I actually can see where he’s coming from with <a
href=”http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007383.php”>this:
Dobson: “If the nation’s
politicians don’t fix
this national disaster, then the oceans of gambling money with which
Jack Abramoff tried to buy influence on Capitol Hill will only be the
beginning of the corruption we’ll see. Some religious leaders want new
ethics rules for Congress, but that’s only a band-aid fix. Politicians
need to root out this infection. Gambling – all types of gambling – is
driven by greed and subsists on greed. That makes it morally bankrupt
from its very foundation. Gambling creates addicts, breeds crime and
destroys families. We need courageous office holders who will begin
the
process of shutting down lotteries, casinos and other gambling outlets.”
[My emphasis.]
This is an off-the-cuff opinion: I hate casinos. Yes, they create
steady revenues for states and big windfalls for Indian tribes, who
surely deserve some good fortune. But there is a huge social cost.
Granted, the Abramoff scandal is only partly about gambling
bucks, flowing like water, finding their level of political influence;
and it’s entirely likely that some other moneyed interest would have
put old Jack up to do his wonderful work. But it doesn’t seem like a
stretch to cast Abramoff’s crimes as being “bred by gambling”.
Again, I guess I’m no libertarian.
Charley I see eye to eye with you a lot but your “anti”-libertarian streak lately has made me recoil a bit. I am not opposed to banning “things” completely when the justification is logical and specific. I do not believe in being against something because it is bad for others. When we say something is bad for others we generally throw objectivity out the window. We can say something is bad for ourself but we are rarely in a position to say what is bad for others.
<
p>
I am of the belief that if gambling were truly more of a cost to society than a benefit, gambling would not be legalized. There is no argument that gambling is a vice and for some it can ruin their lives. But so can drinking. I hope you do not advocate the end to liquor, we tried that in the 1920’s and it really didn’t work that well. Smoking has been pretty solidly proven to cost society buckets of money yet I do not think we can criminalize smoking.
<
p>
On a side note why did you guys change back to your old logo? I kind of liked the “T” spin on the one you had up yesterday.
it’s an ongoing discussion. I’ll post a poll.
See my response to Bob, below. I wouldn’t want to make you “recoil”. đŸ™‚
What I really don’t like is lotteries: the state profiting from – in fact, depending on – on what is basically a big con game. I think MA has the biggest lottery in the country, and if we shut it down now we’d have a budget crisis of epic proportions – obviously it’s not going to happen. I don’t have a huge objection to casinos (though I don’t particularly like them either). But I do object to the state running the game.
I never looked at it like that. I think I agree that I am not a big fan of the state running the game. However, like you said we can’t stop now for revenue reasons.
People like gambling, so why not let them do it. But by running the lottery, the state in effect taxes this activity more than others. That’s the compromise. Incidentally, I think prostitution and drugs should be legalized as well, and regulated: better public health, more taxes, less crime, and millions of happier citizens. Turn the pusher on the corner into the liquor store owner who sponsors the local Little League team and is a pillar of the community.
The trouble with the compromise is that, as you say, the lottery amounts to a tax. And all the data consistently show that it is an extraordinarily regressive tax, levied almost exclusively on those who can least afford it. Again, if people want to go to a casino, that’s OK with me, but I don’t particularly like the state playing the role of the bank.
And I like lotteries. So do millions and millions of my fellow citizens. Reasonable regulations, sure, but totalitarian bans? On what basis. The idea that political corruption would be eliminated if gambling were eliminated … well, that makes about as much sense as the idea that Ariel Sharon got his stroke because he built the security fence — conceivable, but unlikely.
Of course, Dobson is nuts if he thinks banning gambling would do that. Well, we know he’s nuts anyway.
<
p>
I guess I think of the issue in a local way. It’s one thing to have Las Vegas a flight away, or Foxwoods an hour and a half drive away; but man, I wouldn’t want it expanded around here. And there have been real suggestions (from Mike Callahan, for example) that we expand slot machines around here. Yecch.
<
p>
Maybe we’ve struck the right balance now — you can gamble if you want, but in limited locations.
“Reasonable regulations, sure.” I’m not in favor of casinos on every corner, or even slot machines in every bar. I agree: the current situation seems OK to me.