tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post115741076801227308..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: Gambling and PaternalismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157995352304057862006-09-11T12:22:00.000-05:002006-09-11T12:22:00.000-05:00James: (1) Thanks. I took it as a compliment -- an...James: <BR/><BR/>(1) Thanks. I took it as a compliment -- and a very kind one at that, which I thought reflected well on both of us. Didn't for a moment take it as "backhanded." <BR/><BR/>(2) I was just elaborating on it by trying to claim to be someone who tries to avoid coming at public policy positions from <I>any</I> ideological, or partisan, positions (whether "liberal" or "libertarian"); preferring to consider all points of view, options for solutions, and then weighing them from the perspective of pragmatic, efficient, effectiveness (and "justice"). <BR/><BR/>(3) I should also, in all honesty, confess that I am able -- when asked, and it is appropriate to the occasion -- to make a talk, or introduce a speaker, in a way that takes the occasion for what it is: a time to rally the troops, to reassure the true believers, to put the speaker in a good light (much as I might participate respectfully in a religious ceremony other than my own faith; or applaud appropriately in the theater at the end of a play I subsequently review (in part) in a critical way). <BR/><BR/>I like to believe I can separate the two roles (rational analysis of public policy alternatives and performing as a cheerleader), but I may just be fooling myself.<BR/><BR/>-- NickNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157929039247580692006-09-10T17:57:00.000-05:002006-09-10T17:57:00.000-05:00It was a compliment. I was fairly jaded about the...It was a compliment. I was fairly jaded about the politics of professors in law school. Too many professors in the law school are just hard working (or previously hard working) leftists. Consequently, a professor's indicia of leftism allowed my prejudices to attach to them. Reich gave a speech that I would have considered standard leftist talking points. Your introduction of him attached my prejudices against leftists to you. That you overcame that prejudice is commendable. My comment was not intended to be a backhanded insult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157892858907415902006-09-10T07:54:00.000-05:002006-09-10T07:54:00.000-05:00James Eaves-Johnson, thank you for what I will tak...James Eaves-Johnson, thank you for what I will take as a compliment.<BR/><BR/>But I would like to think of myself (however dilusional the thought may be) as someone engaged in "rational analysis" rather than "libertarian analysis," or "run-of-the-mill left liberal" analysis, or "conservative," or partisan Democrat or Republican.<BR/><BR/>I do have values. I think it's better for children to have health care rather than not, for hungry people to be fed rather than starve, for efforts at peaceful negotiation to be truly, fully exhausted before contemplating war, and so forth.<BR/><BR/>But I'm totally open to any and all rational, pragmatic ways of accomplishing those things without regard to the partisan or ideological labels that others might want to put on one approach or another.<BR/><BR/>-- NickNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157892433286856272006-09-10T07:47:00.000-05:002006-09-10T07:47:00.000-05:00RexusNexus:(1) Similarities between the majority p...RexusNexus:<BR/>(1) Similarities between the majority prohibiting (or requiring) behavior and taxing for public purposes. Yes. But differences as well. There are benefits from living in communities, from civilization. Taxes are the price we pay for those benefits, those public purposes programs (e.g., roads), just as we pay for benefits from privately owned and provided programs. Control of my behavior (e.g., how long the grass in my front yard can be, whether I can gamble away what, in my judgment, I can afford to lose) is in someway similiar, yes, but also usefully distinguished (it seems to me).<BR/><BR/>(2) The concept of "general rules" (or "default positions") with exceptions is simply an analytical technique and/or a way of, say, drafting legislation. The way in which it "admits of the complicated and multi-facited" reality is through the exceptions. It is, sometimes, a tidier way of structuring the argument, or standards. The other way would be to start elsewhere, or not at all, simply listing each of the separate standards.<BR/><BR/>(3) "Flourishing society." Not bad. I'd buy it. But (a) We always have the general semanticists' question, "What do you mean?" That is, what does, and does not, contribute to a "flourishing society"? One man's flourishing society is another man's oppressive dictatorship. And (b) we have the process question of "who decides, and how?" How can/should a society decide that its goal is "flourishing"? And, having so decided, then how should it decide whether a given proposal or program will contribute to that end? <BR/><BR/>For better or worse, a democratic society's answer is with a system of representatives who have at least some loose relationship to their constituents' desires. Only half (or less) may vote; the respresentatives may have been corrupted by campaign finance; and so forth; but there is at least some relationship.<BR/><BR/>And that, not incidentally, is how a gambling casino came to be built near Riverside, Iowa. There was a vote; "direct democracy." Only about 1/4 of those eligible actually voted for the casino. The Amish don't vote; had they the proposition most surely would have failed. But there was a vote; and the very slim majority of those voting approved it.<BR/><BR/>-- NickNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157733601624996252006-09-08T11:40:00.000-05:002006-09-08T11:40:00.000-05:00When I was in law school, I thought your were a ru...When I was in law school, I thought your were a run-of-the-mill left liberal and discounted a lot of what you had to say on public policy (particularly when you introduced Robert Reich). However, this analysis is really impressive. Other than the proposed, but not endorsed, solution, this looks like quality libertarian/economic analysis. I'll take you much more seriously in the future. Well done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157466862846858582006-09-05T09:34:00.000-05:002006-09-05T09:34:00.000-05:00After reading this and the previous post I couldn'...After reading this and the previous post I couldn't help but think that they start from the same place. The impulse to ask why the government (other people) should be able to tell me not to gamble, or not to smoke pot, or to wear a seatbelt comes from the same place as the impulse to ask why the government should be able to tell me how to spend "my" money. I often wonder whether the impulse is a remnant of childhood ("IT'S NOT FAIR!! YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!), but smarter and, I'm sure, more mature thinkers than I have advocated such positions (a tradition stretching at least from Locke to Nozick to modern-day libertarians).<BR/><BR/>The problem I find is even those people who don't identify themselves with this ideological perspective often include the perspective within their more pragmatic approach and identify the default position as "people ought to be free to do whatever thay want," which really does not admit of the complicated and multi-facited structure of societies, even if one includes the caveat "as long as it does no direct harm to others."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we should start from the perspective of wanting to achieve a "flourishing" society, and then ask whether the freedom to gamble helps achieve this goal. Some may suggest that such an approach justifies tyranny, but I think history has shown that a society with more freedoms is more likely to flourish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157461165831957602006-09-05T07:59:00.000-05:002006-09-05T07:59:00.000-05:00K.L., who always has a solid contribution to make,...K.L., who always has a solid contribution to make, is concerned about identity theft under John Neff's "chip in the butt" approach to regulating self-destructive behavior. <BR/><BR/>Talk about "things that make you go, 'hum.'" I'm not sure I want to explore the details of how identity theft would occur with such a system.<BR/><BR/>-- NickNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157426600002455002006-09-04T22:23:00.000-05:002006-09-04T22:23:00.000-05:00On a more serious note, my fear with this proposal...On a more serious note, my fear with this proposal would be that it would lead to more crime. <BR/><BR/>Now, we've got statistics to show that problem gamblers are more likely to go bankrupt, commit domestic assault and abuse chemicals.<BR/><BR/>Under this system, problem gamblers would have a whole new game: identity theft.<BR/><BR/>KLKyle Lobnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04796327854500626621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-1157416085015066302006-09-04T19:28:00.000-05:002006-09-04T19:28:00.000-05:00Why don't we implant a chip in the butt of every g...Why don't we implant a chip in the butt of every gambler that contains the record of their gambling gains and losses. When they enter a casino a wand is waved near their butt and if it turns green they can gamble and if it turns red the wand has a readout that tells them how long they have to wait to gamble.<BR/><BR/>A similar use of technology could be used for drinkers in this case the butt chip contains a blood alcohol meter and if their BAC approaches 0.08 they feel an intense pain in the butt. If it goes over 0.08 an implanted LED in their nose start to flash.<BR/><BR/>My ACLU friends would have heart attacks if either of these proposal were given serious consideration. The fall back policy is that people should not be jerks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com