John Has An Interesting Point

So, John was up in Janesville this past weekend and, as we are wont to do, we were discussing topics that are current in today's political climate. We avoided the unimportant (Israel v. Huzbulleh) and the mundane (the relative merits of George W. Bush as the leader of the free world) and went straight to topics that are important to every youngish-middlish-aged males - internet gambling.

If you are unaware, and I may (or may not) have pointed this out before, the state of Washington has already passed, and the US Congress is about to pass, a bill that would ban "internet gambling." Basically, they want to ban online poker. I think my last post on this topic discussed the hypocrisy of those who proposed the bills (namely politicians from Iowa and Pennsylvania) rather than the actual content of the bill. I posited that it seemed a bit disingenuous for a politician from Iowa to propose a bill that would ban online gambling when his own state contained no fewer than 17 casinos. It seems that if you were really concerned about the societal ills of gambling, the best place to start would be the casinos within your own control, namely, those in your own jurisdiction. Instead, the politicians are reaching beyond their jurisdiction to posture in a place they can't possibly hope to control to try to gain popular (read: middle-america republican) support in an election year. As a side note (do my postings ever contain anything other than a series of "side notes"???) I would be curious to know how many of those middle-american republicans make their annual trek to Las Vegas or the Mississippi riverboats to blow their hard-earned nickles on quarter slots.

Which, leads to John's point. He posits the question: why would a politician oppose such a bill? There's virtually no political down-side in supporting it. Those who are in favor of internet gambling (and those constituents who would be "against" the bill) know it could never be enforced from a practical standpoint, thus are unlikely to care whether it actually passes or not because it will not change their activity (this is sort of like "illegal" downloading of music - despite the fact that it is "illegal" people continue to do it because it is practically impossible to enforce). Those against internet gambling would like to see such a bill and a politician could gain political capital by supporting it. Thus, a politician would not see any repurcussions from supporting it; the opposition just doesn't care enough - and it's not like there's a "pro-online-gambling" political action committee to stand up for the rights of the casual online poker player (like me - to date I have lost a grand total of $10).

My argument, half-drunk and not well-thought out, is that we, in our position as "member of a free society" and politicians as our representatives should oppose the legislation on basic principles of our democratic and free society. It seems only a little strange that a nation that is in the midst of a war that would put Russia's conquest to turn Asia communist to shame, in the same breath that supports and extolls the virtues of democracy and freedom, is invading the dens and living rooms and computer rooms and bedrooms of its own people to ban them from activity conducted there. In other words, the legislation enforces the very opposite of personal freedom. So, it seems a little disignenuous to "free" the Iraqis when reducing the freedom of your own citizens. Thus, any congress-critter that voted for, or has expressed a support for, the mission of freedom (if not the invasion) in Iraq is a hypocrite if they vote for this legislation.

I'm not suggesting that Congress does not have the power or ability to regulate online gambling. Of course they do. I'm suggesting instead that if Congress doesn't want online gambling, that it ban the establishment of online casinos in the United States. The online casinos are still free to set up outside the borders of the United States. But it seems only a little hypocritical and fascist to tell "free" citizens what websites they can visit and what activities they can and cannot perform in the privacy of their own homes. Yes, they already do this: you can't view child porn at home (but that affects more than just the individual viewing because the very act of producing it is degrading and there is strong public policy against child pornography - and while the congresspeople would argue that public policy militates against gambling, I would argue that it's not nearly as strong of a public policy, because we do, in fact, allow some gambling, just not online gambling - we do not allow "live child pornography" while banning "online child pornography"), you can't send email spam (again, it affects more than just the person sending, because it also affects the person receiving), and you can't have anal sex in Georgia (would somebody care to tell me the last time this was actually enforced? Thus, it is a similar, toothless, silly policy that may as well not exist).

In any event, we, as people, should oppose the legislation not because we are in favor of online gambling (most of us don't really care one way or the other about online gambling), but because we value our freedom. One of these days perhaps I'll write something about how George W. Bush and his neo-conservative republican cronies are eroding any base that they may have had outside of the "religious right" by insisting on controlling, invasive, and hypocritical politics.