Skip to main content

A tribute to intellectual inconsistency in nanny-state thinking

The hardest part about actually being a Libertarian is not arguing for your own freedom to do X, Y, and Z (which are all, obviously, the pursuits of a cultivated, intelligent mind), but not trying to forbid freedoms to other people on the basis that you know what's best for them better than they do.

Particularly if they happen to be poor, because we all know that poor people have to be kept from making bad decisions by the government.

So it is with a hearty chuckle that I present a textbook case in nanny-state intellectual inconsistency, courtesy of jason330 at Delawareliberal.

First, here's jason on legalized sports betting in Delaware, from a post on 5 January 2009:

The state needs money, but if we pass sports betting to raise money it is a stone cold lock that four out of every 100 new gamblers created in this state will become addicts.

Are we really that morally bankrupt?

Studies show that sports betting is the type of legalized gambling most likely to hook young people.

Bottom Line: Whatever money the state brings in by being a party to this tax hike on the least among us will be going right back out in order to deal with the wrecked families and lives that are a direct byproduct of this “industry.”

Vowing to veto sports betting was Ruth Ann Minner’s finest moment in office.


Now, here's jason--just three days later--arguing for legalized on-line poker (which he happens to like playing):

I want to pay more taxes.

So do a whole bunch of other people who play poker online.

The government is passing up hundreds of millions if not billions in revenue by not regulating and taxing online poker.

Anyway, I hear Obama is a poker player, maybe there is hope for a more sane online poker policy under this administration.


If you visit the comments section of the first post, you can find jason standing up self-righteously to protect the poor from themselves:

Good point. Why not legalize drugs if we do this? Why not prostitution for that matter?

If this is a “free market” state why not allow the state to get it’s tax cut of these underground economy mainstays?

-----

Sports betting, like lotto, is a regressive tax on poor people.

-----

Look. It is not my opinion that state sponsored lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people, it is an established fact.

Poor people play lotteries and gamble. Rich people don’t.

Any speculation about why poor people support lotto schemes and slot parlors in disproportionate numbers is just that…mere speculation.


All of these arguments are ... strangely missing ... three days later.

Apparently poor people don't play online poker, so it's safe to keep it around for middle-class liberals like jason, who possess the requisite smarts to be trusted to make their own decisions with their own money.

Freedom: it's a tough sell, unless it's your own.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I am waiting for someone to suggest that civil liberties and free will only apply to certain people in a specific income range.
Bowly said…
I think "nanny-state intellectual inconsistency" is putting it too kindly. Hypocritical, unprincipled, patronizing...I like those better.
Freedom: it's a tough sell, unless it's your own.

That should be the Libertarian motto. Great post.
Mike W. said…
I'm not surprised. Sadly it's human nature for people to want to attack the evil vices of others while making rationalizatons as to why their own vices are OK.

I'm still wondering how Jason can claim that sports betting disproportionately impacts the poor? or young people? or why that even matters? Rich or poor, people make a choice to engage in those activities, thus it is a voluntary expenditure not a "regressive tax."

I'd venture a guess that there are far more young folks playing online poker than engaging in sports betting. I know I did a bit of both in college.
Hube said…
The problem with this post is that "intellectual" and "jason330" were used within several words of one another.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...