John Stuart Mill -- "the only legitimate use of coercion is to prevent harm to others" -- taken to his logical conclusion, becomes Aleister Crowley -- "do as thou wilt is the whole of the Law."
Legislating on the basis of the common good or even common sense will remain impossible until we exorcise the ghost of J.S. Mill from our society. We must dethrone "maximal individual autonomy" and replace it with some form of collective virtue.
What do we expect when we have a president-elect who has spent a lifetime grifting on his own supporters? What an example he sets, making us proud. I’m for banning both ripoffs. Don’s corrupt, illegal fundraising would be a start. But there is so much more. Gold sneakers, bibles, crypto, nft’s, coins, watches, guitars, picture books, Melania books and jewelry, assassination attempt cologne…the list is long. His willingness to bilk the fellow Americans this site purports to speak for says everything about his character, where is the outrage?
The comparison with alcohol really falls apart when you realize that paying for beer or wine is literally buying a product, whereas with gambling you’re paying to be ripped off. Gambling is a scam and that is the difference with this vice. It shouldn’t be illegal to gamble overall but the friction needs to return to the system and having it on peoples phones is insane.
YES. Ban it back to the horrible boring analog 90's. I have seen the damage online sports gambling can do. My book keeper of 17 years got caught in its web when we moved to working from home during COVID distancing days. She embezzled over $100,000 in 20 months to cover her addiction. It has ruined her life. It almost busted our small business. It ate up the money for bonuses and benefits and new hires and marketing and all the good stuff. Take betting off the internet and limit it to destinations like casinos and sporting events. You nailed this.
Mr. Cass - this thought-provoking piece about government condoned gambling of course raises a first order question, for me, anyway, regarding the idea of human agency, and whether “freedom” is viable in an era when the technological tools of persuasion are so refined - the article is on gambling, but the target, or collateral damage, is John Locke - how do we sustain classical liberalism and its key accoutrements in the post-literate age? I am very much looking forward to your talk in Toronto in Feb., with The Hub...
Much to like in this issue. Russian Roulette is a form of gambling. It should be legal if people find it entertaining, right?
I read some of the recommended articles, some good and some less than. The article on The Program that Provides Health Care, not Insurance Subsidies had some good points and yet suffered the residual grasp of Libertarian Oligarchic "conservatism". The author extols the virtues of the National Health Centers program. A US government directly run medical system that is free to anyone. It is primarily primary care but some places have further care. But access to primary care is often cited as the single most important step for improving American health care overall. The Centers take insurance if you have it. But also are required to accept anyone including those who can't pay. Sounds like Medicare for All baby steps. Steps in the right direction.
The author says expanding this approach is the tack Republicans should take instead of repeal and replace. He then goes into logical and practical contortions about how existing health insurance and sliding scale copays could be integrated to paying for it. When it is offered for free, why would anyone buy insurance? That part wasn't made clear. And it seemed that how it would be paid for in his system would suffer from the massive unproductive red tape of our current mess. It was weird that he tried to keep the nightmare of private health insurance alive. Old school Libertarian/Republican ideology still has him in its grasp.
The answer, of course, is national self insurance for health care. Why on earth would we Not do that? What Sanders calls interchangeably, Medicare for All, and Single Payer National Health Care. Bear in mind the administrative overhead of Medicare is far lower than any large business. A single payer system would have Radically fewer administrative hassles for Americans. No copays, no networks, no illegitimate denials, everything medically necessary covered. There is zero or less advantage to private health insurance when we could easily switch to a national single payer system. The drug middlemen, DPMs, could be eliminated along with all health insurance industry profits and salaries. It would benefit businesses, especially small businesses as well as citizens. It would or could benefit doctors and nurses as well. Rules stopping Private equity gobbling up practices and hospitals should be part of the solution. Non-profit hospitals should be returned to exactly that, with modest CEO salaries and benefit limits. While we're at it, national research on drugs should be vastly expanded in order to investigate drugs and treatments that are too inexpensive to be profitable to drug companies. The first rule for them is, profit first. For National research, health first.
I will say also, that substantial auditing should be part of a National system. I HATE fraud. At any level. Note, every single Medicare disAdvantange provider has been sued for fraud against Medicare. That system is astonishingly wasteful corporate welfare. It abuses citizens coming and going. It's unacceptable. Expand National Health Centers, sure, as part of Medicare for All. If Trump surprised everyone and did that I would eat a fried maga hat.
"But I’m interested here in a slightly different question, which is what the trend says about the badly broken analytical models and habits of mind that have led our technocratic elite to the point where they would sign off on such immiseration. "
Do you think that libertarianism is one of these "badly broken analytical models and habits of mind"?
I believe that incentivizing stupidity is stupid, if you allow me to say this. After all, working on a better future is a collaborative effort, isn't it?
John Stuart Mill -- "the only legitimate use of coercion is to prevent harm to others" -- taken to his logical conclusion, becomes Aleister Crowley -- "do as thou wilt is the whole of the Law."
Legislating on the basis of the common good or even common sense will remain impossible until we exorcise the ghost of J.S. Mill from our society. We must dethrone "maximal individual autonomy" and replace it with some form of collective virtue.
What do we expect when we have a president-elect who has spent a lifetime grifting on his own supporters? What an example he sets, making us proud. I’m for banning both ripoffs. Don’s corrupt, illegal fundraising would be a start. But there is so much more. Gold sneakers, bibles, crypto, nft’s, coins, watches, guitars, picture books, Melania books and jewelry, assassination attempt cologne…the list is long. His willingness to bilk the fellow Americans this site purports to speak for says everything about his character, where is the outrage?
The comparison with alcohol really falls apart when you realize that paying for beer or wine is literally buying a product, whereas with gambling you’re paying to be ripped off. Gambling is a scam and that is the difference with this vice. It shouldn’t be illegal to gamble overall but the friction needs to return to the system and having it on peoples phones is insane.
YES. Ban it back to the horrible boring analog 90's. I have seen the damage online sports gambling can do. My book keeper of 17 years got caught in its web when we moved to working from home during COVID distancing days. She embezzled over $100,000 in 20 months to cover her addiction. It has ruined her life. It almost busted our small business. It ate up the money for bonuses and benefits and new hires and marketing and all the good stuff. Take betting off the internet and limit it to destinations like casinos and sporting events. You nailed this.
Mr. Cass - this thought-provoking piece about government condoned gambling of course raises a first order question, for me, anyway, regarding the idea of human agency, and whether “freedom” is viable in an era when the technological tools of persuasion are so refined - the article is on gambling, but the target, or collateral damage, is John Locke - how do we sustain classical liberalism and its key accoutrements in the post-literate age? I am very much looking forward to your talk in Toronto in Feb., with The Hub...
Much to like in this issue. Russian Roulette is a form of gambling. It should be legal if people find it entertaining, right?
I read some of the recommended articles, some good and some less than. The article on The Program that Provides Health Care, not Insurance Subsidies had some good points and yet suffered the residual grasp of Libertarian Oligarchic "conservatism". The author extols the virtues of the National Health Centers program. A US government directly run medical system that is free to anyone. It is primarily primary care but some places have further care. But access to primary care is often cited as the single most important step for improving American health care overall. The Centers take insurance if you have it. But also are required to accept anyone including those who can't pay. Sounds like Medicare for All baby steps. Steps in the right direction.
The author says expanding this approach is the tack Republicans should take instead of repeal and replace. He then goes into logical and practical contortions about how existing health insurance and sliding scale copays could be integrated to paying for it. When it is offered for free, why would anyone buy insurance? That part wasn't made clear. And it seemed that how it would be paid for in his system would suffer from the massive unproductive red tape of our current mess. It was weird that he tried to keep the nightmare of private health insurance alive. Old school Libertarian/Republican ideology still has him in its grasp.
The answer, of course, is national self insurance for health care. Why on earth would we Not do that? What Sanders calls interchangeably, Medicare for All, and Single Payer National Health Care. Bear in mind the administrative overhead of Medicare is far lower than any large business. A single payer system would have Radically fewer administrative hassles for Americans. No copays, no networks, no illegitimate denials, everything medically necessary covered. There is zero or less advantage to private health insurance when we could easily switch to a national single payer system. The drug middlemen, DPMs, could be eliminated along with all health insurance industry profits and salaries. It would benefit businesses, especially small businesses as well as citizens. It would or could benefit doctors and nurses as well. Rules stopping Private equity gobbling up practices and hospitals should be part of the solution. Non-profit hospitals should be returned to exactly that, with modest CEO salaries and benefit limits. While we're at it, national research on drugs should be vastly expanded in order to investigate drugs and treatments that are too inexpensive to be profitable to drug companies. The first rule for them is, profit first. For National research, health first.
I will say also, that substantial auditing should be part of a National system. I HATE fraud. At any level. Note, every single Medicare disAdvantange provider has been sued for fraud against Medicare. That system is astonishingly wasteful corporate welfare. It abuses citizens coming and going. It's unacceptable. Expand National Health Centers, sure, as part of Medicare for All. If Trump surprised everyone and did that I would eat a fried maga hat.
Online sports betting and state lotteries should be banned. Both have negative social consequences. Why encourage destructive behavior?
The "University" = The "New Religion" The religion of nihilism.
I love your way of being conservative, with a big heart for less successful people. Very entertaining too. Missing in Europe.
"But I’m interested here in a slightly different question, which is what the trend says about the badly broken analytical models and habits of mind that have led our technocratic elite to the point where they would sign off on such immiseration. "
Do you think that libertarianism is one of these "badly broken analytical models and habits of mind"?
I regard it as a tax on stupidity and I am OK with that. And it is impossible to corrupt sports any more than it already is.
I believe that incentivizing stupidity is stupid, if you allow me to say this. After all, working on a better future is a collaborative effort, isn't it?
No incentives, just failure to prohibit
That amounts to the same, doesnt it?
One is coercion. The other is (bad) choice.