It's not about protecting daddy's credit card; gambling can be an extremely addictive and corrupting activity, one that children should not be exposed to as part of their daily gaming.
Help me understand, because I don't, with some cursory Googling. Specifically, where does the line start and end here, and where on a scale are we with:
* Kinder Eggs / Happy Meal Toys
* MtG / Pokemon Card boxes
* Loot Boxes
Are all gambling? Are all "fully fledged gambling lunacy"? Genuine question asked in good faith.
Under the Kinder/Happy Meal is gambling logic, buying a bag of M&Ms could also be gambling because I "value" the blue ones the most and will receive a psudorandom number of blue M&Ms in the bag.
There is also a big difference in intent. Spend $5 on a Happy Meal and you are spending $4.90 for a meal and $0.10 for a piece of junk toy. And half the time you can ask for a specific toy anyway. On the other hand, spend $5 on loot boxes (or scratch tickets, lottery tickets) and there is no expectation of any other "value" than the potential value of your winnings.
Speeding is not dangerous in itself, until you actually hit somebody. By your logic there should be no speed limit anywhere but only charges when you hit somebody. The whole concept of regulation would also have to be scraped. Why would we have safety norms ? Not respecting them can lead to problems but well...
Maybe that is your view but I don't think it is widely shared.
Regarding safety: alcohol is perfectly legal and I'm sure we can all agree on that it is extremely (more so than other substances) detrimental to health and other members of the society. On the basis of banning things for safety, it should be banned. Fun fact: it isn't. Another fun fact: prohibition wouldn't work.
> Speeding is not dangerous in itself, until you actually hit somebody. By your logic there should be no speed limit anywhere but only charges when you hit somebody.
Elaborate on how speed limits work or how come they are effective, if they indeed are. Maybe we can work out something. :)
I would also like you to point out its relevance to the prohibition of loot crates for the "safety of our kids and vulnerable people".
Regarding speed limits, I recommend https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways.
Additionally, I would rather you avoid the use of "by your logic" when in fact it does not conform to my "logic", it conforms to your perceived and false interpretation of what my logic might be, which you extended to an entirely different issue and imagine that it somehow undermines my argument. There is a difference between having speed limits enforced by X and assuming that the majority of people would respect it, and banning loot crates on the premise that it benefits the kids and vulnerable people while depriving "non-vulnerable" or "less vulnerable" adults completely on the same premise.
Please enlighten us to your alternate proposal to having a functioning society that is not based in a concept of a Code of Laws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14
https://mises.org/library/society-without-state
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist
[...]
My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input.
I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.
Emphasis on tone, and I do get that. People don't like my tone, and they don't like being told they are at fault and that they are doing a terrible job at being parents. By "effectively", you mean by sugarcoating the message I'm trying to convey? Look, my point was that prohibition, when there are other alternatives that doesn't involve depriving other people of something, won't make you any less responsible for your child. Look at some of the responses to my comments regarding that, it's fascinating to think that some of these people may really be parents.
> By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic.
My problem is that people are too keen on regulating and prohibiting anything in the name of safety and whatnot and do actually believe it's going to be effective. It's not.
Let's say you - a law-abiding citizen - need a "good reason" which is determined by the court to carry a knife, and good reason does not include self-defense, and it excludes any knives that would be actually effective against perpetrators with a knife, for example. Now, by definition a criminal doesn't care about this law, and you have no ways of defending yourself. How is this legislation (prohibition) in favor of the law-abiding citizen? It straight out deprives said citizen from the means of defending themselves. In addition to that, pepper sprays are also illegal. How are you supposed to defend yourself by other than running away (not doable in many scenarios), not going outside and assuming they won't break into your house, or hiring bodyguards when you can't afford it? Just put yourself in a scenario. You are a law-abiding citizen and you live in London. I hope you agree that there are many areas that are not exactly safe. Do you like the fact that you are unable to defend yourself without breaking the law? Prohibition is not exactly on your side, is it? What do you think?
Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms
For some fun:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 or the full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615.
It's a great game, isn't it?