Casino Debate: Freedom, Values or a Secret Sin? at The Legal Janitor

Casino Debate: Freedom, Values or a Secret Sin?

So Mr Tan Soo Khoon speaks up in Parliament about how the government is inconsistent when it says it is up to Singaporeans ‘to act responsibly, to exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income’, and yet ‘are not allowed to withdraw their entire CPF savings when they reach age 55′.

I am in complete agreement with him about the cognitive dissonance often displayed by the government’s actions and words. But I guess this happens sometimes when you have a state that wants political and economic control, a diversified and resilient economy, and a responsive, enterprising citizenry. Pick any two and you stay sane. Try to fulfill all those conditions and you end up contorting like a bad case of rickets.

I also agree with Mr Tan’s suggestion at resolving such dissonance:

There are many other issues Singaporeans could do with more freedom of choice, said Mr Tan, since ‘we are now prepared to say that people should be responsible to make their own choices as to how to spend their money at the gambling tables’.

Yes, it’s about time someone in Parliament speaks up about freedom of choice, that much neglected bastard child of our retarded democracy. The way the PAP goes on about freedom, makes you think its like those scary in-laws you wish you had never met.

After that however, Mr Tan goes into ‘morality mode‘ and mentions the obligatory conservative remark:

He also insisted, in disagreeing with Dr Balakrishnan, that the debate is still about ‘money versus values’.

David from Singapore Ink agrees,

The most important point for me in Mr Tan?s speech was that it remained a ?money versus values? debate. He said that Singapore has gotten to where she is due to sheer hardwork and doggedness - by not taking shortcuts in becoming a sleeze city. Singapore is unique in that children can grow up here with the right values and the right environment. That really struck a chord with me as I have always believed that we hold the World on trust for our kids. Hence, we have a responsibility to make sure that they have the right environment to live, play and work. The decisions we make today is the reality they face tomorrow.

while the Singapore Commentator is doubtful:

But Mr Tan also said something that suggests where the problem lies. He said that the casino debate is about ?money versus values?.

Most people go into a debate with their own set of values. They then proceed to debate around those values. The values themselves ? although they form the bases of their stands ? remain inviolate and unexamined. When a debate is among like-minded people with similar values, a consensus can often be quickly achieved this way.

However, when the values held by the debaters differ markedly … the chance of a consensus becomes remote.

Unless, as appears to be the case in the casino debate, those values themselves are thrown open for debate. Unfortunately, when people?s much-cherished values are thrown into the pot to be debated, especially together with other base considerations like money, you can be sure that some people are going to be rather unhappy.

I think the SC brings up a very relevant point that ‘values’ invokers all too often ignore. Even when using words like ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’, there is no way to disguise the fact that different people(s) have different values. Furthermore, ‘values’ are often used to justify the worst of human emotions - prejudice. The oppression of ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals are but three examples.

By invoking ‘values’, Mr Tan creates this false dichotomy that those who pursue money have no values, also ignoring the fact that there could be entirely non-monetary reasons for pursuing money. By creating this distinction of ‘either you’re with us, or you’re against us’, Mr Tan has effectively tarred all those who think the casino should be allowed with the same brush, labelled as ‘people who have no values’. He cannot be further from the truth.

Is freedom not a value? Freedom not just for the self, but freedom for others as well. I stand here in this camp. I’m no gambler, and a casino wouldn’t tempt me anymore than a shoe sale at Gucci. As a principled libertarian, I argue that those who wish to spend their money at a casino should be free to do so, not because I’m being unselfishly altruistic, but because I know there will come a day when the state would try to circumscribe my freedoms, and it is my sincere hope that when that day comes, there would be SOMEONE who speaks up for my freedom. (Again, for the complete treatment of why having a casino allows more freedoms than a blanket ban, please read my earlier post.)

There are other faulty assumptions as well. How is a casino a ’shortcut’? I’ve been to the Crown casino in Melbourne. As far as a can tell, there is nothing ’sleezy’ about it. And certainly, there seems to be quite abit of that hard work and doggedness that Mr Tan talks about among the workers in the casino. The Crown casino and hotel seems to be the sort of ‘integrated’ concept that the state is looking for, and it certainly is very modern, well-run, and impressive. I don’t think you’ll ever find anything so ‘clean’ among illegal gambling dens. Surely then, is that not another argument FOR a casino?

All this talk about morality and values suddenly made me remember something I read months ago on the Volokh Conspiracy by Jacob Levy:

I once had [a conversation] with a senior Cato official. He started off by noting that it took a certain kind of mindset to, when confronted with libertarian ideas, immediately spring to the question “What about a man humping a dead boy dog? Shouldn’t that be illegal?” And he’d run into this sort of thing a lot, had had more conversations about necrophelia than seemed remotely in order. And he hadn’t been having that conversation with northern liberals.

Hmm… this sounds familiar, very familiar doesn’t it? Like our ‘values’ invokers no?

He went on to generalize this to a “secret sin” theory of politics– that people form their political views on the basis of a generalization of their own deepest darkests. (This, by the way, is something like the method Hobbes defends, though that fact didn’t come up in conversation.) So: if you think it’s only the law that keeps you from plunging into a life of full-time sexual depravity and debauchery, you become a moralistic conservative. If you think it’s only the law that keeps you from becoming Ebeneezer Scrooge and screwing the poor just for the sheer sadistic joy of it, you become a lefty.

Now isn’t this just fascinating?!? We now have a possible hypothesis why some people have knee-jerk, irrational reaction to something like gambling or casinos. Those who oppose a casino, or gambling in general, do so because they themselves have a higher propensity to become addicted to gambling! Keep in mind, I’m not endorsing or suggesting that there is any validity to this theory, it remains purely in the domain of speculation. I’d like very much for some evidence to back up this hypothesis, would anyone be able to provide other examples?

I shall kick off this evidence hunting with the following example taken from IZ Reloaded:

Yes it is fun to gamble in a casino. I remember back in Sydney, when I was playing roulette in a casino there. It was my first time. I wanted to experience it myself. I can see the addiction factor. There’s always a tendency to want to make back the money that you lost.

Fascinating, just fascinating…