----- Original Message ----- From: "Declan McCullagh" <[email protected]> To: "Politech" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: [Politech] Rep. Ron Paul on Net-gambling bill: a rare voice of sanity in Congress [econ]
: Previous Politech message: : http://www.politechbot.com/2006/07/11/war-on-terror/ : : : -------- Original Message -------- : Subject: RE: [Politech] Step aside, war on terror -- now it's war on : Inter net gambling [econ] : Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:26:07 -0400 : From: Singleton, Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : To: 'Declan McCullagh' <[email protected]> : : Here is what Ron Paul said about the bill yesterday, please feel free to : share with the list: : : : Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It : is not : easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed that proponents of the : bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral : high ground in the sense that protecting liberty is more important than : passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet. : : The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure : there : were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting : barriers up. : : I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a : bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem because : it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is : increase the price. And there are some people who see prohibitions as an : enticement, and that it actually increases the demand. : : But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it : is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet, it doesn't : disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is : turned over to the criminal element. So you won't get rid of it. : : Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed : to protect other interests because we certainly aren't going to get rid of : gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance : the other. : : But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose : this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very : dangerous precedent to set. : : To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than : gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling. I think it is : pretty stupid, to tell you the truth. : : But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we : going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things worse coming from : those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil : of these bad ideas and distorted religions, and therefore we have to : regulate the Internet? : : [Begin Insert] : : H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should : be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional : authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling. : : In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove : ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that : gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed : experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the : government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling : simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to : gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. : In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be : members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate : Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled : by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet : gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and : resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized : crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling : will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will : raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the : profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly : ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase : organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. : : In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal : power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective in eliminating : the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that : these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my : colleagues to reject H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and : Enforcement Act. : : [End Insert] : : Norman Kirk Singleton : Legislative Director : Congressman Ron Paul : 203 Cannon : Washington, DC 20515 : 202-225-2831 : : "...libertarianism will win eventually because it and only it is compatible : with the nature of man and of the world. Only liberty can achieve man's : prosperity, fulfillment, and happiness....libertarians now propose to : fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for : all mankind." : : "Murray Rothbard : : _______________________________________________ : Politech mailing list : Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ : Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) : ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
