The British government wants, so it says, to ‘modernise’ Britain’s gambling laws, which will, so it is said, make possible the creation of Las Vegas-style gambling resorts in all their lovely, gaudy, tacky glory.
Now, being one of those crazy libertarian types, I naturally take the view that if folk wish to waste their hard-earned wealth in gambling, whether it be on the horses, baccarat or a fruit machine, then it is none of the State’s business to prevent them. Gambling is after all a manifestation of Man’s love of taking risk in the hope of gain, something which is a part of the capitalist system and in fact a perfectly healthy part.
But it is ironic, is it not, that this change to gambling law is happening under the reign of Tony Blair, our preachy, puritanical, Prime Minister. Mr Blair is, so we are told, a devout Christian. Now, I realise that one cannot generalise about these matters, but I was not aware that gambling was something that Christians were particularly in favour of. So what is going on?
I have a vague theory, and I would of course like to know what commenters think about it. It is this: socialistic governments naturally repress and in some cases, crush, risk-taking behaviour of entrepreneurs. However, said governments dimly realise that the desire to take risks and profit from risks does not disappear. So instead, such governments offer citizens an alternative outlet for this risk-taking appetite, setting up things like national lotteries and so forth as a sort of general safety valve.
Or to put it another way – if we really allowed people to take risks in a wealth-creating fashion by slashing taxes and red tape, it would not be necessary to create a tacky gambling empire to satiate the desire for risk taking. Who needs the cheap thrill of gambling when one can hope to imitate the achievements of a great entrepreneur? Of course, I am not so naive to imagine that gambling will ever fade if the top rate of tax were to be halved tomorrow, but I would hope that some of that risk-taking drive would be channelled in a more productive, perhaps more useful, direction.
By the way, I once visited a casino in Vegas. My overall impression was that it was one of the most boring places I have ever visited, at least the gambling side, anyway. There were, other compensations, of course.
Many conservitive Christians disapprove of gambling because it places your faith in a system or a game and not in God. However they are swiftly becoming the minority. even in the heavily religious and conservitive area I live in.
That aside I agree with the idea that many states do promote gambling as an outlet for risk taking behavior. I don’t believe it’s the states role to regulate gambling but I do think that some education on the subject should be offered as many of the most frequent participants in organized gambling are lower and middle class.
I have often wondered what percentage of a state lottery’s revenue goes directly back to the participants. It would be stange to see lottery funds spent in welfare programs as the concept of the poor funding their own aid with the state taking a slice off the top is just perverse.
Maybe it’s more of an admission that ever growing welfare statism isn’t sustainable? An attempt to put off the proverbial day of reckoning by trying to attract more foriegn wealth to tax?
What’s with the snobbery? “Waste”? “Cheap thrill”?
Casino gambling is simply a form of leisure no different than the theater, the ski lodge or a scenic cruise. You either like it or you don’t. Who are you to pronounce blanket denigrations like that?
By the way, I once visited London. My overall impression was that it was one of the most boring places I have ever visited… There were other compensations, of course (i.e., Dublin was nearby).
“many states do promote gambling as an outlet for risk taking behavior. “
Dead wrong. It’s not the psychological welfare of the gamblers that the state altruistically promotes. No.
It’s just another way of robbing the citizens, or milking them. It’s a revenue generating scam. In socialist states casinos and lotteries are state monopolies, generating hefty profits for the state, and many posh jobs for semi retired politicians and their cronies.
Simple, isn’t it ?
In other parts casinos are “privately” owned, after beeing granted a concession by the politicians – which is the same scheme dressed diferently.
Just to reinforce the point Jacob made, BBC’s Newsnight today has revealed the extraordinary leap in tax revenues that will result from this move.
Socialists only pretend to care about genuine benefit, after all. What they really want is your money, so they can distribute it to what they deem worthy recipients.
Jacob,
I never meant to imply that it was at all altruistic. I belive nither did Mr. Pearce. Gambling, especially state run lotteries, has always reminded me of some kind of monetary gladitorial contest.
Jacob,
I never meant to imply that it was at all altruistic. I belive nether did Mr. Pearce. Gambling, especially state run lotteries, has always reminded me of some kind of monetary gladitorial contest.
Anybody want wager a £10 that Presco has a thromby in the next two years?
I thought the Apostles cast losts to pick a replacement for Judas. So maybe it is a Christian thing. But, more seriously, I think your comments are good and I am forwarding to a local pro-gambling radio personality in Lowell, MA.
Regards — Cliff
PS I got married in Las Vegas and on our wedding night my wife was hitting nickle slots and just kept on winning. Took an hour to burn through the allotted amount–that was 1966 and five bucks went a long way. I am still married to her, so I think I was a winner in Las Vegas.
One thing that’s been little noted by commentators, is that these proposals don’t just liberalise gambling. They would liberalise casino gambling, to the advantage of large corporations with expensive lobbyists. But actually intend to restrict gambling through ordinary small business outlets: fruit machines in chip-shops and garages are to be stamped out. MGM and the like will also be favoured over artisanal neighbourhood casinos through the revised planning system which makes it easier to build a vast new dedicated development than to change the use of a small building to serve the local market.
The corporate nanny state can’t have poor people choosing to throw away their money (except on the high-tax state lottery) in their usual places of resort, local services developing ad hoc, or small, private businesses benefitting at all.
Kip Esquire asks, “what’s with the snobbery?”
Well, I am hardly a snob – my previous postings have included reviews of junk comic films, for instance — but I found Vegas’ casinos to be dull. That is my impression. I liked the live shows and watching the Blue Man Band in the Luxor, big time.
We all have our impressions of certain cities. Mine of Vegas was that the Casinos sucked but the music was great. If you don’t share my impression, that’s too bad.
And another point:
I resent the bundling together of enterpreneurs and gamblers. Gambling is a vacuous activity, as Johnathan correctly says.
Enterpreneurship is about creating new value, a diametrically opposed thing to gambling. Risk taking isn’t what motivates or thrills businessmen.
I would agree with Guy that liberalisation of the gambling laws are anyting but. It seems many comment writers like to lump together all forms of gambling as illogical and silly risk taking. As a gambler myself I find this a little ignorant. Games tend towards either reliance on skill or chance. Lotteries are the latter and the chance is closer to none. So Lotteries and slots apart gambling as practise, theory and literature is often be exciting, colourful and interesting.
What is more worrying than these illiberal gambling “reforms” is the fact the governement making noises about taxing gains from betting exchanges – where you can trade prices as well as gamble. Hopefully if this happened they would simply go offshore as happened with the traditional bookies before Brown was forced to cut betting tax.
Gambling amounts to a tax on that portion of the citizenry that can’t do math. At least the take in Las Vegas-style casino gambling is somewhat divided – a large part of it goes into the private sector , creating work and riotous consumption, and only a relatively small part ends up with the state for it to waste.
As to Las Vegas – one of the fastest-growing and most-prosperous communities in the US, with a down-town crime rate that would be the envy of the stoutest law-and-order dictator. A throwback to the days when the Strip was run by the Mob, who made sure it was safe for punters to go there, this approach persists today as multi-billion-dollar casinos demand that the city keep the streets safe so that Mr & Mrs Joe Public can get from casino to casino with their dollars intact. I suggest that if expanded gambling comes to the UK, it should be placed in the highest-crime areas (how to choose, he ponders to himself?), which will soon be very safe indeed.
Downtown Las Vegas, to me, is about as much fun as watching paint dry. But who am I to judge? Millions of punters from around the world can’t wait to get there.
llater,
llamas
Dunno what Blair has in mind, but here in the states legal gambling generally exists only as a state-protected monopoly that kicks back a big chunk of the profits to the government.
Substitute state prosecutors for Mafia enforcers (both will shut down gambling operations that aren’t approved by and paying off the mob/state), and the differences between legal gambling and the illegal rackets run by the Mafia disappears.
Not much to celebrate, really, but I suppose it is an incremental gain of sorts.
I’d prefer the Mafia. At least they have more style than government officials.