David Boyle has written an illuminating article in Lib Dem News about Black Hawk, Colorado where gambling has been legalised for more than a decade now, and advises people to visit their website as a taste of what might be to come for Manchester:
We might point out that if you visit Black Hawk, leave your children at home. Blackhawk is not a friendly place to people under the age of 21. If you want to take your children, or have no choice, we recommend Central City or Cripple Creek. Blackhawk can really party! But beware, they have a police force that strictly enforces Colorado DUI laws.
It sounds like a dreadful place and I fear he may have a point. But I have to admit, my main reason for writing this post was so I could write a post with that title, above. 🙂
At least I didn’t use “Black Hawk, Down”.
So “It might create a place you wouldn’t want to visit or live in” is a good reason for restricting freedom now?
Ugh. So much for the Lib Dems’ committment to civil liberties.
You don’t think being stuck in a shithole in any way restricts people’s liberties?
Define “stuck” and define “shithole”. Then tell me you think it’s your love of freedom which makes you believe the state should be able to define these for everyone.
You’re making some amazing leaps here Jackie, based on a post which as stated, was entirely written because of the desire to write a bad pun, about an article that I’m pretty confident you haven’t even read. Where did I say the “state” should decide anything? I happen to believe that communities should be free to do what they feel is right for them. What I DON’T think is that the government should introduce a mass expansion of gambling as the magic bullet to solve the economic problems of every run down area in the country. Nor do I feel that local authorities should be so restricted by how they can spend their own money that bidding for a super casino is one of the few options open to them.
But clearly your definition of libertarianism means centralised government handing out super casino licenses out to all and sundry. Sounds lovely!
Er, who mentioned ‘libertarianism’? I’m not talking ideology (and don’t consider myself a libertarian, though you wouldn’t be the first to try to insist that I am). I’m talking freedom. I think it’s quite telling that you see freedom as something distributed by the state and not something each person is born with but which is routinely revoked by the state.
I don’t believe in licenses for casinos, so your accusation that I want “centralised government handing out super casino licenses out to all and sundry” makes zero sense. But go on – tell me why you believe that a free society is one in which individuals and communities must go cap in hand to the government for such things.
‘But go on – tell me why you believe that a free society is one in which individuals and communities must go cap in hand to the government for such things.’
I don’t think that, have never said that, and directly contradicted that in my previous comment. Give me strength.
So you don’t believe that we need a licensing scheme for casinos? My bad, then – I really misread everything you’ve written here.
I think there may be a case of licensing casinos, but it should be done at a local level. I certainly don’t think it should be part of some kind of centrally-run national regeneration scheme, as it is at present. And I think local areas should have much greater powers generally, so they are not confronted with the Hobson’s Choice of seeing a supercasino as the only option for regeneration.
Ultimately, if local communities want super-casinos, they should be free to have them. However, in my view they would be bloody stupid to go down that road.
Right, so you still oppose the freedom of an individual to open a casino. Gotcha.
You’ll have to correct me, but I was unaware that opening a casino was a fundamental human right. Last time I looked, no country on earth had no planning law whatsoever, nor was this generally equated with living in a Global Police State.
I tell you what Jackie, rather than just mouthing off about my opinions, why not tell me what your position is? You seem to want the untrammelled right for people to do whatever they want, whenever they want (so long as they can afford it), yet bristle at the accusation of being libertarian.
I think it is a fundamental human right to possess and create private property, yes. Why should casinos be any different? I’d love to know. I thought I made my view pretty clear, but I guess not.
I believe, broadly, that people should be free to do as they wish (abuse drugs, hire hookers, eat trans-fats, smoke fags, allow others to whip them black, blue, and bloody), even if their wishes are not commensurate with the ones I hold for myself, as long as they are not infringing on another’s freedom in the process.
If you’d read the aforementioned article, you’d see that David Boyle’s specific argument is that supercasinos can have a negative economic effect on the local community. In other words, they do infringe on other people’s freedom. You may agree or disagree with that, but you can’t simply bypass the argument by simply asserting that it doesn’t.
James, you failed to link to the article, so how was I meant to read it? Rest assured that I’m very familiar with views like Boyle’s, which are pure bunkum. Flying them under the auspices of wanting to increase personal freedom takes a lot of cheek, or a lot of stupidity. Either way, they utterly fail to convince.