Hacker News Reader

Comment by angarg12 | Hacker News Reader

I left my home country over 10 years ago, and ever since I've travelled back once every 1 or 2 years.

Since 4-5 years ago I started to notice these betting houses cropping up where my family and friends live. They are impossible to miss, with big pictures of different sports and no windows.

The most important thing to notice is where these place are and are not. They proliferate in working class and less well off neighborhoods, while they tend to be absent from more affluent ones.

These places get a lot of foot traffic, all the locals barely making ends meet, blowing a few tens of euros here and there, with the eventual payoff. It's not difficult to hear stories of people getting into the deep end and developing a real addiction with devastating consequences.

And it's not only the business itself, but what they attract. All sort of sketchy characters frequent these places, and tend to attract drugs, violence...

Legal or not these places make the communities they inhabit worse, not better. I personally would be very happy if family didn't have to live exposed to them.

View on HN

> while they tend to be absent from more affluent ones.

It’s not that they don’t want to be, it’s that affluent neighborhoods tend to keep things that are considered “low class” out of them. The only Safeway in my city that doesn’t sell lottery tickets is the one in the most affluent neighborhood.

I bet the better off do gamble on the financial markets though

When they do it, it's gambling. When we do it, it's investing.

Investing is putting money into (hopefully) productive use, like a company with revenue, in an expectation of a return.

Gambling is basically redistributing money according to a random numbers generator, It's a negative sum game (because the house takes its fee), but a surprise positive spike game. That spike forms an addiction in the less fortunate.

When you buy a stock, you're not contributing it to the company's productive use. If I buy $1000 of MSFT, Microsoft doesn't get an extra $1000 in their bank account to invest in their business. That $1000 is going to another bettor to settle his previous bet, and at some point in the future, I'll sell and get an unknown amount of money to settle my bet. Just because historically betting on the stock market has been +EV doesn't mean it's not still gambling.

> When you buy a stock, you're not contributing it to the company's productive use

You are marginally reducing their cost of capital.

Sure, but that's pretty indirect and a far cry from "putting the money to productive use." Unless you're an early investor or IPO participant, your actual money is not being directly put to productive use by the company you are "investing" in.

> that's pretty indirect and a far cry from "putting the money to productive use."

All finance is indirect. Particularly at small scale.

> Unless you're an early investor or IPO participant

Plenty of IPOs are entirely secondary. And public companies regularly raise money via at-the-market offerings, where a random trader may wind up cutting a cheque to the corporate treasury. (I’ve been a seed investor and IPO investor. My effects on the outcome were rarely singularly meaningful.)

In a large offering, a small IPO investor has about as much direct effect on the outcome as someone buying the pop publicly. In aggregate, however, their actions are meaningful and productive.

Put another way: contrast two economies, one in which most capital is tied up sports gambling (negative-sum game), the other in which it’s in equities (positive-sum long term), one will outperform the other.

Early investors and IPO participants put their money in expecting that 20 years later you would buy the stock off their hands. It feels weird to call it causation when it's traveling back in time, but in a way buying the stock contributes to investment.

If you buy MSFT specifically you'll get regular, fairly predictable dividend payments and not just an unknown amount of money in the future.

MSFT goes up a tiny fraction when you buy. That means MSFT employees with stock grants get a tiny "raise" courtesy of you and with no cost to the company. Microsoft can also use their more expensive stock to make acquisitions. So you are contributing to the company's productive use in at least 2 ways if you buy its stock.

Buying MSFT doesn't meet the criteria to be called gambling, for me.

> Investing is putting money into (hopefully) productive use, like a company with revenue, in an expectation of a return

The big differences are time horizon, addiction and expectations.

The longer the term, the less actively one must watch it and the lower the expected returns, the more likely it’s investing. The shorter the expected turnaround, the more closely one watches numbers go up and down, and the more one is focused on turning multiples than yields, the more likely it’s gambling.

Any stochastic process can produce gambling behaviour. Only a positive-sum game can facilitate investing.

The difference is investing has a positive expected return. Betting against the house does not.

> investing has a positive expected return

Can you tell me more about this. I've never heard of it before. Is there a theorem?

Plus it's fun and "dangerous" to slum it with the plebs on occasion. But you don't want that shit close to where you live.

Those who already took 99% of the pie can safely bet on every possible outcome.

Most can avoid to lose completely while alive, but they have no path to a winning position, and others are trapped in a situation where it's so hard to go down to a net lost that they lose ability to understand that individual hard work and wiseness is not going to defeat societal asymetries.

Except everyone on financial markets try to sell idea that you can "learn" and actively trade on their platforma and make living of it.

Which make it no diffetent for average Joe than gambling.

Financial markets produce a net positive outcome for investors (gamblers), no? The average rate of return in the S&P500 is about 10% and it's considered the baseline for thr stock market.

The gambling equivalent is day trading, not holding VOO for a decade.

There are many ways to use the financial markets that are not gambling. Buying an index fund or Coca-Cola isn’t gambling; it is not even very risky. Nor are individual stocks gambling, as you can get a reasonable idea of what a company’s price ought to be and how it is likely to perform in the future, at least for well-established companies. It’s also harder to get into debt, as long as you don’t short, because you can only spend money you have, and the stock does not become worthless if your analysis is wrong. (At least, there are warning signs)

Now day-trading? I consider that gambling, because any particular day’s price movement is a lot closer to random.

Buying a stock or mutual fund is the very definition of gambling: placing a monetary bet on an unknown future event. Just because this activity has historically had a +EV, doesn't make it any less gambling.

By this definition prime loans are also gambling. When you bet on something risky then you are gambling. When you bet on something not risky you are not gambling. Also consider that not investing will generally lose money over time due to things like inflation. If we define the goal to be holding as much value as we can, holding dollars is more risky than investing in many stocks (or bonds, which also have a risk of defaulting). A better definition of gambling is something like "taking unnecessary and unproductive risks."

I'm not sure I buy any definition of gambling that depends on the outcome. If you lose money or tend to lose money, then it's gambling, but if you win money or tend to win money, then we change the name to "investing?" Risk includes upside and downside risk.

It doesn't depend on the outcome. If a bank only does prime loans and spreads out it's loans multiple borrowers, has a good reserve ratio etc. and still loses it all, that still wasn't gambling. This is more clear if you consider that storing value in money is also risky. When you get paid in a currency, you automatically begin investing in it at the same time. This is even more clear with foreign currencies. If you got paid $1 million in Turkish Lyra and do not store that value somewhere else, that is more gambling-like than putting it in the S&P. I guess you can say that any time you increase the amount of risk in an investment to get more reward you are gambling. But you can invest in something other than USD with the same risk but with greater reward. For example you can invest it in US bonds (over multiple issues) which has a similar risk to the USD but a greater reward. Still, under such a definition, any business is gambling. We can accept that, but then we have no word that differentiates owning a grocery store from betting all your money on a coin flip, so then the word "gambling" becomes much less useful or really useless in my opinion.

Is it gambling if it has a +EV?

Purchasing a business or parts thereof is not “gambling” any more than purchasing a house is “gambling”. People purchase them (or are supposed to) for the value they provide either through income or asset appreciation in the case of businesses or shelter in the case of the house and not for the singular promise of some winning outcome unlike games of chance. The only expectation is that the asset purchased will continue to provide value throughout the period of ownership which is no more or less than what you would expect of many other assets or goods you might purchase and none of this is contingent on mere chance alone. Just because somebody quotes a ridiculously high or low price does not necessarily mean the intrinsic value of the asset has changed. Overpaying for an asset is not the same as losing money to a slot machine. Have I “lost money gambling” if I buy something in a store the day before it gets discounted? These are just risks that exist in any market. Do not confuse this issue just because some have decided to use them as mere vehicles for price speculation. People speculate on the price of eggs, oil and gold as well but that does not mean buying eggs for breakfast, fuel for your car or a gold necklace for your wife is “gambling”.

> bet the better off do gamble on the financial markets though

Much less. Something I’ve noticed is the parents of the wealthy teaching their children to invest versus e.g. day trade. In middle class or poor households, on the other hand, it’s not uncommon for the kid to be trading crypto instead.

This is a misleading judgment the expectations out of the stock market being that the investments produce money generally speaking are expectation positive. Gambling is expectation negative always. That's the defining difference in my opinion.

Can you lose money in both absolutely but only actual investments have historically positive expectations. The stock market has had net growth of 7%+ on average in the last 100 years. Gambling has not increased the gamblers pockets at all its only shrunk there pockets

> The only Safeway in my city that doesn’t sell lottery tickets is the one in the most affluent neighborhood.

Does the affluent community prohibit it or is Safeway self-policing?

I'd wager (heh) a bit of both. The distinction isn't that the affluent neighborhood gets to make its own decisions or be cared about by large corporations whose presence ostensibly enhances their quality of life, it's that poor neighborhoods don't. The reason the latter have these socioeconomically deleterious establishments is the same reason they don't get grocery stores or gyms: the people making the decisions don't see them as customers to serve, but as marks to exploit. And suddenly we're back to the notion that privilege isn't necessarily having it "better," but sometimes just having what most would consider the dignified standard.

Well over a decade ago, when we were initially looking for a place to rent in Bavaria's second-largest city, which is otherwise one of the safest cities in the country and the world, the quickest way to screen neighborhoods was the presence (or absence) of those little casinos/sports betting offices.

It's frustrating because technically it's all "legal" and marketed as harmless entertainment, but in practice it’s just another way to extract money from people who have the least to spare

Maybe their having the least to spare is a consequence, and poor impulse control is the cause.

Anyway, it's like making money off other human deficiencies, say, poor vision or dyslexia, and mistakes made due to those. It feels unfair, it does not feel like a conscious choice. Hence the understandable backlash.

That doesn't feel like a very apt analogy. Poor vision or dyslexia can't easily be hijacked into a cycle of addiction the way poor impulse control can. Making a bit of money helping someone with poor vision is very different than blasting advertisements on every single medium and using predatory practices to draw in those with poor impulse control. Not to mention the continued exploitation afterwards until the victim has nothing left.

Making money helping people with poor vision (selling glasses) is fine, of course. I mean exploiting their weaknesses, like using a tiny typeface to write important price information while showing a big price-like number prominently. Doing something formally correct which turns into a trap because of the customer's disability.

Aren't betting houses antiquated now? I assumed even senior citizen would be betting through their phones.

Being able to gamble privately, 24/7, with all the psychological/engagement "optimizations" is even more insidious.

I also left my home country about a decade ago.

I was already expecting a lot of gambling site ads, they took over the soccer tournament sponsorships almost completely anyway.

But what I found out when I came back in the last 3-4 years 100% shocked me. It wasn't just TV and soccer teams, I saw gambling ads in napkin holders at some restaurants, bus stops. I went to get a haircut and the barbershop had TV with gambling ads adorning their frames.

I also left my country years ago and come back once or twice a year. This year the city hall introduced a new parking app that can't be installed on a phone with an app store registered outside Romania, because the freaking parking app has a gambling section and they decided to go with gambling instead of supporting a universal parking app (like the previous one that they had) available also for tourists from outside the country. I called them out on that and said that they can't make it available outside the country because of legal issues with the gambling section....

Romania?

Guilt by association: If, e.g., violence is a problem, then one needs to deal with the violence. In general, law-abiding citizens are—and should—be free to congregate and partake in their bad habits wherever they please. And even though gambling is generally immoral, it does not infringe on anyone else's God-given rights and has no business being made illegal.

Gambling is emphasized above to emphasize we are talking about individuals who are not sufficiently skilled to argue they are not essentially partaking in pure games of chance.

It’s not about the Gambling, it’s the fact these businesses are collecting a large number of easy victims in once place.

Imagine you’re a loan shark. Which of the following seems like a good place to look for customers: upscale restaurant, movie theater, random bar, theme park, baseball stadium, city park, or a sports betting venue.

Imagine you're a luxury watch thief. Which of the following seems like a good place to look for customers: upscale restaurant, ... or a sports betting venue.

https://robbreport.com/style/watch-collector/luxury-watch-th...

By customers you mean "people to sell stolen watches to"? Cause if that is the question, neither of these is a good place. Affluent people wont buy obviously stolen watches directly in the restaurant, they will go through middleman that makes them look legit.

And people being there to bet wont be buying watches that much either.

Hanging out at the same restaurant is a terrible idea for a watch thief, you will be caught over time.

That’s not an issue for the loan shark.

Right. In other words, no one's God-given, negative rights are being infringed upon.

Rights are merely a simplification of complex interactions. Societies are more focused on what benefits themselves than such simplification.

The minimal effectiveness of enhanced interrogation plus the desire of the population not to risk being so interrogated means people are generally apposed to such. Tracking down a nuclear threat is considered something of an exception to this stance by the average person.

This is a simple fallacy.

Either you accept the definition of God-given rights, which is certainly not consistent with your opening statement.

Or you don’t, at which point any following argument regarding its proper usage is moot.

You seem to have gone with the latter, which makes your comment irrelevant. And that is regardless of its truthfulness. To be clear I disagree with it, but getting into that would contribute to derailing the conversation.

It’s not a rejection of the existence of God-given rights.

It’s a rejection of the idea that people’s list of them would be consistent through time. In 1,000 years people may come up with a list of God-given rights, but it won’t be the same list you use.

As such trying to come up with a list of God-given rights from a human perspective is inherently a flawed undertaking. God is beyond human comprehension.

Rights are not something you enumerate, i.e., they are not a “list.” The underlying idea of God-given rights is, simply put, that your freedom ends where mine begins and vice versa.

The idea, moreover, is the generalization of ethics to an environment with multiple actors, such as Earth. And it is, of course, inconsistent with many ethical systems: A competing idea in equally simple terms is “might makes right.”

And the idea, furthermore, does not change over time. So if you substitute it into my previous comment, you will see that the argument within holds.

Finally, and as a side note, I strongly agree that the state of possible actions, and as the “list” of possible infringements changes with, e.g., technology. An 1800s philosopher would, for example, never have considered the applicability of any theory of rights to the operation of a nuclear power plant.

> ends where mine begins and vice versa

That tipping point isn’t fixed.

> furthermore, does not change over time

Except it does “them’s fighting words” only died out very recently, but it provides a starkly different boundary between my rights and your rights.

Ritualized lethal combat was a thing for very long time, and took an incredibly long time to go away. Trial by combat and dueling grows out of a fundamentally different ethical framework not just a lack of technology. It seems antithetical to Christianity today, but that wasn’t always the case.

Sports betting is not a game of pure chance, but bookmaking is arguably ethically quite problematic.

Most individuals are going up against these very sophisticated statistical models created by teams of quants working with huge datasets that you have to pay substantial amounts to access. I think most bettors don't know what they're up against.

And the bookie business model is intrinsically anti-consumer: if you win too much then the bookies will ban you. Whereas bookies are quite happy to keep taking money from addicts even when said addicts have already lost their life savings.

The whole "sports betting is a skill game" angle is technically true in theory, but in practice it's like showing up to a Formula 1 race on a tricycle

And any active investment platforms are not different at all. A lot of matketing budget is spent to make people believe they can earn money by trading.

There are some differences: investment platforms wont kick you out if you manage to earn money. Gambling sites do that. If you are loosing a lot, gaming sites make your limits go up. If you are winning a lot, your limits go down. Investment sites dont do that.

They also assign "consigliere" to you if you loose a lot. He is supposed to create a personal relationship with you. If you try to stop playing, that person will try to get you back into gaming.

You are not betting against investment platform itself, you are betring against other people on it. That is major difference.

Yeah, the incentives are completely different between exchanges and bookmakers. Exchanges make money regardless of who wins or loses. Bookmakers make money from their users losing.

> Most individuals are going up against these very sophisticated statistical models created by teams of quants working with huge datasets that you have to pay substantial amounts to access.

There are two things you might do as a bookmaker:

(1) Perceive the truth of who is likely to do what, and set odds reflecting that perfect Platonic reality, but with a percentage taken off for yourself.

(2) Adjust the odds you offer over time such that, come the event, the amount you stand to collect on either side will cover the amount you owe to the other side.

You don't need to know the odds to use strategy (2). Nor do you need to reject bettors who are likely to be right.

Strategy (2) doesn't tell you how to come up with the initial prices, and bookies can potentially lose a significant amount from giving "bad" initial prices. If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them, since sports betting is a zero-sum game: every dollar you win from a bookie is a dollar that the bookie loses.

> If an individual is winning a lot of money from a bookie repeatedly because of these bad initial prices, then it is a sign that they might have a better model than the bookie, and so it is in the bookie's interest to ban them

I don't think this follows. If an individual is winning a lot of money repeatedly in this way, it is a sign that the bookie should give their bets a lot of weight when adjusting prices. But that information is something the bookie might want.

If bookies want better prices they can pay for prices from places that have good models. Or they can buy / build their own models. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense from an economic perspective.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45483917 , sidethread.

Thanks! I definitely have more to learn in this area.

The vast majority of small bookmakers in the UK don't come up with their own prices. They either copy other bookmakers or pay for them.

They also typically use off the shelf software for book management and risk.

I worked for a gambling syndicate. We often made money from bad initial prices. Many bookies tolerated us because they wanted to know what we thought was mispriced and rapidly adjusted their odds after we started betting.

It was a balancing act though. They really wanted to know what we were doing, but didn’t want to lose too much to us. So there was some give and take / bartering around the fair value of our information in the form of our accounts being banned and limited or bets being voided. But they definitely didn’t want to eradicate us.

I have worked in the betting industry for several years. And the reason I'm writing is to tell you that while (2) sound logical, it was not used during my time in the industry. Or to be more precise, of course the odds are adjusted all the time to balance the market, prevent arbitrage etc, but it was also very common to have a 'loss leader bet', usually on the favourite, where the betting company would take a loss or make very little money if the favourite wins (but if that happens the customers still don't make a lot, because the odds are already low, and betting on a favourite is not a winning strategy because the real fav loss probability is higher than the odds would suggest). OTOH what is also often done is when 'real odds' are very high (low probability), the odds that are offered are way lower than the probability would suggest. So if 'real odds' are 100:1, the company would offer 50:1, so, even taking into account the company margins, you as a customers are never offered anything close to the real probability and as a consequence unless you are exceptionally good can never make money (and if you do your are banned).

I addressed this in my original comment. What, exactly and explicitly, is your point?

> And even though gambling is generally immoral, it does not infringe on anyone else's God-given rights and has no business being made illegal.

Neither does smoking, but we still limit the types of advertisements cigarette companies can make.

Gambling is ultimately a predatory business that serves to separate people susceptible to addiction from their money.

> Neither does smoking

It absolutely does, and the number of people that died from second hand smoke is awful.

It doesn't make sport gambling adverts right, but it wasn't a great example.

In a similar vein, many people close to gamblers suffer serious consequences from the addiction.

Indeed. Gambling impacts the family when they spend other people's money.

We have every right to ban things that are abusive to society.

Two word refutation: Passive smoking.

I’m sure there is an argument there somewhere, and I’d love to address that if you would care to give it another go.

Being somewhat skilled does not make it not hazard. And practices of books are purely predatory.

Books most definitely won’t let you win long term. They only want you as long as you’re losing and can ban you once you win too much. This sounds illegal and isn’t.

Discussion 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45432627

Do you mean hazard as danger or hazard as luck/random?

Irrelevant. I only bring up the stochastic element because of the implicit argument that people are being victimized by gambling against their will.

Since you would be extremely off-topic if you tried to extend this argument to, e.g., Daniel Negreanu engaging in a game of poker, I wanted to explicitly preclude individuals competently engaging in whatever activity is being deemed 'problematic.'

It was mostly to help the 'other side' stay on topic; otherwise, I could trivially refute their arguments by counterexamples, e.g., Daniel Negreanu.

> it does not infringe on anyone else's God-given rights

Gamblers have lost their homes as a result of their addiction, I think that impact on their families counts for something.

It is your right as a human to waste your life away. It is also by definition immoral regardless of moral system (so long as 'waste your life away' is an accurate assessment within said moral system), but they are completely separate matters.

I.e., no. It counts for nothing.

Did you miss the point about negative impact on others?

No, but you seem to have failed in parsing my explanation as to why it was not a valid point.

As guiding questions: What is the difference between negative and positive rights? And what are the relationship to the concept of “God-given” rights?

This argument doesn't account for the inherent, drastic power imbalance between the average participant of gambling and the average owner of a gambling center.

Gambling between people, a basement poker game, that's fine, that's no one's business.

Handing your money over to rich people operating black boxes that are designed from ground up to mesmerize and mind control you into emptying your wallet is a totally other story. On the individual level, it ruins the lives of anyone who is unable to resist or understand the psychological tricks employed on them. Zooming out, it destroys families, communities and in effect, societies.

If we are going to base the legality of gambling on consent and human rights, we have to recognize the limit where consent is no longer valid, due to sickening engagement tactics.

Someone's freedom to make money off of my ignorance or weakness does not supersede my right to self-determination and well-being, neither of which are possible when being hoodwinked by exploitative capitalists.

If we are to continue allowing corporate gambling operations and 24/7 mobile sports betting, we need to place serious restrictions on how these companies are allowed to operate.

I'm curious how do you feel about drug legalization.

I'm fairly okay with legalizing everything but absolutely banning advertising it.

Which is what we should be doing with gambling: no advertising, as opposed to now where everybody ad break has a celebrity endorsing the intelligence you clearly have when you choose (betting platform).

The emotional manipulation of paid celebrity endorsement of harmful, engagement-hacking products and services is downright sickening, just the thought of how normalized it's become makes me sick to the stomach.

I'm very pro gun, pro freedom of consumption, pro crypto, etc. but once emotional manipulation comes into play, self-determinism goes out the window and people are no longer making free choices.

    > I'm very pro gun, pro freedom of consumption, pro crypto, etc. but once emotional manipulation comes into play, self-determinism goes out the window and people are no longer making free choices.

To me, this is a very mature response. The whole idea of you do what you want as an adult and you own all of the consequences. Why do you make an exception for "emotional manipulation"? To be clear: I am not trolling in this post. I want to know why you think these things can be legal, but advertising about them is "morally bad".

Well, advertising as a concept is fine, but the industry is steeped in advanced, refined yet old-as-time-itself psychological manipulation tactics.

When addiction is intentionally engineered at a high level and wrapped in the Trojan horse of self-sufficiency or emotion, deceit, or the power of suggestion, we have a problem. Imagine Taylor Swift doing an ad for crack cocaine.

The war on drugs should never have happened. It's been used a tool of foreign and domestic terror and control for a century. It was designed and popularized by corrupt people who stood to gain wealth from restricting the freedom of others.

To your implied point, drug addictions similarly ravish communities, destroy lives, and in the case of drugs like fentanyl, legalization effectively makes it easy to acquire extremely potent and discreet poisons, which has a huge potential impact for violence.

We can paint a similar story for gun violence. We can tie drugs, gambling and guns together even more tightly when we look into where cities approve permits for gambling centers, where most liquor stores pop up, selective enforcement and scandals like the Iran-Contra affair [0].

It's important to have a consistent position on all of these topics, so I thank you for raising this point. So all of that said, I think drug consumption/manufacturing/distribution, guns and gambling should generally all be legal at a high level, but we must dispense with the racist and classist implementations of these systems within our societies, and we should have sensible evaluation and certification programs in place for access to different stratifications.

You should be required to periodically prove medical and psychological fitness, as well as operational certification, for certain powerful substances. Similarly, we need sensible restrictions on gambling and guns [1].

The reality is that with freedom comes responsibility. Without responsibility, unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy or a post-capitalist nightmare. One of the main points of government is to balance these freedoms across individuals, communities and society at large, in order to maximize the well-being and self-determination of the people, while allowing for progress and innovation.

I'm curious to hear your own position.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

[1] To be clear, I am very pro 2nd amendment [1] and am not calling for a ban on anything or for the State to maintain a monopoly on violence and power.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx

I asked because I noticed this strange cluster (for me) of people which want to ban some things like gambling or social media algorithms because they are exploitative and addictive, but who also want to legalize drugs. I had a feeling you might be in it.

Stranger, some of them want to ban/make it harder to distribute drugs "legally" through doctors (OxyContin, Sackler family scandal) because doctors might be monetarily incentivized, but then they also support complete drug legalization, including for the same drugs (fentanyl). This position is not even internally consistent, in this case fentanyl was "legalized" close to what they seem to demand, just gated by a doctor.

I don't have a clear position, but I don't think I would support legalization of "hard" drugs (anything above marijuana/MDMA). I can't see any positive, the negatives are clear, and it impacts the whole society (I will respect your freedom until it impinges on mine).

I am pro 2nd amendment, but I also believe the State should maintain it's monopoly on violence. Otherwise it's Mad Max world. The way the 2nd amendment is stated (prevent tirany) would not work anyway today, the military power of the State is vastly larger, the "militias" will never stand a chance against Police/Army/Cyber/... So I am pro guns just as far as personal protection requires (so no rocket launchers).

I was reading this chain of responses. They are great. The two of you are very thoughtful in your world view.

About your last paragraph: How do you feel about other OECD (highly developed) countries that do not allow personal gun ownership (except for hunting and sport shooting (clays, etc.)? Take Japan for example: Except for hunting and sport shooting, ownership of guns is not allowed. How do you feel about it?

If there are no guns around, and if the Police is competent, I would be against allowing guns.

But the police must do it's job. Take Sweden, criminality is now rampant there, criminals are using grenades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...

The entire point of defense against tyranny is because today's well-behaved police can be tomorrow's racist State thugs. Authoritarianism is a ratchet.

It absolutely does account for that. Your entire comment is a strawman.

If that is not intentional (which I suspect it is not, so no offense intended), then I believe a quick search on “God-given rights” should help you make whatever case you want to in a logically consistent manner. It is a well-defined concept that has a specific meaning over a specific domain. I get the feeling “negative rights vs. positive rights” might be a useful search phrase as well.

The Judeo-Christian god does not exist, nor any other god, so I'm not sure what rights you're referring to. Are you referring to human rights? We don't need a religion to justify those.

Anyway, you said your argument accounts for it, but didn't actually follow through and demonstrate why that is. How does your argument take into account the aforementioned power imbalances?

God-given rights refers to a certain theory of rights that does not require theism.

It is a well and widely understood term whose usage should not invite “correction”.

Referring to God-given rights invokes their definition, which should make the inconsistency I was referring to clear.

Can you give a less vague answer?

No. Normally I would, but you are either being lazy or just plain acting in bad faith.

1. My answer is not vague. You are refusing to look up the critical definition. 2. Everything you have brought up (except for the theism bit, which is just completely off-topic) was preemptively addressed in my initial comment.

Then please provide the excerpt of your initial comment which address which addresses the power imbalances I described.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com