Gambling with Societal Stability

That title reads like it’s from one of the pathetic doctoral theses that students are forced to write, and that no one will ever read, doesn’t it?

No, I’m talking about gambling, or “gaming” as a business.

Gambling, it was said, should be outlawed because of the horrific problems that can result from it.  Some people, lured by the prospect of easy money, cannot control themselves, and so on.  And so gambling was outlawed.  To save us from ourselves.  It’s based on the thoroughly Marxist tenet that says; if we’re allowed to make our own decisions, we’ll surely mess up everything.  Because we suck.

Oh, but wait; there can be a lot of money to be made in gambling, so we should have a state lottery!  Cool!  Think of all the sweet, sweet money!

Now, all of sudden, and just because the government owns it, gambling is WONDERFUL!  Why, look at all the things it funds!  Think of The Children!

The Washington State Lottery has been running radio ads telling us of all the beautiful, wonderful, loving things that the lottery does for all of us and our community.  They quote the happy winners and urge us to gamble like there’s no tomorrow, imploring us to ask ourselves with the catchy phrase; “Who’s world could YOU change?”

See, you cops and you in the justice system and you legislators; this is how the remaining shreds of respect for the law, and law enforcement, are being eroded.

It’s the worst, most destructive thing in the world when WE deoit, but it’s the very definition of beauty and all things holy when YOU do it.

I have a friendly tip for you in this regard–  FUCK YOU!  You’re not helping to stabilize your communities with this sort of crap.  You’re helping to de-stabilize your communities with the enforcement of laws that punish people who HAVEN’T violated anyone’s rights.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why, if we’re going to de-criminalize drugs, we must keep the drug trade as far out of the hands of government as possible.  This is the sort of crap that led to the creation of the BATFE following the horrors of Prohibition, if you know your history.

If we follow that horrid model, let’s see; “We gave some of the gambling to Indian tribes, so maybe we can give the pot trade to…hmmm…maybe the Hispanic Americans?  Maybe the poor white trailer trash?  Or should they be given the meth trade?  Oh what the hell, lets have the government play the role that used to be played by the syndicated crime gangs that the government created with substance laws in the first place.  Sure—they own it already, by rights.  Fine, now what about prostitution?”

I’ve been asking the question for years; haven’t we learned a single thing from the Prohibition era?  Now I’m wondering.  Maybe we did learn something from Prohibition.  Maybe we learned that there’s a ton of money and power to be gained from making certain things illegal, causing a bunch of crime and chaos, ratcheting up the law enforcement and reaching for more “tools” for said enforcement, then when it’s so far out of control that the people are saying they’ve had enough and they’re demanding “something” be done, government takes it over where the gangs left off.  State pot dispensaries, AND we still have all the 4th amendment incursions we had during the drug “war” AND we still have the DEA.  “Top down, bottom up, inside out” (that model fits perfectly here, so if you haven’t heard of it, you had better start googling it.  We’re being set up).  And you people think it’s a freaking great idea.  Suckers.  Fools.  Dupes.  You think you’re for freedom, and you’ll be begging for this shit, as an improvement.  Just as it was planned.  The BATFEM, here we come.  You’ll call for it, thinking yourself clever, but you’re just someone else’s Stradivari.

On the other hand, we could have a free society, like we were promised after the Revolution.  Now which would you rather?  A free society, or a government-run, hypocritical shit hole with different rules for different groups of people and still different rules for government-run businesses?  We fought a revolution over much less than this, and defeated the most powerful military in the world in the process.  Americans tend to think freedom is worth fighting for.  It’s in our blood.


6 thoughts on “Gambling with Societal Stability

  1. In my pre-anarcho-capitalist days, I supported a ban on gambling. Nowadays, I only support bans on gambling to the effect that someone victimized by it can sue the gambler–which generally leaves wife and children–and from there, obtain restitution.

    Having said that, I agree completely about the values dissonance. Living in New York, where gambling in general was illegal, but horse racing and a government-run lottery were legal, it always made me cringe when I heard an ad on the radio about how wonderful their lottery was. If you have a good grasp on statistics, you know that gambling is evil and stupid–and then to hear a government ad saying “Oh, this is wonderful! Go get your tickets NOW!”, when the government allegedly is supposed to protect you from evil–it’s sickening!

    Furthermore, while I agree that gambling destroys lives, what good does making it illegal do for us? If I get caught gambling, I’ll be placed in prison, which is bound to make me a better person, right? Yeah, of course! Between prison guards exercising their authority over me, and fellow prisoners who are as immature as I am with regards to such things, all as my role models, I’m just bound to become a moral, upstanding, smart person after I get out and can’t get a job because of my criminal record!

    The entire structure makes me sick. It deserves to be torn down.

    Unfortunately, not enough people see the flaws in it, although I have my hope that there’s enough of a spirit of liberty still in the hearts of the people to believe that not all is lost. Not yet, at least…

  2. “Furthermore, while I agree that gambling destroys lives, what good does making it illegal do for us?”

    I agree.
    If gambling is so bad, and should be outlawed, how do they explain the Stock Market?

  3. The Stock Market isn’t gambling because it’s merely trading bits and pieces of companies–or, in the case of options and futures–the trading of contracts. While day-trading, or trading in options and futures, are extreme risk-taking, and are effectively the same as gambling, it isn’t the same, because you can’t outlaw these practices without hurting the underlying legal activities.

    There’s certainly ways to trade stocks while minimizing the risk (google “Motley Fool” for a good source of information on that point); and you could pry the options I own in the company I work for from my cold dead hands! (Or pry the futures from that farmer seeking to stabilize the price of his crop, for that matter.)

    Even so, the stock market proves that while you can get rid of gambling per se, you cannot get rid of risk altogether–which is another reason why outlawing gambling is folly!

  4. It’s a “gamble” getting out of bed in the morning, it’s a “gamble” staying in bed, it’s a “gamble” driving to work, and for sure it’s a “gamble” starting a business, hiring people, or getting married and having kids.

    Buying and selling stocks is participating in business trade– dealing in the actual production of actual goods and services. Companies raise money to create or finance a business by selling stocks, as opposed to rolling the dice hoping for a certain number and winning or losing based on that number. The communists have gotten to you if you think there are any similarities at all. If we’re going to use risk as the one and only measure, then organized crime and honest business are the same because they both involve high risk with the possibility of a large pay-off. See how the Dark Side fucks up everything inside your head? It short circuits the very concept of a moral compass. I suppose most of humanity throughout most of history has actually lived like that though. Some would say that Moses is the first one documented to have tried turning it around.

    We can try dancing on the heads of pins all day but I’m not going to get distracted here. In any case, whatever it may be, it is properly none of government’s business whatsoever until someone’s rights have been violated. That’s the definition of a free society and I’m going to be shouting that from the rooftops for the rest of my life. Instead though, our government is becoming the primary violator of rights. Our servants have positioned themselves to become our masters and it is our responsibility to turn that around. The first step is in understanding the nature of the issue (education) and on that we seem to have some way to go.

  5. You need to read the “Whiskey Speech”:

    “My friends,

    “I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

    “If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.


    “If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

    “This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

    Judge Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr. (b. October 2, 1922; d. February 23, 1996, Alcorn County, Mississippi)

    See here for more details and an impassioned re-creation of the speech:

  6. Bill; Soggy had me until the bit about pouring money into the treasury. Yeah; it’s the same old song and dance– not for liberty’s sake, not because leaving people alone to make their own decisions is our goal, not because the U.S. was founded on this very principle of liberty, not because it’s none of government’s business whatsoever, but because “we” (government) can make a ton of money off it. THAT’S why it should be semi-legal– because of the money and the control and the aggrandizement it can provide “us”.

Comments are closed.