We're mincing words here.
The bill the PPA, Ron Paul, and others is pushing set up regulation. You say this bill is a good idea. Hence……..

Yes, from an absolute standpoint regulation isn't as evil as prohibition. But they're both evil, and both should be fought against.

Your argument is akin to saying "John McCain is less evil than Barack Obama, so vote for McCain". If you vote for evil, you get evil….

In your letter to Rand Paul, you wrote: "regulation is preferable – and more libertarian – than potential prohibition". You're using a word here where it doesn't belong. There's *nothing* libertarian about regulation. Again, it may be slightly less "evil" than all-out prohibition, but I do not want either, at all costs.

I didn't say it's a "good" idea. I said it's preferable to prohibition.

> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
> If something is taxed, then I should demand be banned instead?

That's the choice for online poker. The choice is ultimately between taxation and prohibition.

And since they won't, you agree to be taxed and regulated. You ask for it, and trumpet it as a good idea, in fact. I find that disgusting.

> I prefer reasonable taxation to prohibition.

I don't believe there's any such thing as "reasonable taxation". All taxation is theft, plain and simple.

> If you disagree, I have to ask if you're demanding prohibition of alcohol in
> your state. After all, that's taxed.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If something is taxed, then I should demand be banned instead?
That's going exactly the wrong way.
I demand that the government lift all taxes.
My demands fall on deaf ears, yes. But I cannot abide by any unethical behavior, whether it be taxation or prohibition.

We do have different goals. I don't dispute that. It's no slam-dunk either way. Ron Paul and other are with me; Rand Paul and others are with you.

Here's the letter I wrote to Dr. Rand Paul (for whom I'll definitely vote, of course):

Dear Dr. Paul,

As a Kentuckian, a liberty lover, and a proud supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, I am writing regarding your August 19th interview with Liberty Maven (http://libertymaven.com/2009/08/19/rand-paul-talk… Specifically, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your statement of opposition to legislation that licenses and regulates online poker pending in the Congress. After all, regulation is preferable – and more libertarian – than potential prohibition, which is why Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring it.

While I would personally love for the federal government and the Commonwealth to leave us alone and let us play, the fact is that Congress has consistently opposed this. The House has continually voted against unregulated, untaxed online poker and gaming by wide margins. This most recently happened in 2006, when we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. The Department of Justice has even started targeting our funds. At the state level, the Commonwealth is attempting to seize the domain names of 140 online poker and gaming sites.

It seems there is a less than 1% chance for federal and state recognition of unregulated, untaxed online poker, but perhaps a 50% chance of getting licensed and regulated online poker done. I realize some would expect Kentucky's poker players simply to give up on online poker, but I do not believe that would do anything to further the cause of liberty. In fact, a successful prohibition would be seen as a victory of statism over liberty, and would do nothing to preserve Internet freedom.

What's important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance — including over 13,000 in Kentucky — can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

In liberty,

Rich Muny
PPA Board Member & KY State Director
http://poker.townhall.com

Your intentions seem to be different than mine. Yours seems to be "get something done to save some of our rights, even if it means losing others in the process". Mine is "demand all of our rights". You say my approach will be a losing battle. Probably, but at least we fought for the right things. We will have LOST if we invite the govt in where it doesn't belong, period. There is no middle ground. No reasonable compromise. Not when it comes to liberty. It is not pragmatic, in my eyes, to agree to play their game, to agree to give up liberties, in order to save some. That's simply idiotic.

You make it sound like the PPA wants to get taxed and regulated. That's not the case. We'd prefer Congress to leave us alone. They won't.

Sorry, but Congress has been after us for years, and regularly votes by margins of 4:1 or more to ban us. I've been to DC four times on my own dime to explain this to my Congressman and others with whom I could meet on why they should respect our liberties, but Congress isn't listening. Now the DoJ is after us, having seized $40 million in players' funds. LOL at the suggestion that we're not standing up for liberty.

The bottom line is that PPA protects the rights of players to play, and that's what we're doing. Pleas to be left alone have fallen on deaf ears, but a bill with some taxation is getting attention. I prefer reasonable taxation to prohibition. If you disagree, I have to ask if you're demanding prohibition of alcohol in your state. After all, that's taxed.