You can see there that it is not that small % having problems playing poker as you think.
When I say what I think is moral, I dont connect it with laws at all, but purely what I think is right to do for myself and what is wrong (my personal opinion, nothing more). My definition of moral is "not harming anybody". So when I am deciding for myself what is moral to do, I dont care about laws.
Thank-you, I think we are civil and were are progressing the conversation, and you point out exactly what I mean to address. You have shown that many have suffered, say for example, at the hands of poker. It is difficult to argue such suffering could be "moral", HOWEVER, we have not yet shown that it is poker that inherently causes this suffering. And in fact I can show that it is not at all poker that has caused this, if given a chance with a sincere audience.
We mustn't disconnect laws and morality out of reaction. There is a simple axiom to be laid down, that IF laws are unjustly created and imposed that such an act (creation/imposition) is not moral. I hope we can understand the truth of it, and that rather you would like to argue that such regulations on poker are in fact "just". Locke points out to us that the logical role of government SHOULD be to govern the least amount possible to ensure that the maxim amount of natural rights of each of us are upheld.
We then recognize that SOME laws must exist so that we can each live together while enjoying the maximum amount of freedom. And so if a law over reaches this very simple point, then such a law is in fact immoral. When we ask the question "Is poker moral?", those that feel it is a subjective conversation, have already shown their conditioning is such that they do not understand their natural rights. Not being educated to this point, is also in itself immoral (because government imposes the rights and duties of education and the educators).
Now to address your points more succinctly. Bill gates playing poker with uni students is moral even by your definition because nobody is falling under unfortunate times, provide the uni students are far better at Gates at poker (which is my reason for the example). Today you point out the environment is the opposite, but you are confused about the cause. In a world in which the people are more and more free to govern themselves (other than least government laid by Locke), there will always be less and less degenerate gamblers.
So poker, in its most moral state, is a completely different perspective and game then we have be sold and taught to think it is. A highly regulated game by governments and law, creates a monopolistic environment in which rake and effective rake are far too high. This means that all players lose and so then it cannot be said that there are skilled players playing the game (all skilled players will not play in a breakeven or losing environment). And so we can clearly see that today's sick environment of poker does not show poker is immoral, but in fact that our society is sick, and that the STATE of poker is a symptom of it.
In short, poker can be played and set up, either in an immoral or moral fashion and environment. To think there is an inherent nature for it, is both illogical, and religious.
And it is all this that lays the very foundation, for what is "ideal poker", and you cannot have a healthy society, unless your poker players and their environment is healthy...and for all this we see the very immoral nature of restricting, regulating, and suppressing, the free markets on which poker runs. If anyone reads this, and believes they understand, and believes they can explain it in a more relateable fashion, please do so!
thx!
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS NEVER TO FORCE PEOPLE TO MAKE MORAL DECISIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. SUCH LAWS GO AGAINST FREE WILL.
'
VS