[pjlegato]

How shall we as a society decide who is to be denied agency in this way, because someone else determines they are to be infantilized, deemed incapable of exercising full responsibility for their own -- entirely voluntary -- actions?

Can you propose a universally acceptable formula or philosophy? Shall we just consult you on a case by case basis to determine when and where a putative power differential exists, and exactly when such a differnetial becomes large enough to verge into "unfair"?

[giraffe_lady]

> Shall we just consult you on a case by case basis to determine when and where a putative power differential exists, and exactly when such a differnetial becomes large enough to verge into "unfair"?

Yes exactly. Well not "me" or "you" but case by case yes.

It's not necessary that someone be able to articulate and defend a universal moral philosophy consistent with a given policy in order to enact it. Having systems in place to evaluate specific cases as they come up is sufficient.

[pjlegato]

We have such social systems, and they have already evaluated this specific case and determined that we as a society want to allow gambling.

Note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of that outcome; I am just noting that the process you describe has already been done, and has determined in this case that "gambling is OK."

Why should we revisit that process simply because a few people dislike the result? By what right do you suppose your personal views ought to overturn this social process -- simply because you and a few others personally disapprove of the outcome?

Should social processes always yield results that you personally like, and be considered invalid when they don't?

[1659447091]

> Can you propose a universally acceptable formula or philosophy?

While I have found few people to think this acceptable, I believe it better than the wanton passing of social laws to appease a voter base in order to keep a job. (How many people did DOMA[0] practically harm in order to appease the metaphysical sensitivities of a majority of voters)

Laws should be to prevent[dissuade] harm __to others__. If someone wants to recklessly use drugs, then we have laws that punish them for the harm they did to others, with an added under-the-influence charge. There is no reason to punish a consenting adult doing no harm to another, only possibly themself. The problem with this, is politicians don't get re-elected for creating education and other services that would help those addicted/using it to escape their life or those with trauma/mental instability inflicting trauma on others. But using "moral" arguments to rile up majority population voting bases is low hanging fruit; which the system rewards one for going after. Laws that are publicly passed are usually done by exploiting the emotions of group-type majorities. instead of using funds on analysts to find the current emotional trigger to poke, use it to find the best ways to help those that are a higher risk to cause harm towards others (ie, addicts, mental health - including those with trauma that are not as easy to treat with medication and basic security needs). And honestly, I find it unethical to exploit a persons personal faith for job security.

At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves, their actions, and stay out of your neighbor's business until your neighbor begins harming other humans (whether in their house or outside of it). Laws don't prevent harm to others, they establish (or should only establish) societal time-outs(rehabilitation) and damage/cost/etc retribution/repayment (the word I want to use escapes me in describing this exactly), the same way police are law _enforcement_ officers, not crime prevention psychics.

TL;DR: "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins." (This also encompasses the non-physical assault or harm - stealing etc)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[snapcaster]

Why is that the standard? We're in the real world not magic libertarian logic automaton world. We have the ability to judge social harm and weigh it against the benefits and make nuanced decisions

edit: like how we've managed to do with literally every single other law?

[pjlegato]

You mean the way we passed the current laws that allow such gambling, which you are now complaining about?

By that standard, we're done, the matter has already been concluded in favor of "allow gambling."

[digging]

You know that laws already exist right?

[pjlegato]

Of course, and our laws have apparently determined that "gambling is OK."

Why ought we revisit and overturn that process in this case? Is there any objective criterion beyond "it seems bad to me, I don't like the result of our lawmaking process?"