Jed said:
Dkw makes several points in his initial post. One about the fact that there is a vulnerable minority at risk. Just the way he's phrased his response just rings democratic alarm bells. Democracy survives on a presumption that the majority decides on issues, although I entirely agree that the majority has a right and a responsibility to consider all angles, including that of the vulnerable minority. But if the majority want something (or if the government the majority of the population have voted into power want something - so think the next time before you vote), that's the premise on which democracy is founded..
Phew! Never thought I would engender such passionate response to a simple post. Jed, though you have not directed your comments at me directly, but since I've been quoted extensively, I'll take the liberty to make a point to point response.
A) Sure, part of the principle of a democracy is "rule by majority". You forget one thing however, the only data out there showing a majority opinion "favouring" the building of a casino are a few newspaper polls for which the methodology of polling is unclear. I am not at all convinced that there is indeed a majority favouring this development, but lets leave that aside for the time being.
Next, the simple application of "rule by majority" rings more democratic alarm bells in my head than the converse. My personal politics are liberal on some issues and conservative on others, and are generally 80% aligned with what our government does. For instance, I find the implementation of mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women to be a shocking trespass on personal privacy and autonomy (liberal yes? But minority again). I do not know the colour of your politics Jed, but being a Brit, how do you feel about the Iraq situation? Does the fact that GWB won another term in office by a few percentage points mean that all the British anti-war campaigners should now meekly abide by the "will" of the American majority and clam up?
Point I am making is that the "will" of the "majority" is transient and often wrong. What may be a majority opinion today may become a minority opinion tomorrow, and it is up to those who feel about issues to educate themselves first of the background, make a decision, and if they feel strongly enough about it, make an effort to influence public opinion. Democracy is at its strongest when it is applied this way, and not merely by a show of hands.
Jed said:
Regarding the moral argument versus personal responsibility argument, I think there are several facets to consider. Firstly, personal responsibility is where the buck stops. Personal responsibility keeps you socially responsible. Personal responsibility stops you from gambling, visiting prostitutes, etc. Ultimately you'll end up a disciplinarian and authoritarian state if everything depends upon the state's control. People must be responsible for their own actions, whether they gamble, smoke, drink, whatever. Either that or the state bans gambling, smoking and drinking, possibly even sex outside of marriage between consenting adults. That system can never work, and ultimately you have to concede that people must be responsible for their own actions..
B) You put too much credence on the concept of "personal responsibility", as if it were a fixed quantitative value which applied equally to all persons. Truth is, if you asked 5 people what that thought "personal responsibility" meant, you might get 6 answers. I do not deny that to a large extent, we are responsible for our own actions. However, "personal responsibility" can only be effectively applied when a person is mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Don't agree? Ask yourself, why is there an age of legal consent? Is that not a recognition that children below a certain age "generally" do not have sufficient insight and maturity to make important decisions for themselves? Why is a taxation system implemented in most countries? Isn't it so that the poor and disadvantaged can get a share of the income generated by the rich? How about mentally retarded persons using that as mitigation for crimes committed, legally acceptable yah? So whither "personal responsibility"? Nebulous concept isn't it?
Jed said:
Quite interestingly, I was reading a fictional, mainstream trashy novel about smoking and the tobacco industry (Smoke Screen). It actually raises some pertinent issues for its genre. Can the government or the tobacco industry be held responsible for smoking related deaths, because they continue to tolerate cigarettes and not ban them? Either you accept that people must be responsible for their own actions, or the tobacco industry is murdering millions of people a year around the world. (Or whatever the true figure is.).
See B) There is a reason why the government taxes tobacco so heavily, and embarks on campaigns to help smokers stop. I suspect if they could ban it altogether without severe political fall-out, they would.
Jed said:
Dkw's response to the freedom of choice argument. Yes you are certainly free to choose not to have a casino, as is everyone else who feels that way. But the person next to you also has the right to choose to have one. And ultimately if the government decide that the majority of the public want one (or do not object to one) then they can allow one to be built. You might, or might not, have elected them to office. If you had, you are as much to blame as they are. Change your vote come the next election if you feel they are not making the right decisions in running the country. Don't sign online petitions and do nothing come the next election..
I'm certainly not telling who I usually vote for in an election. You don't think they are going to lose some over this?
Jed said:
I'm also not sure about Dkw's response to the majority is always right argument. And to be clear, I am not saying the majority are always right - but that it is the majority's decision to make. The world is not flat because the majority were wrong, it was flat because the majority of the time took the word of the minority of the time that the world was flat. What if today we took the word of the minority of the time that Singapore shouldn't have a casino and it proves to be the wrong decision?.
See A). A majority opinion is often transient and often wrong.
Jed said:
Both Dkw and others like tOGGY have raised points about it being an endorsement of vice. And others have responded that it is no different from smoking and alcohol and gambling. What worries me at this point is that neither Dkw nor tOGGY have done anything to address this point. Why ban just gambling? Why single it out?
C) Its about picking your battles. I do have opinions on those, I can't possibly be mounting a letter writing campaign on all these issues at the same time
. Besides, its a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than letting one out in the first place.
Jed said:
Yes gambling is a compulsive habit. So is gambling on horses, buying the lottery. We already have both. Smoking is addictive, we have that too. Alcohol is also potentially addictive, we have that as well. So using addictiveness as an excuse to ban casino gambling just doesn't wash..
Why not? 3 wrongs make a right?
Jed said:
By banning something you drive it underground. Where it is far more difficult to regulate, both in terms of who gets hooked, and the service providers. Look at what the government has done with prostitution. Legalise it, license it, keep STIs in check, help curb more dangerous illegal prostituion. You're never going to stop gambling from going underground; illegal bookies, just regular groups of friends meeting each other on a weekly basis, etc...
Yeah, but it raises the bar significantly to those who want to engage in this, and it makes it easier for parents to sell a moral message; "see, if you gamble, the police will come after you" :bsmilie:
Jed said:
I live in a country, that while not quite Las Vegas (although new legislation is threatening that), has casinos, etc. I've not once stepped in one. On the other hand when I was much younger and on a family holiday, I remember we tried to go into a casino just because we'd never seen one. I was too young to go in so I never did. So I've still never been to a casino nor do I care for it. But the point being that the lure was there simply because it was novel and prohibited - whereas these days I don't care about it because it's down the road..
Congratulations, you are in the sane majority. Ever walk by someone sitting on the sidewalk outside one of these casinos in despair?
OK, I'm stopping here, need to get back to work. ;p
Cheers,
