who's your nanny?

Shameless Self-Promotion

My article criticizing the Maryland slots initiative that passed on election day runs today in the Baltimore Examiner.

UPDATE: It goes without saying that I'm always appreciative whenever publications that garner significant exposure run my articles, but if I may have one quibble, allow me to share my original ending.

First, the final edited conclusion:

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity paves the way for even more government growth and power over how we choose to live our lives.

My original conclusion (difference laid out in bold):

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity is nothing but another step toward totalitarianism that will lay the foundation for even more government growth and autonomy over the rest of us.

Aside from the "live our lives" redundancy in the edited version, I think the editors do their readers a disservice by removing words like "totalitarianism" in cases like this when they're entirely appropriate.

When I first blogged this issue I called this a legislative atrocity that was a "fascist" step toward totalitarianism, but removed the adjective from the piece I submitted to the paper after determining it would most likely be viewed by the editors as too radical -- whatever the slant of a paper's editorial board, their livelihood nevertheless depends on advertising revenue obtained across the political spectrum.

However, while I applaud the editors' decision to save the term "storm troopers" from the cutting room floor, I believe that the news media's general refusal (or at least failure) to depict our politicians' totalitarian actions for what they are is one big reason so many folks fail to associate statist government with tyranny.

I'm the last person who's going to argue that a private company has any obligation to provide its customers with anything more than the goods or services for which they've contracted -- and certainly I hope the editors realize this is nothing but an honest, respectful critique from a grateful contributor -- but freedom will be little more than a pipe dream if our media shy away from telling the brutal truths about government oppression.

Slots Pass in Maryland, Freedom Takes Another Hit

It should come as little surprise that Question 2, a Maryland constitutional amendment to legalize slot machines at select locations throughout the state, passed overwhelmingly on Tuesday. It seems that whenever folks here in the People's Republik of Maryland have a chance to vote away their freedom, they rarely hesitate to do so.

Former Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich, who preceded current Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, tried repeatedly to legalize slots while he was governor, but he was constantly rebuffed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. Ehrlich's intent was to relieve the burden on taxpayers by generating revenue at the expense of gamblers who would willingly part with their own money, knowing full well the state was grabbing its cut. Fittingly, Democrats in the legislature jumped right on board with a gambling initiative once one of their own was at the helm.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the state GOP -- along with former Gov. Ehrlich -- was opposed to the initiative this time around. While in office, Ehrlich rightly opposed a full-blown constitutional amendment to legalize slots and now fears that this new plan will encourage unrestrained government spending. Of course, one would be foolish not to assume many Republican legislators and voters are also in opposition today due simply to petty partisanship, or perhaps a personal or religious opposition to gambling itself.

At this point you're probably thinking that I oppose gambling. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It's none of my business what anyone does with the money he earns. As I explained in an article earlier this week, I oppose government control over gambling (as with anything else). People should be free to use their property however they please, and, unfortunately, that's exactly what many Marylanders mistakenly believe this new law will allow. To wit:

“Anything might save me a dollar on my taxes, I’m in favor of,” said William Marshall, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle salesman from Russett. “We already have vices in the community. I’m not concerned about slot machines bringing any in.”

I obviously appreciate Mr. Marshall's aversion to government theft. Sadly, however, he has been hoodwinked by the state, along with everyone else in his shoes who voted for these slots. To believe Gov. O'Malley will alleviate taxation in the least is wishful thinking, to put it charitably. As soon as O'Malley took office he pushed through tremendous tax hikes in the attempt to close an enormous budget gap created by his own deficit spending. Slot machines are nothing more than an attempt to generate revenue to cover the governor's profligacy. After all, it's not like he hasn't already proven he's perfectly willing to spend money he doesn't have. What makes anyone think he'll restrain himself when he's actually accumulating billions in gambling revenue?

The state is disingenuously giving the impression that it's giving citizens the freedom to gamble, when all it's actually doing is asserting its dominance over all of us by arrogating unto itself a right it does not morally have. Anyone should be able to open a gambling parlor or run slot machines out of his basement if he likes, but he'd soon feel the full wrath of the state's stormtroopers if he ever even attempted such a thing.

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity is nothing but a fascist step toward totalitarianism that will lay the foundation for even more government growth and autonomy over the rest of us.

Maryland's Gambling Fascism

As a resident of Maryland I've been inundated the past couple weeks with snail mail spam urging me to vote next week for Question 2, a proposed amendment to the state's constitution that, according to the language on the ballot, would "authoriz[e] video lottery terminals (slot machines) to fund education."

Here we go again: whoring out the kids so the state can rake in more money.

To wit, the amendment ostensibly "Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions."

Given that I generally lead anything but a charmed life, I personally don't make a habit of gambling. However, this doesn't mean I have a right to prevent anyone else from entering into voluntary contract with others around a gaming table. And if I don't have this right, neither does the state.

If Maryland wants to profit from gambling -- notwithstanding the existing government-operated state lottery -- it could simply lift its gambling ban and collect tax revenue from anyone looking to get into this business. Instead, however, the state seeks to establish a quasi-fascist monopoly over this proposed new gambling industry, co-opting a select few private corporations and shutting out anyone else interested in making a few extra bucks off slot machines.

Not a bad gig for those lining up at the trough to take advantage of their political clout, eh?

Apparently, Maryland will allow no more than 15,000 video lottery terminals throughout the state. However, considering the state's only issuing up to five licenses, this means that each location could have, on average, 3,000 gaming machines. In other words, the state's getting into the casino industry at the expense of common citizens who are prohibited from doing so.

It's more than a little ironic that Question 2 is being raised as a constitutional amendment when Maryland's constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law. But there's nothing about equality that justifies the use of force to compel taxpayers to subsidize initiatives with which they disagree. Whether one is morally opposed to gambling itself or morally opposed to state-sanctioned coercion, Maryland has no moral right to victimize citizens by forcing them to foot the bills for activities they oppose.

But back to the education angle. The state's pitch is to claim that it will be able to keep taxes low if only we credulous folk sign off on this scam. Pardon? One would think taxes would actually have to be low in the first place in order to "keep" them that way. However, one of Gov. Martin O'Malley's first actions upon taking office last year was to usher in $1.3 billion worth of tax hikes.

"It was hard to ask people to do more," the smug thief alleged, "but it would have been irresponsible to not ask the people of our state to choose to make progress.''

Ask people? It's hard to imagine a more audacious, condescending statement. I've never once been "asked" to "do more" for my state. I have, however, been repeatedly forced to surrender my own hard-earned money at the point of a gun.

If Maryland gets the go-ahead to establish a gambling cartel, whether or not the state will spend most of its prospective slots revenue on new schools and education programs remains to be seen, but it's entirely irrelevant in any case. Is there any doubt at all that the state will continue to tax income, property, and consumer products as it simultaneously shovels into its coffers millions -- billions? -- in gambling-related revenue? If anything, the more money the state gobbles up the more it will spend on new government programs, which will demand continuous funding and only lead to more oppressive regulations as the state continues to grow and expand its reach over the rest of us.

The state of Maryland should not be in the business of gambling, or even education for that matter. Yet this debate has been framed from the outset as a tug of war between those who want to see gambling brought into the state in even greater scope (currently slot machines are allowed at select horse racing tracks) and those who don't -- with state oversight and regulation as the common denominator regardless.

Those who favor slots or other gaming have no right to use state violence to impose their will upon others, any more than those who happen to oppose gambling for personal or religious reasons have the right to use the state to prevent it.

Gambling, like any other commercial good or service, should be privately available to any consumer interested in contracting peacefully and consensually with any producer. The state simply has no business initiating violence against anyone to either ban or endorse it.

Here's a Good Bet

Maryland Democrats are corrupt statist hacks who think they're entitled to control every waking minute of your life. (Republicans are little better, but Maryland's status as a one-party state generally encourages the GOPers to resist the tax-hiking, welfare-spending, rights-trampling Democrats at most turns.)

Listening to state comptroller Peter Franchot and other current and former politicians argue like schoolgirls over whether or not to allow slot machines and other gambling devices is enough to drive one to drink.

According to Maryland State Comptroller, Peter Franchot, Maryland’s leading voice against slot machines, “It has been proven, in state after state, that slot machines offer nothing more than false hope to desperate communities.”

The Honorable Franchot states on his website that [slot machines] have destroyed families through addiction, bankruptcies and crime, and have left governments scrambling to cover their enormous and social costs by any means necessary. They have driven small businesses out of existence and left Main Streets across the county a boarded-up shell of what they once were.

Too bad Franchot seemingly would never consider the fact that slot machines might just offer hope to private entrepreneurs looking to capitalize on an identified demand in the community; or that it's none of the state's business if one is "addicted" to gambling; or that no taxpayer should ever be robbed so the government can cover losses suffered by any businessman.

The state should be in the business of gambling no more than it should prevent individuals from partaking in it. It's a shame Maryland legislators and bureaucrats can't even see past their own statist ideology long enough to realize that freedom itself prevents them from forcibly restricting consenting adults from participating in non-violent activities.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, the Maryland Lottery Mega-Millions jackpot currently stands at $16 million.

Doubling Down

Ron Paul speaks out against the tyrannical Internet gambling ban and urges his colleagues to do the same.

The proper role of the federal government is not that of a nanny, protecting citizens from any and every potential negative consequence of their actions. Although I personally believe gambling to be a dumb waste of money, American citizens should be just as free to spend their money playing online poker as they should be able to buy a used car, enter into a mortgage, or invest in a hedge fund. Risk is inherent in any economic activity, and it is not for the government to determine which risky behaviors Americans may or may not engage in.

Paul is a co-sponsor of Rep. Barney Frank's H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, which in Paul's words would "restore the right of Americans to decide for themselves whether or not to gamble online." (To give you an idea of how efficient our Congress is, this bill was introduced on April 26, 2007 -- almost a year ago -- and is only how in the debate phase.)

Combined with Frank's recent announcment that he's also sponsoring a bill to decriminalize marijuana, he's slowly becoming one of my favorite legislators. You know, if there can be such a thing.

Related:
I weighed in on the Internet gambling ban here back in 2006.

Maryland to Ban All Private Electronic Gaming

Because the state isn't happy until it can tax every last cent you earn and spend.

Government does not exist to protect our rights, as the old canard goes. It exists and profits solely by exploiting us.

In case you were wondering, the Maryland Lottery Mega-Millions jackpot currently sits at $95 million.

You Think You Own Your Money?

Think again.

St. Mary's County (Md.) police will be trespassing on private property today to "inspect" unlicensed electronic gaming devices at bars and restaurants. This is all part of an initiative by the state to protect its own lottery and slot machines from private competition. (Yes, the very same slot machines Democrats refused to allow throughout the state when Republican Bob Ehrlich was governor.)

Supporters of a ban on video gaming (i.e., most state Democrats) say that these machines lead to millions of dollars in "unregulated profits."

God forbid. According to one story:

"These machines are coming into our state under the guise of laws that permit charitable organizations and limited commercial operations to conduct bingo, instant bingo and tip jars," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, who is supporting legislation to phase out the machines.

I've got an idea. How about we scrap entirely the laws restricting such gaming devices to charitable organizations in the first place? Why shouldn't consenting adults have the right to part with their property in any manner they see fit (aside from the fact that this would prevent the state from running their lives, of course)?

These actions by the all-Dem Maryland General Assembly illustrate all too clearly that our money is not our own. We're to spend it only how the czars determine it be spent, and this flap about unregulated profits proves that the state won't be content unless it knows exactly how much we earn and spend, right down to our very last dime.

Oh, by the way, the Maryland Lottery's Mega Millions jackpot currently sits at $59 million.

Legalize Online Poker

If this guy doesn't reinforce the importance of freedom and liberty, nothing does.

[Via Radley Balko]

B-I-N-G-Oh!

Police in Jacksonville, Fla., are keeping you safe from one of society's gravest threats: bingo parlors!

Meanwhile, the Florida Lotto is up to $3 million.

Bring It Back

Radley Balko testified before the House Financial Services Committee last Friday on the issue of Internet gambling, making some crucial points while urging Congress to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act.

Let's hope our esteemed representatives heed his advice.

"Puritanical Nannyism"

That's what Mark Thornton calls the government's ban on Internet gambling in this great piece.

[HT: LewRockwell.com]

Beggin' for a Beatin'

Radley Balko explains why the idiotic, Republican-led online gambling ban will not only make any problems like fraud or exploitation of minors worse, but why it will also likely turn a largely apolitical crop of Americans against the GOP right before election day.

Unintended Consequences?

For all the mind-numbingly absurd policy that's been crafted by our politicians over the years, you'd think they'd at least begin to exhibit the ability to forecast some of the more harmful consequences of their first-class lawmaking.

Case in point: the Internet gambling bill, which I've chronicled repeatedly on this site and lambasted recently in my latest column. Well, today my friend Kevin, co-host of my favorite blog, hits the nail on the head in explaining exactly what the most profound side effect of the online gambling ban will be.

Now gambling goes back under ground. We all know two or three people who will take a bet for you, but it won’t be long before it’s all back in the hands of organized crime. Offshore gambling is a $12 billion industry, and when that much money is in play, believe me, somebody is going to structure it.

So thanks, politicians, for helping bring back the Mafia. I’ve always been kind of an organized crime buff and I appreciate your thrusting it back into the spotlight. Ne[x]t stop: The War On Gambling. The target? Sports fans.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Our politicians will not be happy until they regulate every last waking moment of our lives.

Credit Where it's Due

I take my share of shots at Maryland Democratic congressman Steny Hoyer here on this blog, but I wanted to note that he at least voted against the Internet gambling bill that Republicans pushed through Congress at the end of September. Both of Maryland's Republican congressmen, Wayne Gilchrest and Roscoe Bartlett, toed the party line and voted in favor of the gambling ban, while the only other dissenter was Elijah Cummings.

Of course, in 2003 Hoyer voted in favor of banning Internet gambling by credit card, so it's hard to tell what caused this big government liberal to change his tune. If only he'd come down on the side of individual freedom much more often.

Big Surprise

Ironically enough, President Bush signed the Internet gambling bill today, the same day my article criticizing it ran in the Examiner.

At the signing ceremony, Bush spoke only about sections of the SAFE Port Act that tighten security and close a loophole in anti-terror defenses, especially at ports.

"Our seaports are a gateway to commerce, a source of opportunity, and a provider of jobs," Bush said. "Our ports could also be a target of a terrorist attack, and we're determined to protect them."

Congress approved the bill two weeks ago before lawmakers left to campaign for the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which national security, the war in Iraq and terrorism are major issues. Democrats favored the bill, but said it failed to address rail and mass transit, other areas considered highly vulnerable to terrorists.

Make no mistake, weasel RINOs like Bill Frist and Jon Kyl slid the gambling ban bill into the homeland security appropriations bill knowing full well virtually no politician would oppose funding for anti-terrorism measures. They make me sick.

Big Brother is Giving Us the Finger

My latest article runs today in the Washington Examiner and discusses the absurd Internet gambling ban passed by Congress late last month. I think the following paragraph really gets at the crux of the matter:

One would think Congress would welcome the tax revenue and regulatory control that would accompany the legalization of online gambling. Unbelievably, however, it appears most lawmakers are willing to forgo a tax windfall if that means surrendering power to the rest of us. Sadly, far too many politicians seem to be ingrained with the notion that they were sent to Washington to make laws, and so to them the idea of repealing or even voting against those that expand government autonomy is anathema.

The Police State's Shaping Up Rather Nicely

So I'm back from a weekend of liver bruising at SUNY Geneseo, and what's the first thing I hear on the radio on my ride into work this morning? Last Friday, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Internet gambling ban it's been seeking for months. Considering I didn't even see a computer, much less use one to log on to any news sites during my visit to the old stomping ground, this was news to me but it hardly came as a surprise.

The House of Representatives and Senate approved the measure and sent it to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

The bill, a compromise between earlier versions passed by the two chambers, would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

As I noted in this post early last month, the government has been unable to enforce laws banning online gambling for years. According to Cato's Radley Balko, "Because the government has banned the 'bet taking' side of online gaming, gambling proprietors have simply set up shop in countries where gambling is legal." So this bill was Congress's way to prohibit the front end of the equation -- to ban the placement of online bets in the U.S.

However, this new law essentially shifts the responsibility of enforcement from the government to private banks and credit card companies. This places undue burdens on these companies by forcing them to comply or face prosecution, potentially exposes private financial records to regular government inspection, and will almost certainly impose compliance costs on these institutions. So much for simply expecting banks and credit card companies to ensure the integrity and security of our transactions.

This ban is an egregious overreach of government authority and nothing more than a pathetic attempt by Congress to legislate morality. I have too much to say on this issue for one blog post, so look for an article soon.

Greed, Addiction, and Fun, Oh My!

In an absurd demonstration of state-sanctioned tyranny, U.S. authorities have arrested another offshore gambling executive.

Peter Dicks, CEO of SportingBet PLC, a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange, was arrested Wednesday night at New York's JFK airport on an outstanding Louisiana gambling-related arrest warrant issued in May.

"It was an active out-of-state warrant and we acted upon it," Pasquali DiFulco, a spokesman for the New York Port Authority, told internetnews.com.

How ridiculous. States facilitating gambling for willing bettors? Just fine. Private parties doing the exact same thing? Hands behind your back. Before reading on, make sure you visit the online gambling sites promoted by the Louisiana and New York state lotteries.

But I digress. Sort of.

As this article by CBS News makes clear, Internet gambling has been against the law for years because the Department of Justice interprets the 1961 Wire Act prohibiting the placement of wagers over the phone as extending to the Internet. But just for good measure, the House recently passed legislation to "force banks and credit card companies to cut off payments to the estimated 2,300 gambling sites located outside of U.S. jurisdiction."

Super. Since we can't really enforce a law aimed at online gamblers themselves, let's slap even more regulations on credit card companies, as if they should be responsible not only for guaranteeing the integrity of your transactions, but apparently also held liable for inadequately policing transactions our federal nannies deem "immoral."

Mr. Dicks is apparently facing charges for accepting bets and settling payouts between American consumers, despite the fact that his operation is based in London. Of course, in order to remain in business, online gambling operations pretty much need American business, as it's estimated that 80 percent of internet gambling traffic and profit comes from the U.S.

What makes this legislation even more absurd is that the online gaming industry actually wants to be regulated and taxed, according to Terri Lanni, the CEO of MGM/Mirage. This makes sense, given that all parties involved would seemingly get what they're after: online gaming execs would get to run a profitable operation, gamblers would get to gamble, and the government would get their almighty tax revenue.

According to CBS:

"The vast majority of wagers that are placed on the Internet now are done offshore and illegally. And I for one think that to enact laws that you can’t enforce makes no sense whatsoever," says Lanni.

Lanni and MGM/Mirage set up their own offshore gambling Web site a few years ago, but to stay within the law, they only accepted bets from gamblers outside the U.S.

Lanni says the site didn’t make any money and was eventually shut down. He calls the U.S. government’s current position on online gaming odd: "There’s no doubt about it. There’s gaming in every state but two states in the United States. If it’s legal there, and it’s regulated and taxed and we’re comfortable with it there, why don’t we allow it also in the area of Internet where people – so much commerce is going through the Internet right now? It makes no sense."

There's our biggest obstacle right there: expecting sensibility from moralizing, power-hungry politicians.

Worst of all, this freedom-stomping legislation is being led by our "limited government," "pro-liberty" Republicans, who will apparently not rest until they actually do control every waking moment of our lives.

Go Get Them Gamblers!

James Harney, a New Jersey state trooper who resigned Wednesday after being implicated in a multi-million dollar gambling ring with former NHLer Rick Tocchet, has pleaded guilty to charges and agreed to cooperate with the state in its investigation against Tocchet.

Whew! I know I'll sleep better at night knowing there's one less evil guy like Rick Tocchet lurking around facilitating bets for willing gamblers.

Obviously, the state has every right and is obligated to prosecute Harney for conducting a gambling operation on the taxpayers' dime. But I can't say I think there's anything particularly wrong with allowing private citizens to gamble amongst themselves, especially considering the government's beef is due solely to its inability to tax it. And if you might think there's some moral imperative involved here with such prosecutions, repeat after me: "New Jersey Lottery."

The worst part of all this is that Rick Tocchet will in all likelihood face much stiffer penalties for his alleged behavior than James Harney will, despite the fact that Harney's offenses should be deemed much more egregious. But I suppose Tocchet can at least take solace in the fact that he hasn't been shot. Yet.

SWATted

When I first read a month or so ago that Radley Balko was working on a paper outlining the increasing militarization of our police departments, I couldn't wait to read it. Well, the wait's finally over. Today Cato publishes "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," effectively putting the smackdown on overzealous SWAT teams and a "legal system" that is far too forgiving when cops mistakenly invade the homes of the innocent.

There's far too much information to discuss here, and it should be read in full by all. You'll need to set aside a few hours, but this is a must-read.