Can I just say it boggles my mind sometimes how you manage to fit things into a narrative?
If the government banned gambling that would be wrong... if the government has a hand in gambling, that's wrong too... but if it's like Las Vegas where even more people gamble than in Quebec and it's run by private companies and people lose their life savings that way... then it's okay.
Maybe I didn't get the point of your post, but "The government runs gambling here. Now a good mix." makes no sense to me. What is not a good mix? Government and fun? Government and doing something people actually enjoy?
Oh, one other thing, the government takes out ads telling people gambling is addictive so watch it...then they take out ads telling them to not forget to buy their 6/49 lotos.
Moreover, NO ONE knows where that cash goes.
No transparency.
WORLD of difference between the private and public examples. One is worse than the other.
What's the number one thing people like you say to people about the role of government?
To take care of its citizens.
I have never once said anything remotely similar to that. Never, ever have I said anything resembling that. It's very frustrating that you insist on not reading anything I ever write and simply filing me away into some model you understand.
First of all, "gambling is a vice" is a heaping, hot pile of moralistic bullshit. Second, I don't buy the "addiction" argument for anything that does not cause chemical dependency and severe withdrawal. I despise the over-medicalization of society's language, because it defers responsibility.
I feel bad for a heroin user who is literally experiencing the hell of withdrawal, I don't feel bad for someone who can't bring themselves to stop shoving coins into a slot machine. I agree there are habitual gamblers, and that many of them are problem gamblers who should be spending their money in other ways, but those are different things.
Moreover, the potential for abuse is not the test by which something should be legal or not. Moreover, you're begrudging the government for finding a way of earning money, which I might snarkily assume is because it dispels the myth that government just wastes money. I guess unless the government is losing money, you aren't happy, because then you can't complain about how wasteful and stupid government is.
I don't buy your bullshit about "not knowing where the money goes," either. You think the government is doing what with that money? Torturing puppies? Honestly, what horrible conspiracy do you have dreamed up for gambling profits?
You're right, you never said that and I was projecting. But it wasn't meant in the way I wrote it.
Bret, I agree with parts of what you say but again you showing your instantance on trusting government with your money. And you're just going off into tangents.
First,
The state makes millions on 6/49 tickets. All people ask, is all this money, in what hands is it going? No one knows. A journalist tried to track it down.
I'm glad you trust them with your money. I don't. Not until I see some transparency. Again, our penchant for corruption on an obscene scale is not some urban myth, it's a fact.
I completely reject your killing puppoes assertion. That's a strawman. That's not the point.
The point is we want them to ACCOUNT FOR THE MONEY.
Second,
The stance is clear, government shouldn't be involved in a racket like gambling. It's just bad form man.
You disagree. Fine. Don't try and tell me it's somehow a "bad" belief to have.
I don't trust the government, and if I were you I would fight for transparency and open honesty about where the money goes, but I find it hard to believe it can't be traced. Maybe Canada isn't good at keeping their books open to the public, I honestly don't know or care as a non-Canadian. I just know transparency is good; I would rather know it was being used for something bad (so I could then oppose it) than be kept in the dark (so that I have to fight simply to know what the problems are).
About transparency: I'm glad the government runs warnings about problem gambling. It's sad they have bought into the medicalization rhetoric, but the principles are essentially the same. It's important to advertise the risks of something you sell because that is also part of transparency, the oft forgotten private burden that government sometimes has to squeeze out of unwilling businesses. It would be awfully hypocritical and corrupt if the government sold something that carries a risk without warning the patron of that risk.
The government does protect the citizenry, but not from themselves. That, to me, is a basic affront to personal liberties. You asked a question about consistency in another post... this is one thing I can be consistent on. Drugs, gambling, prostitution (consenting adults, of course), full contact sports, eating unhealthy... it's pretty much all the same to me. All of those things should be legal, so long as the government has done it's job in educating people of the risks. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, before you shoot heroin, you should know that you'll probably end up sucking dick for money in a year or so," or "That prostitute you're going to see will probably give you herpes," or "Gambling is an idiot tax, so thank you for your business, idiot."
You're perfectly entitled to fight to end government gambling, but I would hope you just fight to end the government monopoly on the market (which I assume they have). Fighting to end gambling or fighting to end the government's ability to own casinos are not very noble goals in my view.
Yes, Canada does have transparency issues. It's hard to gain access to information here.
It's interesting, Americans don't care, well, because, Canada has no impact - which is true. Canadians and the world observe America because it's a mega-power and it what it does matters.
Now, for the rest of your post.
Wow. Speechless. You actually hit it on the nail. I completely agree.
The only thing I'm confused about and wondering if there's an inherent contradiction:
"The government does protect the citizenry, but not from themselves. That, to me, is a basic affront to personal liberties."
Don't you think that's what they do? A lot of these laws in place to "protect" us are to protect us from ourselves. They do overstep their boundaries. They do attack personal liberties.
I suppose the real debate is do people "feel" the government has gone overboard.
Can I just say it boggles my mind sometimes how you manage to fit things into a narrative?
ReplyDeleteIf the government banned gambling that would be wrong... if the government has a hand in gambling, that's wrong too... but if it's like Las Vegas where even more people gamble than in Quebec and it's run by private companies and people lose their life savings that way... then it's okay.
Maybe I didn't get the point of your post, but "The government runs gambling here. Now a good mix." makes no sense to me. What is not a good mix? Government and fun? Government and doing something people actually enjoy?
Perplexing...
Bret,
ReplyDeleteWhat's the number one thing people like you say to people about the role of government?
To take care of its citizens.
Why is it involved in things like gambling? It's a vice.
They're involved because it brings in cash; at the same time the citizens they claim to be helping is becoming addicted.
A private company is for profit.
I don't get how this eludes you.
By the way, Bret, the government muscled in on VLT gambling on mob territory to get their cut.
ReplyDeleteThey're WORSE than a private company.
Oh, one other thing, the government takes out ads telling people gambling is addictive so watch it...then they take out ads telling them to not forget to buy their 6/49 lotos.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, NO ONE knows where that cash goes.
No transparency.
WORLD of difference between the private and public examples. One is worse than the other.
What's the number one thing people like you say to people about the role of government?
ReplyDeleteTo take care of its citizens.
I have never once said anything remotely similar to that. Never, ever have I said anything resembling that. It's very frustrating that you insist on not reading anything I ever write and simply filing me away into some model you understand.
First of all, "gambling is a vice" is a heaping, hot pile of moralistic bullshit. Second, I don't buy the "addiction" argument for anything that does not cause chemical dependency and severe withdrawal. I despise the over-medicalization of society's language, because it defers responsibility.
I feel bad for a heroin user who is literally experiencing the hell of withdrawal, I don't feel bad for someone who can't bring themselves to stop shoving coins into a slot machine. I agree there are habitual gamblers, and that many of them are problem gamblers who should be spending their money in other ways, but those are different things.
Moreover, the potential for abuse is not the test by which something should be legal or not. Moreover, you're begrudging the government for finding a way of earning money, which I might snarkily assume is because it dispels the myth that government just wastes money. I guess unless the government is losing money, you aren't happy, because then you can't complain about how wasteful and stupid government is.
I don't buy your bullshit about "not knowing where the money goes," either. You think the government is doing what with that money? Torturing puppies? Honestly, what horrible conspiracy do you have dreamed up for gambling profits?
I'm still perplexed by your stance.
You're right, you never said that and I was projecting. But it wasn't meant in the way I wrote it.
ReplyDeleteBret, I agree with parts of what you say but again you showing your instantance on trusting government with your money. And you're just going off into tangents.
First,
The state makes millions on 6/49 tickets. All people ask, is all this money, in what hands is it going? No one knows. A journalist tried to track it down.
I'm glad you trust them with your money. I don't. Not until I see some transparency. Again, our penchant for corruption on an obscene scale is not some urban myth, it's a fact.
I completely reject your killing puppoes assertion. That's a strawman. That's not the point.
The point is we want them to ACCOUNT FOR THE MONEY.
Second,
The stance is clear, government shouldn't be involved in a racket like gambling. It's just bad form man.
You disagree. Fine. Don't try and tell me it's somehow a "bad" belief to have.
I don't trust the government, and if I were you I would fight for transparency and open honesty about where the money goes, but I find it hard to believe it can't be traced. Maybe Canada isn't good at keeping their books open to the public, I honestly don't know or care as a non-Canadian. I just know transparency is good; I would rather know it was being used for something bad (so I could then oppose it) than be kept in the dark (so that I have to fight simply to know what the problems are).
ReplyDeleteAbout transparency: I'm glad the government runs warnings about problem gambling. It's sad they have bought into the medicalization rhetoric, but the principles are essentially the same. It's important to advertise the risks of something you sell because that is also part of transparency, the oft forgotten private burden that government sometimes has to squeeze out of unwilling businesses. It would be awfully hypocritical and corrupt if the government sold something that carries a risk without warning the patron of that risk.
The government does protect the citizenry, but not from themselves. That, to me, is a basic affront to personal liberties. You asked a question about consistency in another post... this is one thing I can be consistent on. Drugs, gambling, prostitution (consenting adults, of course), full contact sports, eating unhealthy... it's pretty much all the same to me. All of those things should be legal, so long as the government has done it's job in educating people of the risks. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, before you shoot heroin, you should know that you'll probably end up sucking dick for money in a year or so," or "That prostitute you're going to see will probably give you herpes," or "Gambling is an idiot tax, so thank you for your business, idiot."
You're perfectly entitled to fight to end government gambling, but I would hope you just fight to end the government monopoly on the market (which I assume they have). Fighting to end gambling or fighting to end the government's ability to own casinos are not very noble goals in my view.
Yes, Canada does have transparency issues. It's hard to gain access to information here.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, Americans don't care, well, because, Canada has no impact - which is true. Canadians and the world observe America because it's a mega-power and it what it does matters.
Now, for the rest of your post.
Wow. Speechless. You actually hit it on the nail. I completely agree.
The only thing I'm confused about and wondering if there's an inherent contradiction:
"The government does protect the citizenry, but not from themselves. That, to me, is a basic affront to personal liberties."
Don't you think that's what they do? A lot of these laws in place to "protect" us are to protect us from ourselves. They do overstep their boundaries. They do attack personal liberties.
I suppose the real debate is do people "feel" the government has gone overboard.