We're all adults here, right? If mature Americans have the capacity to accept the responsibilities of their decisions - at least when it comes to gambling - then people should be able to spend their hard-earned cash as they see fit. If they want to spin their paycheck on double zero, it's their decision.
But why is the government meddling in these personal decisions? The answer is that they, like myself, believe that individual freedom has to be qualified against the consequences of freedom running riot.
America exists as a community where citizens are imbued with a wide variety of rights. These rights, however, come with certain responsibilities. In order to be party to these rights, one must agree to be a part of the common defense (register for the draft), live according to laws set out to protect the rights of other members of society, and pay for the administration of those rights (taxes). As a member of a society, we are responsible not only to ourselves, but to the larger group as well. Without discharging our responsibilities, there is no way we can adequately protect our rights.
In the free market, the government is allowed to put certain restrictions on commerce in order to control outcomes it considers undesirable (e.g., setting a minimum wage, banning child labor). The same goes with rights. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you against the consequences of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, possessing child pornography, or walking around naked in public. The government can and does use regulations to protect other people's rights from being trampled on by one's own individual freedom.
Yes, these restrictions represent the government making value judgments on what it thinks are acceptable and unacceptable costs to society, but these decisions are made in the context of a democratic society in which people are empowered to make their own values known. Admittedly, these decisions are relative, but to a large extent they reflect the preferences of the larger electorate.
So, where does gambling fit in? We have demonstrated that the government is within its power in regulating the causes of irresponsible actions that hurt others. But does irresponsible gambling damage anyone other than the gambler? Of course it does. The consequences of allowing problem gambling reach far beyond the individual.
Gambling is corrosive to those who cannot control their habit. It destroys families and ruins successful lives. The government isn't going to prevent you from gambling, it's just trying to ensure that you do it responsibly.
Nowhere is the social cost of gambling more apparent than in bankruptcy. Casinos have been strongly correlated to increases in bankruptcy, demonstrating how one man's actions can impact the community around him. His bank, his credit card company, his university loaned him money assuming that he would be responsible to pay it off. Instead, he blew it at the casino and now these institutions are forced to eat the losses.
By-the-book libertarians believe that people will act in their self-interest and therefore should be free to do as they please.
As Adam Smith tells us, the invisible hand of capitalism makes self-interest into a positive good for society. The problem, however, is that people aren't always rational.
As any psychologist will tell you, people are prone to dependence and addiction - physical reactions over which arguments of self-interest don't always hold sway. Gambling is a perfect example. Between 1 to 2 percent of those who gamble are considered pathological gamblers and are addicted to betting. Science has shown this to be a physical addiction. The brain scans of seriously addicted gamblers have shown neuron responses akin to that of a heroin addict. Why should this person ever be allowed into a casino? It is clear that they cannot control their behavior in any way that resembles responsibility. Why should they be allowed to destroy their own life and the lives of those around them when their behavior is not "free," but controlled by an addiction.
For this reason, casinos are strongly regulated. With large sums of money changing hands, the government tries to ensure that this is done "responsibly" and provides services for those who are having trouble controlling their urge to play. There has even been some discussion about treating casinos like bars - when patrons reach their limit they should be cut off in order to try and prevent them from continuing to hurt themselves and those they are socially connected to.
Those who believe in freedom as the sole positive political philosophy will never assent to this sort of federal regulation. They fail to see that living in a community requires freedom to be balanced with responsibility, and when that responsibility cannot be guaranteed (as in the case of the 1 to 2 percent of pathological gamblers) the government has the right to impose a set of conditions on the activity.
With the assent of a majority of this country, our government has done this and in so doing has helped assure that this potentially addictive activity is carried out responsibly.
Be the first to comment on this article!