Mafia Numbers Game Is Alive and Well

This entry was posted in Government on by

Governments show their true colors by operating lotteries to generate revenue. Dan Gilmour nails it in this 6/22 post:

At the top of Page 1 today in the SF Chronicle is a story about the “Mega Millions” lottery that Californians will soon be able to enter. It’s unfortunate governance for states to be in this rancid business, but it’s irresponsible journalism to promote it.
State-run lotteries are slimy. They run advertising that I suspect would get other people sued for deceptive practices. They convince people who can least afford it to gamble. They shift tax burdens. No one forces people to gamble, true, but gambling addiction is a very real thing.
States should not be in the business, period. But rather than honestly deal with revenue needs, they con their residents into “games of chance” that entice stupidity, or worse.
For states to promote this practice is shameful enough. I wish responsible media organizations would just refuse to join the parade.

Dan is right. States should not be in lottery business and responsible journalists should be making clear to their readers that throwing away their money on lottery tickets is not a good thing.
But, then, states shouldn’t be in the business of doing most of what they do.

It’s Ancient, It’s Right

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Federalism Judiciary Libertarianism on by

Precedent, precedent, precedent. Apparently because the idea that thieves and governments can point a gun and take whatever they want has been around for centuries makes it right:

You have to accept that government can take property. The power of eminent domain is ancient. What the Constitution requires that “just compensation” be paid to the owners and that the taking be for a “public use.” This case was about what counted as a “public use.”

Slavery is ancient. Human sacrifice is ancient. The idea that women should not have the vote is ancient. None of these practices is considered acceptable today in the United States.
The Constitution is a great document. It was a great step forward in the development of human societies. And, in the context of the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence Kelo should not surprise anyone. That does not make Kelo just or consistent with the rule of law. Thank goodness that Kelo has generated outrage. There is some hope that we can look toward an even better Constituion in the future. One that clearly focuses on serving and protecting the individuals it should be meant to serve.
In one of the comments to her post Althouse asks:

All you conservatives: why aren’t you interested in federalism today?

and here argues:

If you generally support federalism, that means you like the idea of freeing state and local government to set their own policies in response to local ideas about how things ought to be done. You like decentralized decisionmaking.

I doubt I’d be considered a conservative so my answer may not count. What is broken here is that this is all about government. Where are our rights as individual human beings? Did we establish our governments to legitimize gangs of thieves or to protect the rights of individual human beings? I know which answer I prefer.
Furthermore, decentralized decision making is great but not when it is only governments who can make the decisions and not when a government entity can breach the rights of the very people it is meant to serve. Decentralized use of local knowledge leads to great results when individuals and freely formed associations of individuals exchange goods and services with others free of force and fraud.

Kelo Fallout….

This entry was posted in Anarchism Constitution Government Libertarianism on by

I expect we will be seeing many more reports like this one:

Unjust and un-American indeed.

Most children learn the right lesson much better than the 5 who supported theft in Keno and, in fact, better than the founders:

The most important fact in all this childhood drama was simply that I wanted something that was not mine, and without the consent of the owner, nothing I could do would make that thing morally mine, and as long as my parents were my parents, nothing I could do would make it physically mine, either.

A constitution that respects individuals will not contain a takings clause but rather it is clear that it needs to be a blocking clause something along the line of

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without the consent of the owner.

The mafia might object but not an entity intended to protect its citizens.