The Issue That Destroyed the GOP: Online Gaming & Poker

seems a more sensible thing than legalizing drugs ... both for the ostensible purpose of collecting more taxes.

But can't we eliminate a bunch of spending and not need more taxes?

Some of ACLU Barr's Republicanism rubbed off on Mr. Root.

Good points. I think Mr. Root was explaining the fallacy of big spenders leaving money on the table. From what I know of Root, he'd be the first to cut back on spending.

Separately, the online poker rights movement is unique in that we're seeking rights not based on handing money to the government, but based on liberty. The tax revenue PPA cites is based on the same types of taxes other businesses pay.

post via a comment, I almost immediately hit the "back" button. But, it's serious.

Each of us has an unalienable right to liberty, i.e., to do whatever the heck we want . . . as long as we don't in the process infringe upon another's liberty. Because of this unalienable right, we also have the right to be stupid.

Consuming heroin is an unalienable right. Biking without a helmet is an unalienable right. Driving without a seatbelt? Ditto. Prostitution? Ditto. Gambling? Ditto. Suicide? Ditto. Gay marriage? Ditto. Speaking? Ditto. Selling your organs on ebay? Ditto. Doin a Michael Vick? Ditto. Being listened to? No. Being unoffended? No. Abortion? That's a problem, unless in self-defense.

Yes, we have a right to liberty so long as it does not infringe on the liberties of others (though not all of your examples quite qualify).

By the way, I'm pro-life for that precise reason -- abortion infringes on the rights of the unborn person. Several Libertarian presidential candidates concur, including Dr. Ron Paul (1988) and Bob Barr (2008).

Finally, many people, especially younger voters, believe strongly in Internet freedom. The GOP really has been losing votes to this issue. Is it worth losing all of our conservative goals for this issue?

which of my examples doesn't apply.

"I'm curious, The Engineer, as to
which of my examples doesn't apply."

I'd start by stating that none are inalienable. After all, there are laws limiting most of your examples. That being said:

"Consuming heroin is an unalienable right."

I think the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure. Surely we'd be better off moving forward, and removing the profit motive would go a long way toward that. Ending the practice of making recovering drug addicts unemployable with the scarlet letter of a felony conviction wouldn't hurt, either.

"Biking without a helmet is an unalienable right. Driving without a seatbelt? Ditto."

I believe, for adults, these should not be against the law

"Prostitution? Ditto."

Sure. Whose business is it what consenting adults do? It's not my thing, for sure, but criminalization has done nothing to stop it. In fact, legalization could go a long way towards moving prostitution off the streets.

"Gambling? Ditto."

Offering gambling for profit is legal in 48 states. Too bad it has been socialized for the most part. Yes, people should have a right to choose how to spend their own money.

"Suicide? Ditto."

You know of any suicides that were prevented by a law? It's not like someone was going to kill himself and stopped because he didn't wish to break the law.

"Gay marriage? Ditto."

The involvement of government in a marriage is really just enforcement of a contract. To that end, I believe governments should provide for civil unions for all to codify the contract of union in the eyes of the government. Couples who choose to marry in the eyes of God would still marry in a church, as my wife and I did 18 years ago.

On that topic, I don't think the government of the state in which we married validated our marriage in any way. Rather, they simply recorded it.

"Speaking? Ditto."

Of course.

"Selling your organs on ebay? Ditto."

I think people should have a right to sell organs. After all, doctors don't mind getting paid for conducting the transplants. As for eBay, I believe they should have the right to determine what they wish to allow to be offered for sale.

"Doin a Michael Vick? Ditto."

Of course not.

"Being listened to? No."

True. We have a right to speak, but not to be heard.

"Being unoffended? No."

True. I don't support the "right" not to be offended.

"Abortion? That's a problem, unless in self-defense."

If "self defense" is life of the mother, certainly.

your responses is a bit of squishiness on principle.

You say, "I'd start by stating that none are inalienable. After all, there are laws limiting most of your examples." If not unalienable, from whence come the "rights"? That there are "laws limiting" is the point. Those laws are unconstitutional, because they infringe upon our unalienable rights AND without being both "necessary and proper".

In exercising his liberty, upon whose right to liberty did Michael Vick infringe? The dogs were Vick's property. He owned them. And animals do NOT have unalienable rights, say, to life and liberty. And you've already agreed that you don't have a right to be unoffended.

"Okay, TheEngineer, what I take from
your responses is a bit of squishiness on principle."

Not really. I adhere to MY principles just fine. Then again, I'm more of a small "l" libertarian conservative a full-blown Libertarian.

You say, "I'd start by stating that none are unalienable. After all, there are laws limiting most of your examples." If not unalienable, from whence come the "rights"?

I merely stated reality, not a personal belief. After all, people are arrested for buying and using heroin every day. I'd like for these rights to be unalienable, but the structure of the Constitution has permitted the federal government to take more and more power under the guise of having the consent of the governed(i.e., the Constitution has a fatal flaw in that it permits the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution, thus giving it the power to continually expand the reach of the federal government while being "Constitutional" by definition).

"That there are "laws limiting" is the point. Those laws are unconstitutional, because they infringe upon our unalienable rights AND without being both 'necessary and proper.'"

"Constitutional" does not equal "unalienable rights." After all, there are many instances in the Constitution where rights are ceded to the federal government.

Also, all laws are Constitutional until found otherwise, by definition. After all, the Constitution defines a process by which laws are passed and how they are found unconstitutional. Again, one weakness of the Constitution is that the Judicial Branch can interpret the Constitution however it wishes.

"In exercising his liberty, upon whose right to liberty did Michael Vick infringe? The dogs were Vick's property. He owned them. And animals do NOT have unalienable rights, say, to life and liberty. And you've already agreed that you don't have a right to be unoffended."

We don't have a tradition of permitting unlimited abuse of animals under the guise of property rights. While I have no desire to confer on animals equal rights or anything like that, it strikes me as improper to disregard them to the degree that any amount of torture is permissible. After all, while not human and possessing of any human rights, they are aware (though not self-aware), so it seems their "rights" would exceed those of a car or a piece of paper.

Perhaps non-human vertebrates have 0.01% the rights of a human, so they can be hunted, domesticated for food, eaten, forced into servitude as guide dogs and other service animals, are subject to habitat loss if it benefits sentient beings like us, but cannot be tortured or abused? Or, perhaps it's a violation of our own humanity to torture animals. I don't know the answer, but it seems there is room within libertarian thought to figure out a way to ensure that someone cannot tie and burn a dog in his front yard without resorting to a collectivist rationale for it.

TheEngineer. I was spot-on with "squishiness".

A genius of our Founders was that they realized that rights aren't granted by Kings or governments or majorities. They are unalienable (i.e., from God or the Creator).

Everything with which we disagree is because you don't understand "unalienable", don't understand that because laws exist doesn't mean they are right, don't understand that because Supremes say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make them right, don't understand that Michael Vick was properly exercising his unalienable rights, even if his behavior was immoral or distasteful to many.

That's fine. Everyone has different opinions on how society should function.

of the stark contradiction between the essay and your comments. Now, I get it. The essay was Root's, not yours. And you agree with him enough to publish it because of what he says about gambling, not because of his rationale and principles, which support and agree with me.

Heck, I thought you cared about liberty, but you just care about gambling.

I didn't run it only because he supports me on poker. I believe the principles espoused in the article, which is why I voted for Barr/Root (and Badnarik in '04). Also, despite your assertions, I am certainly more libertarian than Bob Barr.

However, if your litmus test is support for people burning dogs in their front yards, then you'll probably find few to agree.

Just read the rest of the blog. :-)