A Political/Moral Conundrum: To Which Do I Owe My Obligation?


#1

Soon, there will be a vote whether or not to allow casinos and/or ‘gentleman’s clubs’ in this county.
I am entirely against both! Vehemently.
BUT!, as R.M. MacIver once wisely stated: “Law cannot prescribe morality”.
Now, many would argue that it does all of the time; especially regarding laws against murder, assault, and rape.
And they would be correct in that all of those acts are definately immoral.
HOWEVER, the context has more in common with laws than just morality - or lack thereof. Every one of those acts impedes someone ELSE’s liberty. Yes, ‘your freedom ends at my nose.’
Now, enter the casinos or strip clubs; neither of which has a high probably of affecting me personally, but a fairly high potential to have a negative effect on our community.

Conundrum:
As as a Constitutionalist, it’s hypocritical of me to ban a business simply because I don’t like it.
Morally, it is wrong of me to vote in favor of liberty when I know it has a high potential to have a negative affect on our community.

As Constitutionalists, we generally find the gov’t looking out for our welfare as VILE.
OTOH, all laws should start in the home, extending from which, the community.
But how can I reconcile being a Constitutionalist AND voting against another person’s liberty to do with his own self as he sees fit?


#2

If people want there own casinos, let them have them, after all, it is a capitalist nation, You first, Country Second.


#3

You have an odd notion of capitalism if you assume it’s a “me first” philosophy in how to run a business.
And, btw, it’s, “their”. :smile:


#4

Speaking as a Nevadan, casinos can be a real boon for the community if they’re done right. But only if they’re done right. First of all, you need to take into account whether you’d be the only locale for a large radius with legalized gambling - if so, it will bring in a lot of unsavory tourists. But if not, and if the casinos are large enough to offer more than just gambling, they can be pretty useful for locals. There are a lot of big shows at our local ones, and they have good food - not to mention are a very nice place to stay at if needed, since they sort of ooze luxury. No one in my family gambles or smokes, but we visit our casinos fairly regularly, for the shows, for family dinners out, and for the awesome entertainment (bowling and mini golf and arcades and such). If the casinos would likely be small, you won’t get those benefits.

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the advent of the Internet, people can gamble whenever they feel like it. If this bill passes, there probably won’t be much of a change in the amount of people addicted to gambling - the location will just change. The thing to be concerned about is what happens when drunk people with guns lose a lot of money playing roulette.

As for gentlemen’s clubs, I haven’t really been exposed to those much, but I have noticed some stuff about living in a community with them. First of all, they’ll be advertised. There are a lot of restrictions on that, of course, but still. To put this into perspective, here taxis drive around with signs on top saying “MEN’S CLUB - WHERE THE GIRLS ARE” and in Vegas (where, I might add, prostitution is illegal) people stand on street corners on the Strip and hand out trading cards of scantily clad women with contact info on the back, which people drop so that the sidewalk is carpeted with the things. That’s obviously a worst-case scenario - your community is never going to be the Strip - but they will find a way to bring customers in.

As with the casinos, there’s the potential for unsavory tourism, but I feel like strip clubs would appeal more to locals than casinos would, on account of a strip club experience (topless dancing girls + booze) being easier to create on the sly, so the danger is probably not as great. Also,the two would likely merge if both were legalized; if only casinos are legalized, people will group at the casinos and they’ll get drunk and want strip clubs, but since they have no access to them, they’ll do it somewhere else - probably a dance club, a hotel room, or a public place like a parking lot. But this might also happen if both are kept illegal - drunk people are everywhere.

Hope this helped, 2cent. =) All my experience comes from cities, so your situation will probably end up differently.


#5

Strictly speaking as a fellow believer in restoring the integrity of the Constitution, I must accept that this Constitution does not ban all regulation unless specifically enumerated.

It only prohibits the Federal Government from stepping in unless specifically enumerated.

That means either way you decide to vote locally does not violate your commitment to the U.S. Constitution.

The point of a limited government at the Federal level is too allow the States to all act out the experiments they think will improve their lives. It also means that other States can observe the results and decide if they want to follow suit.

California has many Casino’s and a State Lottery.
So does New Jersey.
Nevada has many Casino’s, I don’t know about a Lottery.

In California’s case the supporters of these things sold the idea by claiming how much tax revenue would be generated if we allowed these enterprises, I don’t know what New Jersey and Nevada claimed but I assume it was similar.

I know that California had a budget surplus before these things were legal and now our debt problem is rivaled only by the Federal Governments debt problem.

Nevada and New Jersey are also not two States that I have heard anyone say they want to emulate or model themselves after.

You can vote either way and still be a Constitutional warrior, I just thought the practical consideration should be mentioned as well as the moral objections that always come up on these issues.

If your State is wealthy enough to take the economic hit that always results from these enterprises and you want to embrace a Libertarian philosophy at the local level then I guess you have to vote for it.

Personally, I have always said that our founders gave us the Liberty to be as destructive as we want at the local level. They also gave us the Liberty to be as wise as we want at the local level.

It comes down to what kind of place you want to call home. I live in a place where everything is considered Okay except working in private sector industry, people are leaving my State in droves.

By the way, I have 3 Casino’s within 15 miles of my house and two retail Marijuana stores within 1 mile of my house. Small wonder we have 17 percent unemployment.


#6

I don’t think there’s a Constitutional basis for denying a casino. There’s a HUGE moral one. Gambling is destructive. If it’s readily available, you end up with a large number of emotionally unhealthy and relatively unproductive addicts. Anything gained by institutionalized gambling is temporary and ultimately costs more than it gains. It’s like blowing up a dam to get more water.

I don’t think I would have any problem with State laws or even a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it. Informal bets between private individuals are one thing (although I might argue against them being recognized as a legally binding contract). But casinos, State lotteries, etc. I would happily flush down the toilet.


#7

Branson, MO is right up the road, so I doubt they’d pull in much of any entertainment. As for the size, it’s not very clear. However, some time ago, some casinos and Disney World, (at different times), were trying to buy acreage not 15 miles from where I live.
But that’s just that one area. Outside of that, I think they would be small. Either way, the ‘one-armed-bandits’ in grocery stores concern me just as much as the big guys.

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the advent of the Internet, people can gamble whenever they feel like it. If this bill passes, there probably won’t be much of a change in the amount of people addicted to gambling - the location will just change. The thing to be concerned about is what happens when drunk people with guns lose a lot of money playing roulette.

I’m not aware of any casinos that allow customers to carry, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
Not sure of the affect physical casinos would have on addiction, but I will say that I was surprised at the number of people who are restless lately, and just want to get out. I don’t so much dwell on addiction, per se, as I do the number of people who will go broke, (non-addicts manage that, also.) They tend to drift toward crime to cover their mistakes, and, either way, we will end up having to support them.
Plus the expense of having hire more law enforcement. Plus the element casinos tend to draw.
No, thank you.
(I think that pertains more to places outside L.V., so please don’t be insulted.)

As for gentlemen’s clubs, I haven’t really been exposed to those much, but I have noticed some stuff about living in a community with them. First of all, they’ll be advertised. There are a lot of restrictions on that, of course, but still. To put this into perspective, here taxis drive around with signs on top saying “MEN’S CLUB - WHERE THE GIRLS ARE” and in Vegas (where, I might add, prostitution is illegal) people stand on street corners on the Strip and hand out trading cards of scantily clad women with contact info on the back, which people drop so that the sidewalk is carpeted with the things. That’s obviously a worst-case scenario - your community is never going to be the Strip - but they will find a way to bring customers in.

Oh, yummy! And here I was taken aback by a billboard advertising a tatoo palor. lol

As with the casinos, there’s the potential for unsavory tourism, but I feel like strip clubs would appeal more to locals than casinos would, on account of a strip club experience (topless dancing girls + booze) being easier to create on the sly, so the danger is probably not as great. Also,the two would likely merge if both were legalized; if only casinos are legalized, people will group at the casinos and they’ll get drunk and want strip clubs, but since they have no access to them, they’ll do it somewhere else - probably a dance club, a hotel room, or a public place like a parking lot. But this might also happen if both are kept illegal - drunk people are everywhere.

Hmm. Where to start? Maybe I better explain that this county just went ‘wet’, and permits have not even been ‘okayed’ yet. Point being, people are already screaming for both strip clubs and casinos. (Btw, it’s never been illegal to HAVE alcohol in this county. It’s just never been legal to sell or manufacture it here.) Anyway…This ought to give you a hoot. It is illegal in AR to have booze of any sort in a strip club. (Go figure. :rolleyes: :biggrin:)

Hope this helped, 2cent. =) All my experience comes from cities, so your situation will probably end up differently.

Thanks for the input. I think you know which way I’m going to vote. :wink:


#8

The Lottery was just recently introduced here. They’re already being audited because of squirrely, unclear problems. (ALL of the proceeds were - by law- to go towards scholarships. Shock, it ain’t happening.)
The casinos are being sold as ‘job creators’. Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You can’t beat it into these people’s heads that casinos bring most of their own clientele with them, and the only jobs left for the local peons are parking lot sweepers. Parking lot sweepers, I might add, who don’t generally go home after their shift, but rather, stick around to spend every dime they’ve earned.
Then there’s always the ones who think they’re going to catch me at unawares by reminding me of the building end of it when it comes to jobs. They hate it that I’ve already researched that. Generally speaking, the only jobs the big casinos trust to local yokels are the menial, laborers’ jobs. From the excavators to the tile on the roofs, most contractors will be hired from outside the area.

I know that California had a budget surplus before these things were legal and now our debt problem is rivaled only by the Federal Governments debt problem.

Thanks for pointing that out. I don’t know how Hot Springs, where all the horse racing is going on is working out, but all one need do is point to the Lottery and show what a fiasco that is already…(Perhaps I give people too much credit.)

Nevada and New Jersey are also not two States that I have heard anyone say they want to emulate or model themselves after.

No joke.

You can vote either way and still be a Constitutional warrior, I just thought the practical consideration should be mentioned as well as the moral objections that always come up on these issues.

:smile:

If your State is wealthy enough to take the economic hit that always results from these enterprises and you want to embrace a Libertarian philosophy at the local level then I guess you have to vote for it.

Nah. You talked me out of it. I think my philosophical problem had more to do with ‘free enterprise’ than the Constitution, specifically. But, either way, I can’t morally take a Libertarian lean when I know it’s the wrong thing for me, AND for this community.
And even though our state has a ‘balanced budget amendment’, I really don’t care to experiment with how that might work out if the casinos don’t.

Personally, I have always said that our founders gave us the Liberty to be as destructive as we want at the local level. They also gave us the Liberty to be as wise as we want at the local level.

It comes down to what kind of place you want to call home. I live in a place where everything is considered Okay except working in private sector industry, people are leaving my State in droves.

By the way, I have 3 Casino’s within 15 miles of my house and two retail Marijuana stores within 1 mile of my house. Small wonder we have 17 percent unemployment.

Yes. Small wonder.
Thanks for the input, RET. I know what kind of place I want to live in, and I have to wonder why I even thought twice about both issues. I’d like to blame it on having only 3 hours sleep, but, even then, it should’ve been a no-brainer.


#9

In California’s case the supporters of these things sold the idea by claiming how much tax revenue would be generated if we allowed these enterprises, I don’t know what New Jersey and Nevada claimed but I assume it was similar.

No. Nevada made a conscious choice to appeal to the people who weren’t welcome in any other state. I’m sure tax revenue was a supporting reason, but we chose hands-off government because we knew it would bring in tourists.


#10
  1. The one-armed bandits in grocery stores are almost always empty. has grown up with them, and therefore finds them very boring
  2. I think concealed carry is okay, but that’s not exactly what I meant. =/ It was sort of out of order. First the guy loses money, then he gets drunk (or maybe he was drunk already), then he gets his gun. Make more sense that way? XD
  3. The two are sort of interrelated, though. I mean - the more addicted you are, the more money you lose, and then it becomes a vicious cycle. =/
  4. :rofl:
  5. O_o That is so weird. I wish I knew more about the desert counties of NV, which are very sparsely populated and have gambling, strip clubs, bars, and brothels legalized. As far as I can tell, they’re doing all right, since basically all our crime comes from Washoe County (Reno) and Clark County (Vegas and Henderson). The casinos serve as a form of employment, and of course they have the mines, though I don’t know how well that industry’s doing at the moment.
  6. I knew from the moment you posted the topic. I just thought I’d offer my two cents. XD

#11

As if THAT isn’t enough reason for anyone to vote ‘no’. :biggrin:


#12

I think it’s rather clever, actually. We sort of guaranteed ourselves a customer base. =)


#13

California has many Casino’s and a State Lottery.
So does New Jersey.
Nevada has many Casino’s, I don’t know about a Lottery.

No state lottery here. The gaming interests didn’t like the idea of the state stealing their customers, and I’m fully on their side. The state has no business setting up a lottery.


#14

I know women who are cashiers in your good neighbor, Arizona. I can’t tell you the countless stories of the number of shoppers who came in with intentions to buy groceries, but spent it all on those ‘one-armed-bandits’, and left either sweating or crying. And THAT is where we’ll most likely run into the most trouble here.

  1. I think concealed carry is okay, but that’s not exactly what I meant. =/ It was sort of out of order. First the guy loses money, then he gets drunk (or maybe he was drunk already), then he gets his gun. Make more sense that way? XD

Yeah, I get it. Sometimes I wonder if your supposition is really that much of an exaggeration, though.

  1. The two are sort of interrelated, though. I mean - the more addicted you are, the more money you lose, and then it becomes a vicious cycle. =/

Truly. Won’t argue that one. But I was speaking more toward the economic circumstances today, and how MORE likely people who are naturally restless will be even moreso today, and where that will lead them. And to mention those who weren’t previously so inclined, would be all the more tempted.

  1. :rofl:

LOL. I mean, it’s a pic a naked woman whose only cover IS her tatoos. I wasn’t offended as much as I was :freaked: to see something like that in this area.

  1. O_o That is so weird. I wish I knew more about the desert counties of NV, which are very sparsely populated and have gambling, strip clubs, bars, and brothels legalized. As far as I can tell, they’re doing all right, since basically all our crime comes from Washoe County (Reno) and Clark County (Vegas and Henderson). The casinos serve as a form of employment, and of course they have the mines, though I don’t know how well that industry’s doing at the moment.
  2. I knew from the moment you posted the topic. I just thought I’d offer my two cents. XD

lol. :smile:


#15

This is one of those “vote with your heart” kind of things. It a riddle without an answer unless you have knowledge of future events.


#16
  1. Never really noticed that. =/ I don’t pay much attention to them, actually. I’ve never met anyone who gambled regularly - figured they were pretty much all tourists.
  2. It wasn’t supposed to be an exaggeration. =/
  3. They’ll find some other way to be stupid, though.
  4. O_o Really? Our signs don’t actually show anything. The Men’s Club signs on the cabs show a picture of a topless young woman, but you can only see the very tops of her shoulders and up. And the ads in the casinos generally show women dressed like cocktail waitresses, or in miniskirts or something. We also had a strip show featuring males, who were shown shirtless in jeans in their ad. The Vegas cards were much more explicit, but the women on those were in positions so that you couldn’t actually see the good parts. =/

#17

Let it be. If they choose to then it’s their choice.

“Blessed is the person who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.”

“Law cannot prescribe morality.” I really like that.


#18

True enough, although law can, within limits and in certain circumstances, reduce the temptation for immorality (and possibly increase it for those making the laws).


#19

Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can. A person’s behaviour can make him appear moral (by obeying laws against immoral behaviour), while he is not truly a moral person.


#20

I don’t particularly like the idea of using the law to control people’s behavior. I just brought that up on another board that’s hella liberal. Coercion is a bad thing. It is only okay to use it when you need to stop someone from physically harming another. With the absence, or limited use, of “behavioral law,” if you will, you will not only have have a free society but it will also test your moral character. Will you envy the wicked and cave into the lust and peer pressure or will you stand your ground and turn the other cheek?

That’s how I view it but that’s just me.