In nearly every aspect of our political discourse, there is a tendency toward the inane. It is a sad thing, which should not be so hard to change. There must be some sort of underlying psychological issue which, once more understood, we could rise above.
I got this call the other day:
"Hello! Can I talk to you for a moment, I am not selling anything and will not ask for any personal information. We only have a few survey questions. Your answers will help us."
Well, I am a scientist, so I consented. They didn't even take any personal information and probably didn't even know my phone number, having been auto-dialed in all likelihood. And as a scientist, I find their questions mildly bewildering for all their verbiage, they ask essentially nothing. I didn't know how to answer any of them. And their system was unable to comprehend the answers that I did give.
Question 1: Are you morally opposed to legalized gambling?
Morally? and Legally? Well... that requires a lot more than a yes/no answer. A yes/no answer doesn't begin to tell this researcher anything about my thoughts. They have given out too many variables.
Morally - I think gambling is dubious. I do not have anything against a gambler themselves, but the practice is well understood to be self-destructive and psychologically addictive. Which is unhealthy. Gambling is one of those slippery slopes people should be careful of. And yet it is there feett on that slope, not mine. It is not, in itself, damning. And it can be pursued in a healthy way. Theoretically. But it often leads to unwanted outcomes. Those who provide that slippery slope should probably be ashamed of themselves, and be shunned by a well-meaning citizenry, taking advantage of those less mathematically minded (or misfortunate) than themselves.
However, I do not think it is the government's place to illegalize it. Regulate it a bit, perhaps, provide protection in the interests of its citizens, yes. But that does not mean parenting the citizenry. Nor, necessarily, simplistic tariffs and taxes. It should get a little careful thought.Taxes on gambling income could be directly invested into help and care for those destroyed by gambling.
Question 2: Legalized gambling encourages gambling! or People are responsible for their own decisions and gambling is a good source of state revenue.
Which do I agree with?
First - why are these posited against each other? They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, all three of these points are rather true; though the last one is a bad idea. There are too many variables and too much being ignored in these little polarizing statements
I am not sure of the effect of legalized gambling. In the whole picture, who could be? Certainly, it would make it easier, on a large scale, to participate in gambling. But people will probably do it regardless. Really, it will make it a lot easier for someone big to bully someone small. That worries me more, and should not be a source of revenue for a government which (ideally) should be helping people. Of the people, for the people, by the people, as our democracy originally decreed. Part of that mission would be a little protection from powerful bullies people cannot protect themselves from.
But as they said, people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, and we can't just blame the casinos or expect government to walk us through life like the over-protective parent of their first-born toddler. A good person will remain firm, resolute, and unwavering in the face of coercion, temptation, brainwashing, and seduction. Those who succumb... well, they get what is coming to them. Survival of the fittest. Never mind that even the Buddha and Jesus acknowledge the power of temptation over their human hearts, there are plenty of people (most people) who don't get addicted to gambling.
Oh, but... perhaps a societal ill is acceptable if the state can profit? Though I would question how they intend to accomplish anything positive by pursuing something negative, I would also like to know what these profits would be used for.
They couldn't (or wouldn't) tell me the answer to that.
At least the first two points are true... but I the last is a bad, bad slope. The wrong thing for government to do. Government is not, and should not, just be a business profiting off of the fates of its people.
Question 3: Would you support legislation allowing increased gambling at Arapaho Race Track?
Well... I am not really a part of this argument anymore. Not being connected in anyway to the racetrack or even Arapaho county. I dunno where the money is going, I don't know what tycoons are for and against it. I don't quite have the requisite arrogance to feel comfortable weighing in at all, especially since all of the nuance in this essay is lost on my interviewer.
And yet, I am expected to. It feels vaguely unfair.
Most issues seem to be framed this way. With belittling buzzwordy choices which are both true. As if they tell anyone anything meaningful other than: "hey There's contention and unrest here! Maybe we can divide people along another superficial issue without approaching the real issues at all!
Hey! Do you want to give the state all your hard EARNED* money!
Hey! The state doesn't need any money. Let it wither and die!
Neither of these points are supportable as they are. The real questions are deeper. Where does this money go? Is it being used wisely? The government does need revenue, if you think there should be a government at all. But the government also needs to be wise in their spending.
No comments:
Post a Comment