Comments on: Anomalies R Us: Obama against gambling expansion

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:46:19 +0000

DLS - you are correct - and that's why I opposed Ohio's Learn and Earn Issue 3 in 2006 so vehemently. It is an absolutely positive extremely short-term reliant on the wrong people enriching already enriched people won't solve any underlying problem-solver.

And Ohio's issues are so deep, the last thing it should rely on is gambling for a fix - that is, a fix that resolves anything. I loathe folks that try to see it on economics.

I'm also not a "they have it why can't we" kind of person, but I know people use that argument.

Probably the most persuasive to me would be a straight capitalism-based argument with the "it's my money and I'll lose if I want to" thrown in.

But in general - I don't get it - I find NO enjoyment in losing money - no pleasure in the risk or the ephemeral possibility of reward. I just don't get jollies that way.

Which is all to say, it's not a moral issue for me re: it's just not a right or proper activity. Rather, there are rock solid reasons to oppose it, imo.

Thanks.

By: DLS

DLS — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:57:41 +0000

Jill Miller Zimon — thanks for the refreshing sane-Dem prespective. I don't think gambling is any big deal in today's world (which is why I call Obama's taking a position on it “safe” — it risks offending few). However, unlike the nose-picker no-limits-on-personal-[mis]conduct far left and their few aides, the so-called libertarian crowd who are libertinistic instead, I am fully aware that gambling is often far from a so-called victimless activity (as are drug abuse and for that matter porn or prostitution). More to the point, I believe you'll agree, while it may actually be desireable from a political or philosophical perspective to have government as a key “player” in gambling if neutrality is practiced (that makes me a real, as opposed to play-time, libertarian), I'm confident you agree that the real issue here is cynical — government sees this as an easy, easy-to-depend-upon-later revenue source.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:50:49 +0000

DLS – I agree but I have to say, here in Ohio, based on what happened in 2006, it seems as though few Dems are willing to outright state that they are against gambling – I was one who did, but i wasn't joined by too many!

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:49:55 +0000

Chris – that's a very common assertion by people who want gambling to be legal everywhere without much restriction. The folks I know who push that perspective are libertarians. On my blog, there's some great debate – just click on the delicious link on the righthand sidebar where it says “57 reasons.”

By: DLS

DLS — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:14:38 +0000

It's a safe way to appeal to social conservatives and reassure everyone (not just social conervatives) that he is a Democrat with a virtuous side to him, not typically vicious instead.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:16:27 +0000

What I like about all this information is vindication - you can be a liberal and still be against the expansion of gambling.

Perhaps not a liberal in the classical sense. You know, freedom, power of the individual and all that.

If I want to waste my money, the government has no right to stop me.