Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
You missed my point. Unlike any other business, there are specific laws on the books to regulate gambling. It is a regulated industry, and cannot be reckoned as comparable to unregulated business. It is not a simple matter of "buyer beware".
The existence of those specific laws on the books could render a state legally liable if it fails to enforce those regulations within it's domain.
Likewise, there is a matter of equity- If the local ambling joints and dens of sin ;) are forced to comply, but internet sites are allowed to slide, that could be construed as an unfair advantage given to the internet based site, making the state liable again for failing to provide equal protections under the law.
How is regulating the gambling industry substantially different than regulating, for example, the insurance industry? The states manage to write and enforce their own regulations about that without the federal government.
It is my understanding that the state regulates gambling devices. How does the state authorize (and seal to prevent tampering) the internet gaming devices providing they do in fact fall within the states pervue?
The feds have nothing to do with it.
=providing they do in fact fall within the states authority?
I don't know. But if the state is regulating them and enforcing those regulations then they assumed the responsibility for having the technology to do that when they allowed them to use those devices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.