TV Gambling

[elaine]

Ok, so i'm thinking of doing the issue of being able to gamble from your TV at home for my issues oral.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168694.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2169228.htm?section=sport
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2169815.htm

What are your views?

[brendan]

i think people should be free to decide for themselves. rather than have the choice made for them by government.

i mean you could set up a poll asking

"What are you views on Coca-cola? Are you for or against?"

"What are you views on cakes and biscuits? Are you for or against?"

It's just bizarre.

You should be free to choose for yourself, not have government or someone else decide for you.

[abcat]

hey if it saves me getting on internet tab that means i can just bet from the couch. i want this now

[Collin Li]

The number of votes against this makes me wonder whether the members of FSN represent the demographic of the audience of ACA.

I don't understand the taboo of gambling. Almost everything we do in life involves gambling with risks. If we see a $20 bill on the floor in the middle of the road, and someone chooses to cross the road to get it, that is a risk. It may not be explicit, but it is still a gamble. We don't go to the doctor every hour of the day to check if we've contracted a deadly disease, despite living in a highly populated city. Why is this any different? People should be given the chance to make mistakes (assuming that gambling is an irrational mistake) and develop their own values on what they wish to do with their money.

[Eriny]

It's different when it's deliberately set out to be addictive and essentially preys on people who are lonely/desperate.

[Collin Li]

1) Telephone and internet gambling already exist - it is just as accessible.
2) So what? If they are doing it because they get a kick out of it, why should we stop them?

[Collin Li]

These numbers are weird:

Brendan, abcat and myself have posted responses in favour of TV gambling, and Odette has given a positive karma to Brendan's post, but the votes are still only 2 "For."

[TrueLight]

my view: stop gambling asap doesn't matter what means they do it whether its tv internet wtc.. stop wasting money... c a psychologist with ur gambling addiction lolz...

[Collin Li]

Consider this vicious cycle:

1) The government takes away your rights, hence your responsibilities
2) The people require less responsibility, and hence will tend to have less responsibility (it is no longer a favoured trait)
3) The people depend on a government to make responsible choices
4) The government takes away your rights, hence your responsibilities

This is the slippery slope of government intervention.

It is arrogant and paternalistic to suggest that the government knows better than individuals. Who do you think runs the government? Individuals. Who do you think elects the government? Individuals. We should recognise that gambling is a matter between the person who gambles and whoever offers it. If an old man decides to use his pensions on gambling, why should the State come in and say that they know better? Who is to say that the old man is not getting a kick out of gambling, even if the monetary odds are against him?

Here I will use the line used by my political opponents: money isn't everything. People should be allowed to trade their money for experiences they believe will be worthwhile.

[Eriny]

Then, couldn't you argue that if individuals are responsible enough to choose things for themselves, they should also be responsible enough to choose a good government? If so, arguments against intervention then become irrelevant, because it's really our own intervention.

[bec]

I disagree actually - we're responsible enough to choose a good government but that doesn't mean that we have to automatically agree with whatever they say, and it doesn't mean we're accountable for their decisions...but that said, I do agree with your opinion on gambling!

Gambling costs taxpayers money so in this case, I think don't think it would've been at all unreasonable for the government to prohibit TV gambling. It's sort of a prevention vs cure thing - they could pre-emptively ban something before it exists, or jump through hoops later on to ban it. It's not a denial of individual responsibilities but it does prevent yet another temptation, that some people can't deal with themselves.

I haven't really read much about this but now that they've given them the go-ahead I hope there's some kind of system in place so that people known to be problem gamblers aren't able to use this...

[brendan]

Then, couldn't you argue that if individuals are responsible enough to choose things for themselves, they should also be responsible enough to choose a good government? If so, arguments against intervention then become irrelevant, because it's really our own intervention.

If 51% of people vote for the other 49% to be raped by government soldiers, are you going to say that they brought it upon themselves, and it's their "own intervention"?

Secondly, you ignore the reality that you can't vote for single proposals. You must vote for a package, a bundle of policies. People can't pick and choose the policies they like from Liberal, Labour, Greens, like they can pick and choose products from different supermarkets.

Even then, the political process imposes uniformity. The laws must apply to all. So if 51% vote for blue ties, and the other 49% votes for green ties, then the other 49% loses out, everyone must wear a blue tie. In a free society, you wear whatever color tie you want. You have freedom of choice.

What you call "our intervention" is the government's suppression of other people's choices by superimposing on them a collective plan, created by third parties, armed with the power of government and exempted from paying the costs that these collective plans impose on others.

It's one thing to argue that government coercion is sometimes necessary but it's another thing to try to dress it up as if it's not coercion. The sort of government intervention you are talking about that suppresses individual choice and freedom makes the assumption that people are too stupid to make their own choices.

If a man chooses to gamble, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use government coercion to force against him? In a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for you to seek to persuade him that his tastes are bad and that he should change his views and his behaviour - not to use coercive power to enforce your tastes and your attitudes on others.

In the end, is there not always the possibility that he is right and we are wrong? Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.

[Eriny]

I disagree actually - we're responsible enough to choose a good government but that doesn't mean that we have to automatically agree with whatever they say, and it doesn't mean we're accountable for their decisions...but that said, I do agree with your opinion on gambling!

I agree. Although the government is democratically elected, that doesn't mean they have a nasty habit of getting things wrong a lot of the time. But I believe that we need to keep them accountable and be interested in what decisions they're making and what they're doing.

I also think we should get to the stage where politics in Australia is more than just a two party system, although I understand that that may take a very long time. Although the Greens continue to grow relatively quickly compared to the other minor parties.

My problem with gambling is that I'm not sure if it is a real choice. If it's addictive, if people who are addicted say "I wish I could stop but I can't", then it's clearly not a choice they are making from figuring out what their bests interests are. You could say that they are being coerced themselves. So then what do we do?

[Collin Li]

Gambling costs taxpayers money

How?

My problem with gambling is that I'm not sure if it is a real choice. If it's addictive, if people who are addicted say "I wish I could stop but I can't", then it's clearly not a choice they are making from figuring out what their bests interests are. You could say that they are being coerced themselves. So then what do we do?

What about pornography? What about sex? What about chocolate?

Some people that consume these goods can't help themselves either. It means their short term costs outweigh the benefits of saved money and/or time - a decision they have the right to make.

If a man chooses to gamble, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use government coercion to force against him? In a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for you to seek to persuade him that his tastes are bad and that he should change his views and his behaviour - not to use coercive power to enforce your tastes and your attitudes on others.

In the end, is there not always the possibility that he is right and we are wrong? Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.

This is what we should be concerned about.

[squance]

any form of gambling should be banned...

It ruined my family and affected my VCE last year.