Gambling City Forums

I believe in the freedom of the Individual.

I'm opposed to any act that restricts this freedom or attempts to force an Individual to behave in a way he or she would not have voluntarily chosen.

I do not adopt any particular standpoint on any issue other than to support any Individual in his right to express his opinion or to pursue his chosen course of action. This includes his right to attempt to persuade others.

I do, however, condemn any action that goes beyond persuasion. If any attempt is made to coerce an Individual or to influence coercive authorities to use their power to thrust one set of values on an unwilling Individual, I'm opposed such action.

Generally it is the state that threatens to restrict Individual freedom by the use of legislation, police action, financial penalties and imprisonment. Furthermore the state frequently gives to itself certain rights which are forcibly denied to Individuals.

I'm opposed to all forms of statutory regulation of gambling. The state is not needed or required to carry out coercive acts that non-gamblers might believe protects gamblers. Common law exists to protect Individuals from theft, fraud etc. Psychiatrists and help organizations exist to assist problem gamblers. The state has no morally supportable role in such matters.

Everyone should be free to choose how his or her money be spent.

When such voluntary, non-aggressive, harmless activity is declared illegal by government decree, honest citizens are turned into criminals to be hunted down, fined or even incarcerated. It is this form of victimless crime to which I'm are opposed.

Many countries restricts online gambling, and what's worrying is the fact that their number increases. Probably this is down to two reasons:

1) Poor organized tax systems (this being the most common reason I think)
2) Government wanting to keep their peoples money going to their casinos.

I think a good solution wold be if the governments could came down to a reasonable yearly flat fee tax and allow online gamblers to pay it and play online at their own will. Generally speaking if a person likes to gamble online, it doesn't mean he will gamble at the nearest casino (some do, but most don't) if the government restricts his online gambling rights. This would rise money for the government too!

Rodeo
In my opinion, regulation is prohibition.
It's simply a matter of degree.

Some regulation is bearable. As one travels along the continuum, regulation becomes more prohibitive with some operators unable to tolerate it. And at the extreme, there is outright explicit prohibition.

In my view the market is the most efficient regulator. Customers vote with their feet. Casinos compete for business by building their reputations. Private Bureaus of Standards issue Seals of Approval. Mediation services resolve conflicts. Casinos compete on fairness of terms and rules. Forums discuss and expose malpractices. And so on.

Edited by user Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:23:46 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Graeme, I agree with most of what you wrote but not with the part that I quoted. Too many on line casinos have rules written solely to protect the casino, not the player, and others don't even bother with rules -- they simply refuse to pay winners or discuss the matter. When someone who lives thousands of kilometers from such a casino is cheated he generally will not be able to hire a lawyer to get his money.

Yes, Gambling Grumbles will report the dispute but it does not have subpoena power nor can it enforce any decisions. The most we can hope for is that the casino will decide that the bad publicity is more expensive for it than the cost of paying.

There is no need for a monopoly in regulation. Every jurisdiction can set its own laws/rules and players should be allowed to bet wherever they please. If, for example, France were to impose a 5% tax on all wins but have the same strict regulation of on line casinos that Nevada or New Jersey have for their brick and mortar casinos, many players might feel that the tax is a form of insurance that is well worth it to them. Others might not and, instead, simply hope that the Costa Rica casino, which has no real regulation, will pay off.

That is true free choice. Right now, on line players are subject to a consortium of casinos which, while in competition with each other, share many of the same self-protecting rules.

I am yet to make a bet in a brick and mortar casino, win, and have the casino refuse to pay me simply because "our T&Cs give us the right to cancel all winnings if we don't approve of a player's betting pattern" -- yet Gambling Grumbles has gotten numerous complaints in which on line casinos have said just that.

I look forward to the day when there are a number of jurisdictions which regulate gambling and any player, in any country, can decide at which he wants to play.

Edited by user Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:37:31 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified