Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

azmirror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 184 posts

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#71

Post by dghlsakjg »

pibaker wrote: post #68
echelon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling is a negative externality that needs to be taxed. Gambling takes advantage of the poor, under-educated, and addictive personalities and puts them into financial distress. This places burden on families, the state, and local municipalities. It creates strain on the workforce and deflects legitimate economic activity that would otherwise strengthen the economy. We're a free society. I'm fine with gambling from…

I don't think you can equate Kalshi style "prediction market" with gambling in Vegas. The worst thing that can happen in Vegas is you the gambler go bankrupt. In the meantime we already have reports of war intelligence in Ukraine being distorted so someone who betted on frontline movements can pocket some cash. Losing a war because some rich degenerate is trying to bet his way towards a second Ferrari is less unlikel…

The reports that were altered were public reports at the ISW from open reporting, not government intelligence. If you lose a war because you based your tactics and strategy off of media reports instead of your own intel, you weren't going to win that war anyway.

That said, I recognize the broader point. Betting on everything, especially things that betters can directly influence is incredibly dangerous.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#72

Post by jmalicki »

delichon wrote: post #27
jmalicki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when has vagueness been considered a bad thing for statutes? It's the foundation of the US (and anglo) legal system and why courts exist, to fill in. And vague statutes that can be interpreted by courts has long been preferred to precise legislated meaning that you seem to prefer. You could live in Germany or France if you prefer a legal system more ruled by clear statute?

If vagueness isn't a problem then we can simplify the law by replacing it all with one sentence: Let there be justice.

The idea is to provide overarching guidance, but when there is devil in the details, leave that up to courts to consider when there is a real actual issue at play, rather than legislators in the ivory tower theorizing about how things might play out.

The statute gives the general intent, but with an understanding that until the shit hits the fan in an actual court case, noone will have truly considered the detailed ramifications, so leave some intentional ambiguity there for the courts to resolve on real, actual, grounded cases rather than theorizing.

And if the legislature disagrees with a courts opinion about the ambiguity it left, it is very free to clarify in statute, which will override the court! (Unless the issue is constitutional, in which case the legislature is very free to draft a constitutional amendment!)

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#73

Post by dghlsakjg »

esseph wrote: post #57
combobyte wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? Those second-order effects are easy to mitigate with sensible public policy. And it's not like we have to invent the solution from scratch — we've done it before, very effectively.

> When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? Today at the gas station on the outside of the pump and the store door.

I was at a gas station today that sells tobacco. No ads. Its because even displaying tobacco products, let alone advertising them, is not allowed in that jurisdiction.

I'll bet you didn't see any cartoon camels or doctors recomending a brand though, because even where tobacco ads are legal, many tobacco ads are no longer legal.

Whether you see ads, and what kind of ads you see is highly regulated. That's the whole point,

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#74

Post by esseph »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #73
esseph wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes? Today at the gas station on the outside of the pump and the store door.

I was at a gas station today that sells tobacco. No ads. Its because even displaying tobacco products, let alone advertising them, is not allowed in that jurisdiction. I'll bet you didn't see any cartoon camels or doctors recomending a brand though, because even where tobacco ads are legal, many tobacco ads are no longer legal. Whether you see ads, and what kind of ads you see is highly regulated. That's the whole po…

> I was at a gas station today that sells tobacco. No ads. Its because even displaying tobacco products, let alone advertising them, is not allowed.

We clearly don't live in the same states.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#75

Post by tmp10423288442 »

DannyBee wrote: post #58
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because Kalshi doesn't want to follow the actual law Correction: because the federal government doesn't want Kalshi to follow the actual law. CFTC ordered Kalshi to continue operating in NY when NY tried to crack down on it. Donald Trump Jr. is a paid advisor for Kalshi. The US Government's conservative leaders are ignoring states' rights in order to personally profit, using Kalshi as a tool. > this will end up at…

Thankfully, the CFTC can't actually order Kalshi to continue operating in NY despite being in violation of NY law. They have no authority to override any judge's order/etc, and at least so far, have not pretended they do. As for me, i've never pretended it's either normal or desired for the courts to make policy, whether congress is dysfunctional or not. Among other things. My comment was basically pointing out that…

> the current supreme court seems perfectly willing to throw out decades of settled law on an ideological whim, and actually, for that matter, happily interpret very clear congressional statutes in very odd ways

Fortunately or unfortunately, the Supreme Court has always been willing to do that. This court has been overruling decisions of the Warren Court, just as the Warren Court overruled decisions from the Lochner Era.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#76

Post by reliabilityguy »

fooey wrote: post #65
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the history of separation of powers, the judiciary is the final check in the loop. It doesn’t fully explain why Congress has allowed the expansion of executive power for nearly a century, resulting in more and more major issues being pushed to the Supreme Court. That’s not to say states have lost power, their reach has also grown exponentially far outpacing even the federal in terms of number of workers and wr…

the lesson congress learned from the Hillary Clinton coronation getting derailed by Obama was to absolutely never ever vote on anything important

Can you elaborate what you mean?

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#77

Post by reliabilityguy »

vkou wrote: post #56
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the history of separation of powers, the judiciary is the final check in the loop. It doesn’t fully explain why Congress has allowed the expansion of executive power for nearly a century, resulting in more and more major issues being pushed to the Supreme Court. That’s not to say states have lost power, their reach has also grown exponentially far outpacing even the federal in terms of number of workers and wr…

> It doesn’t fully explain why Congress has allowed the expansion of executive power for nearly a century, resulting in more and more major issues being pushed to the Supreme Court. It's because the US is a presidential republic with no concept of a non-confidence vote. This makes the sitting head of the party ~impossible to remove, and when government fails to reach consensus, instead of... Having an election, and l…

I am not sure a vote of non-confidence would have helped here — there are only two parties.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#78

Post by matthewdgreen »

dakolli wrote: post #55
jareklupinski wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies need to pay 40-50% of their gross revenue to the government. That's comparable to tobacco. taxing a vice is worth it on paper, but the second-order effects (nonstop alcohol ads, pervasive gambling app dark patterns) aren't worth it imo

You can't tax revenue in sports gambling markets, it actually just leads to predatory gambling products with massive vig/house edge. This was attempted in Tennessee. Margins are extermely low sports betting, like 4.5%. Its actually a loss leader typically. So for casinos that only have this type of wagering it taxes like this aren't going to work. A casino might turn over 50 billion yearly but only have a 2.5% edge i…

Sports betting was, if not prohibited, then highly-proscribed for most of my life. You could do it in a few places like OTB, go to Vegas, or deal with an illegal bookie. People still gambled, but this made the problem orders of magnitude smaller than it is today. We did not need Sharia law or the guillotine, just an existing system of laws that were generally highly workable. It is not helpful to pretend like we need wild solutions just to achieve results we’ve already achieved and maintained for decades.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#79

Post by [deleted] »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #70

(Not American) What does 9th circuit or some circuit court mean? It some name of a specific court, just not the place name? Or is it special kind of court and “9” is some sort of level? Importance or hierarchy related? Escalation level? (Assuming your SC eventually is also at the top like in India)

[deleted]

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#80

Post by mayneack »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #70

(Not American) What does 9th circuit or some circuit court mean? It some name of a specific court, just not the place name? Or is it special kind of court and “9” is some sort of level? Importance or hierarchy related? Escalation level? (Assuming your SC eventually is also at the top like in India)

9th is a region (includes California) circuit is a level (appeals court right below Supreme)
Post reply on HN