Hacker News

points by betterunix2 5 days ago | 0 comments

If it is not gambling then it amounts to an unregulated futures market, which is also illegal. There is no way around this for Kalshi/Polymarket, they have broken the law and the only question is which law was broken.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison". The courts have to untangle the legalities of the shady business model before we can even determine what the charges would be. And that's what they're doing.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

> Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison".

We should! Finally incentivize rich people to not screw over the rest of society for a quick buck.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

I’m glad that people who share your point of view do not have power in the United States.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

People who believe in justice and democracy, or what? We need to hold people accountable for their crimes. Fines and other slaps on the wrist let big tobacco, big ultraprocessed food, and now big gambling to take advantage. What would you do? Wait for the courts? Wait for the corrupt legislature?

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

Read about the "rule of law," one of the foundational concepts of the US and basically any democracy, as well as most successful monarchies and other forms of government.

Yes, we wait for the courts or the legislature rather than resorting to mob justice. There are good reasons for it. The most obvious is to ensure that the corrupt politicians do not use the power of the state to arbitrarily oppress and persecute people. Another is to ensure that there is no doubt about guilt when we convict someone, and to avoid arguments about the penalties being arbitrary and unfair.

Really though, establishing courts to deal with accusations of people breaking the law is something most societies converge on at some point. "Joe was only ordered to spend 5 years working the fields, so why should Jim be executed for doing the same thing????" amounts to a rudimentary form of judicial law -- pointing to a precedent from a previous case to argue the current case.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

> Wait for the courts?

Yes. This is what we do in the United States and most of Western Europe. This is how countries like this function

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

I would rather we have plain language legislation than playing this dumb waiting game of "well, I felt like interpreting these 20 laws and 16 cases this way today, and my successors will overturn this with the flick of a pen". It doesnt help that our legislature, and even many of our jurists, are bought out ever since the Citizens United decision.

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

> I would rather we have plain language legislation

I doubt that you would be happy with the outcome, certainly not if you had to actual deal with such a legal system. Plain language laws sound great in theory, but in practice the result is a rigid system that is easily manipulated by bad actors and which becomes oppressive to honest people.

"No, I am not marketing a tobacco product, I am marketing a product that produces nicotine from other chemicals, then vaporizes it to be inhaled!"

"If I had not done it, my children would have been seriously injured, are you really going to imprison me for protecting them?"

In general, whenever a society tries to apply its legal code, it will begin to develop judicial law by necessity -- at some point you will have to deal with borderline cases where it is not clear if the law was broken, no matter how clear the language of the law might appear. Here is an ancient example taken from the bible: the death penalty shall only be imposed on the basis of testimony from two witnesses. OK, seems pretty clear, but we know from the Talmud that questions arose when the law was applied -- who counts as a witness, what counts as testimony from a witness, etc.

Also keep in mind that no matter how plainly laws are written down, over time you will wind up with a large number of laws as society deals with changing conditions and unforeseen circumstances. Inevitably you wind up with contradictory laws and you do need some process for resolving the contradiction and determining which law should be applied.

[–] freejazz 4 days ago

Did you read the legislation? It's fairly plain language. The idea that something plain language will somehow end debates is pretty funny IMO.

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

You're missing the point. Popular outrage and a crime are not the same thing.

Until a judge says it's a crime, it isn't. Innocent until proven guilty etc

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

What is a democracy if not a reflection of the populace? Obviously there'd be trials, the constitution says as much.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

? But Kalshi is regulated by the CFTC

[–] lotsofpulp 5 days ago

The federal government has claimed Kalshi is a regulated futures market.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9281-26

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

That is the federal government asserting that Kalshi is subject to federal regulation by the CFTC and not state regulation. It is not an assertion that Kalshi is actually in compliance with futures market regulations, nor is it an assertion that the contracts offered by Kalshi are actually legal (there are explicitly illegal futures contracts).