Last November, Ohioans came together not only to vote for the next president of the United States, but for Issue 6 as well. At stake was a proposed casino in Wilmington, OH. At the end of the day, however, residents of the Buckeye State voted against this proposal—meaning there will be no new casino opening up anytime soon.
Instrumental in defeating this proposal were religious voters. Many ministers had been adamantly leading charges against the idea. The United Methodist Church, for example, is always one of the fiercest groups fighting against legalized gambling. The Church believes gambling to a great societal evil because it preys upon the poor and gives them false hopes at riches. This leads to a wasting of precious financial resources, taking the bread off of an already empty table. Should the Church preach against gambling on the individual level, or should it oppose gambling in legislation?
While the Church does both, it is clear that it has chosen to be heavily involved in legislation regarding this point. One might think that having the choice to gamble could not make one worse off—as one could continue to take the exact same action as before. However, the Church is taking a paternalistic approach to the issue. People—especially the poor who do not understand the extremely low odds of winning—often cannot resist the temptation to gamble and are unable to make optimal financial decisions for themselves and for their families. This tendency to make uninformed and sub-optimal financial decisions requires the Church to take a stand on restricting the opportunities to gamble.
The lottery carries with it the illusion of big money but the reality of negative expected returns. Clearly, no rationale risk-averse person would ever play such a game. The fact that people do is evidence of sub-optimal actions. Yet where do we draw the line? Should the Church seek to intervene through government whenever it decides people are not making good decisions on their own? This seems to cheapen the idea of freedom. Yet at the same time we rely on the government all the time to make us better off. For example, it is the job of the FDA to make sure drugs pass certain safety measures before allowing them on the market. It would be ludicrous to expect non-scientists to sift through research data on their own and decide which drugs were safe to take. With this reasoning, perhaps it is best for the government to weigh the economic impacts of games like the lottery for those who do not have the statistical background to do so, and make a decision about what is best for its constituents.
Yet this is a slippery slope. Individual freedom seems noble but allows for the powerful to prey upon the weak. Government regulation could rule out ‘evil practices’ but at the expense of free choice. Where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I do not think that churches encouraging people to vote against allowing a casino in Ohio means the government should step in and regulate gambling. Although it is an activity that can sometimes cause harm to the individual, government’s regulation of it would be seen as too much interference. Religious groups, however, have the right to argue for or against an activity on the basis that it does not promote family stability and personal responsibility. Government’s one attempt at regulating personal activity and morality, Prohibition, failed miserably and the experiment was never tried again. Furthermore, opening a casino or selling alcohol are issues that the people should decide for themselves. It is therefore the wisest course of action to allow the two sides to try and influence people’s decisions, then put the issue to a vote.
Keep in mind that gambling is not comprable to the drug industry, corporate america, airline industry, etc; over the long haul, the "consumers" (if they can be called such) of casino services are, on the whole, guaranteed losers. The casinos have a built in advantage and will always wind up making more money than they lose, thus causing many to go broke, or at least lose money. As such, they must be viewed as completely predatory institutions (they rely on your losing money to them for crying out loud), and cannot be fairly compared to examples you used like the drug industry; while such industries CAN take advantage of people and be harmful, that is not their inherent structure. Governments just like them a lot because they bring in a ton of new tax revenue, and casino industry officals will argue, bring in new jobs. However, if people do want to gamble that should indeed be their own ability, because they should be aware of the risks; but I believe that governments should not allow these casinos to have unlimited freedom and should heavily regulate their behavior(loss limits, banning people who are addicted, not allowing games that are almost impossible to beat), and restrict the number that are built. Further, the adverse affects of gambling ought to be made more prominent inside of casinos so that those who are normally preyed on have better knowledge of what they are getting into.
I do not believe that government interaction is the proper step to monitoring gambling. Doing such would be a serious infringement on our freedom. I personally think each person is responsible for their own actions, if someone gambles away all their money, that is their own fault. I can understand how the church would want to raise awareness about such a 'social evil', but I also don't think it is their place to step in a make such decisions for its members. It is very much playing the parental advocate in trying to keep people safe from the evils of the world, but how far should the church go in doing so?
I do not think that churches should be trying to convince people whether or not they should be voting to open a casino or not. In my mind religion and casinos are two different things . The only way I can see gambling affecting religion is if it is causing a divorce or family issues. The government has its ways of regulating casinos and gambling as it is and I do not believe that it should further hinder the states. A casino does not affect everyone and there it is someone's choice as to whether or not they gamble or anything along those lines.
I agree with Drew's comment. The income produced by gambling institutions is highly regressive. On this aspect, a very comparable industry would be the shady payday loan/checks cashed/cash advance shops that charge 300-500% interest. One can argue that the presence of such businesses cannot make a person worse off since he always has the choice not to go there, but often the temptation is too great, particularly among those with limited knowledge of how the industry works. Perhaps a more extreme comparison can be drawn to addictive drugs. Gambling addictions, and crimes committed to feed such addictions, are not unheard of.
Though I do generally support capitalism, this issue is much more complex than some suggest, and one cannot assume that all people make optimal and rational decisions (else casinos wouldn't exist).
Post a Comment