The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Legalization of Gambling

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4320
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Legalization of Gambling

Post by Scott » November 12th, 2009, 3:00 pm

While gambling is generally illegal in my state, it is allowed on tribal land and through the state lottery. Every now and then, I have fun wasting a dollar on a lotto ticket, and the state collects hundreds of millions of dollars from it, which then can fund public health, libraries, public safety, education, etc. Using taxes on lottery can also allow income and property taxes to be lowered through the state as well. Also, I bet it helps fund information and handouts about problem gambling and gambling safety, which I find at the lotto sales-station at the grocery store but not at illegal poker games.

As with most consensual activities between competent adults that may be criminalized, I believe criminalizing gambling increases violent crime and victimization. When it's illegal, people don't stop gambling; they gamble as criminals with other criminals in unregulated, untaxed criminal places where often violent criminals make money instead of legitimate, peaceful organizations.

What do you think? Do you support the legalization of gambling for the reasons I listed--that legalization leads to less violent crime than criminalization, that legalization provides huge tax returns as opposed to costing taxpayers the price of yet another war on a non-violent crime, and that legalization makes gambling tend to be safer by regulating it rather than sending gamblers to criminal organizations who probably care much less about the participants' safety? In contrast, if you support criminalizing gambling, why do you? What is the underlying principle you use to determine when you support criminalizing an activity?

Please note, I'm not promoting gambling. I'm not celebrating gambling. I'm not encouraging gambling. I'm not saying I want my hypothetical children to engage in gambling. In the support of freedom and the belief of freedom's utilitarian benefits, I am supporting the legalization of an activity. Like anyone who isn't a full-blown authoritarian, there are many activities that I strongly dislike, that I strongly discourage, that I would never want my family or loved ones to do, and that I would disallow my hypothetical children from doing, but that I still support letting it be legal for consenting adults to do.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Tragicjoke
Posts: 57
Joined: November 19th, 2009, 9:47 am

Post by Tragicjoke » November 20th, 2009, 3:06 pm

If not done Las Vegas style then gambling only invites the riffraff.

Who wants the riffraff in their home?

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4320
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » November 20th, 2009, 4:22 pm

What do you mean by "Las Vegas style," Tragicjoke?

If people do not want gamblers in their home, they can not allow them into their home. If Joe Johnson does not like the color red and thinks people who wear red are riffraff, then Joe Johnson can disallow guests from wearing red t-shirts in his home. That's the benefit of freedom. It's to each his own.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » February 11th, 2010, 2:36 pm

There's something interesting going on here in California, Scott.

The State has decided that online Poker needs to be regulated, but the Native Americans have threatened to stop paying fees on their casinos if the State does so.

How transparent is the hypocracy in this situation? I believe that allowing Native Americans the right to build Casinos on their land was a cop-out for the States to generate revenue [by saying that they "couldn't stop them"], and now that the States have found a new potential source of revenue, they're ready to blow off their supposed moral objection to gambling altogether!

It's all about revenue in the end, I suppose, but in this case, I think the "creep" of taxation coincides with the "creep" of individual liberty, so I guess it's a two-sided sword.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

NameRemoved
Posts: 642
Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm

Post by NameRemoved » February 12th, 2010, 3:24 am

Hi Scott I think gambling is okay and should be legal. However when a man gambles everything and leaves his family without food or provisions, then his gambling has become an addiction that ignores the harms. I don`t know how society would make a gambler like that stop, maybe the casinos and those running the poker clubs etc could liase with the family to ban the serial gambler if the serial gambler`s family approach them asking them to ban them.
That is the real downside of gambling. There are no moderations in place.

[I once worked at a place that a man came to night after night spending all his cash in the slot machines, his wife called in asking us to stop him using the machine as he was gambling all their money..it was a difficult call for the boss..he had the slot machines to generate money aswell as pool tables etc..no one could reason with the serial gambler, he just would say it was his business]

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » February 12th, 2010, 4:47 am

*Izzy* wrote:Hi Scott I think gambling is okay and should be legal. However when a man gambles everything and leaves his family without food or provisions, then his gambling has become an addiction that ignores the harms. I don`t know how society would make a gambler like that stop, maybe the casinos and those running the poker clubs etc could liase with the family to ban the serial gambler if the serial gambler`s family approach them asking them to ban them.
That is the real downside of gambling. There are no moderations in place.

[I once worked at a place that a man came to night after night spending all his cash in the slot machines, his wife called in asking us to stop him using the machine as he was gambling all their money..it was a difficult call for the boss..he had the slot machines to generate money aswell as pool tables etc..no one could reason with the serial gambler, he just would say it was his business]
In which case, Izzy, I would suggest that the family separate from the man. He is obviously destructive to them, yet these few idiots [addicts] cannot be allowed to justify the elimination of liberty and freedom for the remaining individuals who practice their recreational habits responsibly.

We can't rely on others to solve our problems. The end result of this pass-the-buck mentality always leads to a lack of personal responsibility and a sense of complacency, only furthering the spread of the pandemic, either forcing it underground or replacing it with a new poison.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

NameRemoved
Posts: 642
Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm

Post by NameRemoved » February 12th, 2010, 4:58 am

Indeed Whitetrsoldier, if you note I was agreeing gambling should be legal, it is legal where I live. I was only speaking of the moral dilemma, that I do think monitoring could be a good thing. If somone is ill [serial gambling is an illness] then society does owe IMO a moral obligation, just like a publican would ban an alcholic or someone too drunk to handle his drink. If casinos are geared to encourage someone who is a known serial gambler to spend all their money and not give a fig about the consequences..what sort of society is it encouraging?

If its about taking advantage of someones mental illness it poses a moral dilemma,

If they are not ill there is no problem most gamblers like to gamble what they can afford to gamble. ie personal responsibility.

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » February 12th, 2010, 3:34 pm

*Izzy* wrote:Indeed Whitetrsoldier, if you note I was agreeing gambling should be legal, it is legal where I live. I was only speaking of the moral dilemma, that I do think monitoring could be a good thing. If somone is ill [serial gambling is an illness] then society does owe IMO a moral obligation, just like a publican would ban an alcholic or someone too drunk to handle his drink. If casinos are geared to encourage someone who is a known serial gambler to spend all their money and not give a fig about the consequences..what sort of society is it encouraging?

If its about taking advantage of someones mental illness it poses a moral dilemma,

If they are not ill there is no problem most gamblers like to gamble what they can afford to gamble. ie personal responsibility.
No, the problem is personal responsiblity. It's not my job to "save the addict", and I can say that having a VERY addictive personality.

If people just let him lose all of his money in the casino, maybe he'd be forced onto the street. If no welfare programs existed, he'd eventually die because of his lack of self-constraint [or learn from it].

Either way, society would be better off than "trying" to help him. Humans work the same as animals; they either learn and live, or they continue their self-destructiveness and their genetic pool dries up.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

NameRemoved
Posts: 642
Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm

Post by NameRemoved » February 12th, 2010, 4:27 pm

It's not my job to "save the addict",
You missed the point but never mind :roll:

For me publicans will warn ..send home or bar a drunk or alcoholic from their premises

Drug addicts are not allowed to openly smoke hash in public places either

What makes a casino owner right if he allows a serial gambler who he knows is not only wasting their own money but their familys?

I am all for not babysitting others, but there is a question raised for good reason.

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » February 12th, 2010, 6:33 pm

*Izzy* wrote:
It's not my job to "save the addict",
You missed the point but never mind :roll:

For me publicans will warn ..send home or bar a drunk or alcoholic from their premises.
Izzy,

Where does the politician get the funding/authority from in order to execute his moral agenda?

Not just from the people who choose to contribute, but also from those who don't. This is thievery, as another man's problem is not of my concern.
*Izzy* wrote:Drug addicts are not allowed to openly smoke hash in public places either
I support allowing anybody to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their home or in the sanctity of another consenting adult's private property. The only time they shouldn't be able to practice their freedom is when he infringes upon another's right to life or liberty.
*Izzy* wrote:What makes a casino owner right if he allows a serial gambler who he knows is not only wasting their own money but their familys?

I am all for not babysitting others, but there is a question raised for good reason
What makes him wrong? He's only allowing a person to freely engage in their chosen behavior. If he stopped them from doing as they wished, he would be *infringing upon their free will*. Who is he to determine what is problematic and what isn't? What's the monetary amount that's too much?

The problem with the "Accountability" principles [All men are accountable to one another] is that it is an entirely subjective beast.

WHO gets to decide when I've had too much beer? Too many cigarettes? Too much TV? Too much soda? Too much food?

WHY do they get to make that decision? WHAT is their justification? FROM WHERE do they derive their authority?

THESE are the essential flaws with socialism, liberalism, and every other interventionalist-type mentalities.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4320
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » March 5th, 2010, 11:15 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:THESE are the essential flaws with socialism, liberalism, and every other interventionalist-type mentalities.
I agree with everything else you have said in the thread of course, and I apologize for nitpicking. But it's the big government philosophy of liberal-disliking Republicans that you would be more correct to blame.
Dan Eggen of the Washington Post wrote:But those in favor [of legalizing online gambling in the USA] are hoping with Congress in the hands of Democrats, who have historically been less opposed to gambling than Republicans, along with the growing popularity of recreational poker, that will work to their advantage. The list of backers includes Frank, a New England liberal who says the government should not bother gamblers...

[Emphasis added.] [full article]
Also see Frank gets delay in law restricting Net casinos from The Boston Globe. Here's an excerpt:
Jeremy Herb of The Boston Globe wrote:Frank has introduced three bills since 2007 that would nullify the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, which Republicans passed on the final day of the 2006 congressional session.
***

Also, I forgot another benefit of legalization of gambling as opposed to prohibition. It costs more if its illegal or very restricted. People still gamble if it's illegal or very restricted to few places (e.g. "only at Indian Casinos" or "only in a certain state" or "only in person, not online"). But the lack of legal competition as well as the inflation caused by the danger of illegal activities cause gambling to cost more so that people will spend more on gambling if it is illegal or heavily restricted. For instance, if online gambling were more legal, then that would create more competition for casinos thus giving the consumer better prices.

What if all the money spent on enforcing prohibition of gambling and all the lost money that could have been gained from taxing legal gambling rather than prohibiting
it and pushing it underground had been put towards a charity saving the lives of starving children, put towards education or just put towards property and income tax cuts for working class folks who spend their time working rather than gambling? It's a shame.

Thanks!
Scott
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier » March 9th, 2010, 7:10 pm

Scott wrote:
whitetrshsoldier wrote:THESE are the essential flaws with socialism, liberalism, and every other interventionalist-type mentalities.
I agree with everything else you have said in the thread of course, and I apologize for nitpicking. But it's the big government philosophy of liberal-disliking Republicans that you would be more correct to blame.
!!!BAH!!!

Scott,

I am going to go crazy one day if people keep misusing the term "liberal".

When I say "Liberal", I mean people who "liberally" apply the use of the government, including using it to intervene in the private non-violent affairs of citizens.

So-called "conservative" Republicans who call for government intervention into private citizens' activities are not behaving "conservatively" as it's defined politically; they're behaving "conservatively" as it's defined religiously or socially. Essentially, they ARE the ones embracing the "Liberal" mentality when they call for government to intervene in any situation.

A true "Conservative" would be essentially Libertarian, demanding that government be applied "Conservatively" to every situation; from foreign policy, to economic activity, to social engineering.

A true "Liberal" would be essentially socially Republican and an economic equivalent of a modern American "Democrat". From controlling the market to controlling personal behavior, they would demand the "liberal" application of government.

So really, when I'm speaking of the "Liberal", I'm speaking of the so-called "Independents", who I think I often dislike the most, because they're happy for intervention in both fields. But in reality, most politicans world-wide fall into the category of a "liberal" in some sense of the word nowdays, as there are very few true Conservatives [save Ron Paul, God bless him] left in politics.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4320
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » March 10th, 2010, 4:03 pm

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Using your definition of liberal, I guess I am an anti-liberal. :o :)

Anyway, we agree on the gambling issue.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post Reply