Predatory Gambling

Bob Massie offered the following comments about Predatory Gambling that provide a compelling argument against the expansion of Gambling in the Bay State and are worth a re-visit:

.
I know this is much longer than most people want to read, so I urge you to skip it if you don't want to follow the more precise discussion about why "two wrongs don't make a right" in the gambling debate.
.
Part of the argument in favor of expanding slot machine gambling in Massachusetts is that it is taking place in Connecticut. Let's take a look at this argument from a formal standpoint, which could be presented in this form: "Since X, which we acknowledge has some bad consequences is going to happen anyway somewhere else, then we should permit X to happen here."
.
There are two particularly noticeable flaws in this logic. One is the it relies on the well-known and flawed argument of futility (for those who are familiar with the work of economist and philosopher Albert Hirschman in his book The Rhetoric of Reaction). Arguments of futility are all variations on the theme of inevitability, i.e. "resistance is futile." The basic notion is disempowering. Arguments for futility are generally used to defend the status quo because of some apparently hidden law of reality that "realists" have identified and "idealists" ignore.
For example, the argument of futility was used for several hundred years in response to the proposal to enfranchisement of African Americans on the grounds that since blacks would obviously never be accepted as equals, then there was no sense trying to force this on white people. Or (another version) many white Americans argued that since blacks were not capable of complex mental decisions, they could never be full members of a democracy. I would be happy to expand on the historical nature of this debate as it applied, for example, to whether African-Americans could be enlisted as soldiers in the Civil War. Hirschmann discusses its application in Europe.
.
The apparent but false power of this kind of argument is that it is really a tautology, a self-fulfilling or seemingly self-confirming prophecy. It basically says that people should give up fighting injustice and then, when people do, argues that the fact they have given up is proof that the injustice was intractable.
.
So, with regard to recent events, if those who had proposed the vote against slots at the Convention had accepted this argument -- "don't even bother because it would never pass" -- then it would never have been filed and indeed it never would have passed. But fortunately we did not accept the argument of futility and it turns out -- at the very least -- that the supposed inevitability that has been touted by the Speaker, the Senate president, the racetrack owners, the casino moguls and their lobbyists, the unions, the Globe, the Herald, the Wampanoags, and everyone else who has been suggesting that this was a done deal were, perhaps, mistaken. By the way, we could negotiate a deal to roll back predatory gambling all across New England and replace it with a system of economic development based on systematic personal savings - the only thing we lack is political leadership.
.
What's so odd about the debate in Mass if that If anyone wants to spend anytime on Google you will discover that casinos, slot parlors, etc are crumbling all over the country. Where they are "succeeding, " they are blowing hundreds of small businesses and thousands of low income people into little pieces.
.
In Russia, where they had 2,600 casinos (we have 1,800 in the US), the Russian government decided eventually that they were causing so much crime and so much economic dislocation that they recriminalized all of them and simply shut them down. Of course, that's a much more authoritarian approach than we are likely to see in the US. But people are waking up all over the country.
.
The backlash against casino gambling as both a) a victimless form of entertainment and b) a cost-free form of state revenue is building across the nation. There was a wonderful non-violent protest by more than 100 people at the Harrah's casino in Philadelphia yesterday, partly in response to Pennsylvania' s decision -- under Democratic governor Rendell -- to put in 65,000 slots all over the state.
.
(By the way for those who are interested in the voluminous facts, I urge you to review the Reports and Findings of the U.S. International Gambling Commission, edited by Professor John Kindt, J.D. MBA, etc. of the University of Illinois. But don't do it at night, because you will lose sleep.
.
One estimate in that study suggests that every slot machine removes one job permanently from the local economy. Why? Because when you think about it, it is a reverse ATM. It spins some lights and sucks money out of your bank account and out of the local economy, transferring to a wealthy corporation. ).
.
The second formal flaw "bad things are going to happen, so we might as well be the ones to do them" is that it ignores that basic concept of human responsibility and moral agency. This argument was most wonderfully rebutted by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was presented with this same argument about American investment in the brutal South African system of apartheid about 25 years ago.
.
Many executives said to him "look, if we don't invest in the country, some other company or nation will, and wouldn't it be better for Americans, who might be marginally better employers, to employ blacks than some other country that doesn't care at all?" His memorable reply: "This is like saying to me, "Sir, I know that someone is about to rape your wife, so wouldn't it be better if it were me?" The argument makes no sense logically or morally. If something is harmful to people, it is not made less harmful if we somehow feel personally more comfortable with the people who are causing the harm.
.
Predatory gambling damages people whether it is inflicted on the citizens of Rhode Island or Connecticut or Massachusetts. We somehow are forgetting, even in the age of Obama, that these citizens of other states are actually all Americans. Remember, we are not talking about social gambling, but about promoting a flawed and dangerous product that it intended to harm the many for the benefit of the few.
.
I know that people will continuously come back with the idea that people "choose" to do this. But, speaking as an economist and an ethicist, I would like to point out that this assumes fully informed consent. If people knew how severely they are being manipulated, then they might "choose" to do less of this. And the entire point -- which unfortunately we need to keep repeating -- is the harm is actively concealed.
.
If someone swallows a fake medicine that is falsely promising benefits and concealing the potential damage, we do not say that the person "chose" to do so. There are explicit legal and moral limits to the principle of "caveat emptor". Indeed, the government is supposed to spend its time educating us about those potential problems, not promoting potentially harmful products because it is an easier way to raise money than discussing the real cost of our common life together, such as taxes.
.
The reason I have gone on at length is that people are making arguments that go beyond personal preferences or opinions into the realm of claims and formal arguments. That is the field of ethics, law, philosophy, research, and facts. I am big fan of discussing political philosophy, just as we are doing -- what are the right boundaries from freedom, for government restriction, for choice, for transparency, etc. And I know that many people, including me, are perfectly happy to carry the discussion into this more technical realm if that will help us make better decisions. My apologies to those who find it tedious.
.
Prior to the Democratic Convention Bob Massie posted the following:
.
I am also concerned about the bland "statement of values" which amounts to very little on health, environment, etc.
.
I would also like to add -- surprise -- that even though many people did what they were supposed to and attended platform hearings and spoke against slots and predatory gambling, this issue was ducked by the platform committee.
For example:
.
The Cambridge-Somerville hearing voted unanimously that we should not have slots in Massachusetts, yet there was no mention of this being worthy of discussion.
.
Democratic State Committee members asked for a break out group at the Convention to talk about the merits - and they were blocked.
.
Some people wanted to run a very fair ad asking for a full discussion in the Jobs for Justice dinner ad -- this was blocked as "too controversial. " Having a discussion is too controversial!
.
Some people asked to come to the AFL-CIO COPE meeting (at which casino owners were given the chance to make glitzy presentations filled with misleading facts) -- those who wanted to talk about the costs, and not just benefits, were blocked.
.
In fact, one of the few places where there has been an open discussion has been on this group and on BlueMassGroup. So I think the platform committee largely failed in its mission.
For this reason I hope that those of you who are delegates at the Convention -- as I am right now -- will sign the resolution on predatory gambling so that there can be a very brief (10 minute) debate and then a vote to signal that members of the party have not had the chance to debate this thoroughly.

.
We have had three speakers who have gone down in flames on corruption charges. We now have fourth who is pushing an issue that has been more closely linked to public corruption (i.e. gambling) than any other issue in the country. Remember Jack Abramoff, Glenn Marshall, Vincent Fumo, and all the others who are now in prison? Do we really think that this legislature or party can have "ethics reform" while simultaneously unleashing millions of dollars of hidden slot machine lobbying money into the back halls of Beacon Hall without consequences?
.