A NY Poker Warrior and a NY Gambling Hypocrite

Two bits of news caught my attention recently, both related to gambling, and both related to NY politicians. First, see this announcement from the Poker Players Alliance that former US Senator Alfonse D'Amato has joined the PPA as their new Chairman of the Board. He is described as "a passionate and skilled poker player who loves to win in both poker and politics." I can only hope that this increases the chances that the PPA can have positive influence in getting Poker recognized as a game of skill in the federal legislatures. While my first choice would be that it be simply made legal, I am willing to accept "taxed and regulated" as an alternative to the current direction of banning the game. The new law enacted in 2006 doesn't literally do that, but it makes it illegal to transfer money into gambling websites, thereby essentially making the game illegal for Americans to play online.

As I've said before, this sort of law is wrong for countless reasons. Most fundamentally it is a violation of individual rights since playing poker online is an act that does not violate others' rights, therefore no law should be enacted to prohibit. But even if you don't agree with this minimal-government philosophy, consider that the law is entirely hypocritical by allowing for horse-racing and state-run lotteries (which takes no skill at all!), and will be a complete failure in attempting to protect problem gamblers and children: online gambling will continue, but will be done deeper underground, supplied by less-reputable companies. Further, the billions of dollars in tax revenue that could be obtained from a "tax and regulate" approach is being lost, as is the good that money could be used for to help problem gamblers.

This is all quite obvious, and I can only hope that former Senator D'Amato can hasten the day when that law will be repealed, or at least when poker (and similar games) will be carved out of it with additional legislation that regulates and taxes them. But self-righteous social conservatives, often driven by irrational, mysticism-driven ethics, have once again imposed their views on all Americans, and in the process violated our individual rights (this happened countless times throughout our history -- just think of all the actions that violate no one's rights, but are nonetheless against the law, or were at various times in our history).

The other story was reported in various places, but I saw it as the third tidbit from the "Cross Country" section in the March 5 issue of US News and World Report, "Rolling the Dice on Indian Gambling". Here we learn that newly elected NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has endorsed the building of an Indian-run casino in the Catskill Mountains. It is predicted that it will generate $100 million in revenue for the state, obviously a big reason for the endorsement.

This is not particularly interesting news for me all on its own, until I learn that it will be run by the St. Regis Mohawk Mohawk tribe, and that its location will be 400 miles from the Mohawk reservations. This is dubbed an "off reservation" casino, something that Interior department opposes. It is unclear whether they will allow such things it seems.

At what point will this country wake up and ask the fundamental question: why can't American citizens, people like you and me, start our own casinos, hold poker matches (online or in-person), and so on? I'm not ignorant of the obvious facts here: it is illegal in most states, but is not illegal on Indian land since they are considered "sovereign states". For a governor to stretch this and endorse Indian people running a casino on non-Indian land... can't we see the obvious flaw in our laws?

Why is some gambling illegal, but not others? Again, this is a violation of our rights and always has been! Horse-racing is legal, slots are not. State-run lotteries -- which are entirely luck-based -- are legal, but poker -- a game of both luck and skill -- is not. The hypocrisy of this is mind-boggling!

I realize that the fight to legalize gambling is a massive uphill battle. Not only are social conservatives and religious fanatics against it, but presumably the Indian tribes would be as well. And some interests in Vegas and Atlantic City, at least at first, until they realized they might profit in the long run. But all of this is irrelevant to both the principle and the practicality of the matter at hand. The law against gambling in this country is a violation of our individual rights, and alway shas been. And like all laws against "crimes" that are in fact not rights-violations at all, the law against gambling is impractical and counterproductive: it forces gamblers further underground, creates a black-market, keeps those with problems (in this case problem gamblers) from seeking help, and fails to produce revenue through taxation that could be used to combat any negative externalities that are created. Again, ideally gambling would simply be legal for adults to partake in, but like cigarettes and alcohol, legalization through a "regulate and tax" scheme is preferable for everyone to the current scheme of prohibition and blatant hypocrisy.