I know, I know – the ensuing tirade is a waste of keystrokes because the gambling bill probably won’t pass. But I don’t think it’s going to go away, either, at least not any time soon. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume it will eventually take on a real life, whether it’s a diluted version or not. So bear with me…
Whenever politicians and interest groups get together, you can be sure that someone is trying to ban something for the “public good,” someone else is losing to the benefit of the other party, and politicians reap the profits. Currently, the debate is on “Internet Gaming” (i think a free subscription required). A brief aside here – but there is nothing more worrisome about internet gaming than there is about sports-betting, slot machines, horse-tracks, or lottery tickets.
“The Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group, wrote in a letter to Congress in the spring that the exemption of horse racing showed that it paid “to pony up.“
For starters, I declare an immediate moratorium on the use of the term “conservative” when referring to those people who want to legislate every aspect of our private lives. Seriously, why can’t these people ever be happy living their lives in a manner they deem appropriate? Why don’t they stop at my doorstep – but instead resist my attempt to shut them out of my life? I don’t bother myself with your daily routines – why waste your time on mine? Shouldn’t you instead be doing something more constructive, you know, like praying for my soul?
But of course it pays to have an ear in the legislature. There’s no doubt in my mind that State Lotteries, and massive campaign contributors will be exempt from this legislation, whatever form it takes. You know, the old bumper sticker: “Don’t steal. The government hates competition.” I needn’t say more. Radley Balko chimes in to that effect, “The lotteries are the kicker. Apparently, when it comes to government priorities, generating revenue trumps paternalism.”
Spot on, Mr. Balko. Politicians hate online gaming because they can’t tax it. Believe me, if they had a reliable way to tax the bejeezus out of internet gaming, they’d be on it like flies on shit. In the meantime, “The big Las Vegas casinos, which have been neutral over online betting, have embraced a proposal in the House to establish a study commission.”
And they are, no doubt, secretly hoping that the commission rules in their favor, excluding online gaming, conferring virtual monopolies to the brick & mortar gambling houses. Remember when I blogged about the Indian Casinos here in Michigan, who made sure they would get a tax exemption in their contract, if they were ever subject to competition from non-tribal casinos. Rent seeking at it’s fucking finest, in three… two… one… “The Poker Players Alliance, a relatively new player on the Hill, and others that would be affected by a ban point to big-money interests like horse racing that are is (sic) not covered under the proposal.” You know, the biggest problem with rent-seeking is that it deprives individuals of their preferences – those poker players would rather be sitting in a game somewhere than trying to plea for mercy on the Hill.
“‘The bill,’ said Michael Bolcerek, an amateur player who is president of the alliance, is ‘picking winners and losers.'” Of course it is, Mr. Bolcerek. And the winners are those with the deepest pockets from which they’ll bribe the legislature into protecting them from competition. This is no different than any other form of prohibition, protectionism, or whatever we call such tomfoolery these days.
“…Mr. Leach said the poker players offered a fairly persuasive argument. But he added that he still believed that there were no social benefit and few “happy aspects” to Internet gambling.” I was waiting for the argument on the side of the public good. You know, the same reason why we can’t buy our identical pharmaceuticals in Canada for 1/2 price – the same reasons that prevent us from buying raw sugar from Central American countries, or shirts made in Bangladesh.
Social benefit? What about the fact that people obviously want to participate? News flash, Mr. Leach: Any time you prevent people from making choices they want to make, you’re forcing them to make an alternative decision, which will not be (in their eyes) as beneficial, enjoyable, entertaining or fun. If you don’t believe that people can make decisions in their own interest, then we are clearly and demonstrably incapable of choosing politicians and hacks like you to “represent” us, being human, after all, you suffer the same hubris.
====
If you make it a crime to eat steak, sure, I’ll eat chicken. Will I like it as much? Don’t be ridiculous. I believe there’s no social benefit to Christianity – but I don’t try to enforce my beliefs using brute force backed by a “might-makes-right” mentality.
So ban internet gaming, because nothing says “freedom” like telling you what you can and cannot do with your money. (The 65% of it that the government lets you keep, that is. )
