muppet]

Without players there is no industry, so their needs and welfare should come first.

U.S. players are by far the worst affected by crooked operators, suppliers, and affiliates that promote them - off the top of my head I can think of Affactive, Virtual Group, Curgam, Cyberrock, Betcoin, TopGame, Betsoft, the list goes on. All are or were set up to predominantly target difficult markets such as the U.S. and all treat players with contempt. Effective regulation would hopefully force these parasites out and give players some form of protection from all their scams.

[jimmyfarson]

Ron Paul is one of those who justifies political actions based on outcomes rather than good intentions. Unfortunately he's only one of a few.