points by cucumber3732842 4 days ago | 0 comments
Government intervention into what is essentially private consumer behavior (not like this is a deal between MSFT and Intel or whatever) is dangerous, incompatible with the values of personal freedom and should be invoked only in extremely rare and narrowly scoped circumstances.
Now, I'm willing to accept that people will disagree about what deserves intervention and how much is acceptable. We can bicker about how much retail sports betting, guns, drugs, adult content, etc, etc, should be curtailed, that's fine.
But the hill I will die on is that people, such as yourself, who use a situations like this, where the overwhelming majority will probably want some amount of intervention as a soapbox to peddle intervention into people's private behavior for it's own sake like it's some sort of good default policy are evil at their very core and should be ridiculed, shunned and marginalized for the benefit of us all.
[–] whimsicalism 4 days ago
Evil at my very core for favoring sports gambling regulation? Christ, the libertarians on this site are histrionic.
[–] ToValueFunfetti 4 days ago
You did say you're perfectly fine intervening in a way that appeared general- that is, I don't think it's wildly out of line to read you as saying 'there is no tradeoff' rather than that 'the tradeoff is worthwhile in this particular case'.
[–] whimsicalism 4 days ago
I don't think it is on face impermissible to intervene in voluntary transactions. I'm not saying government should intervene just for the fun of it.
[–] freejazz 4 days ago