NY Times OP Ed on Poker Legislation

[brianmarc]

Full scanned text here as n/a online without subscription

October 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet
By CHARLES MURRAY
Las Vegas

LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.

So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.

In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.

In the long term, something more ominous is at work. If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.

Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.

The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.

For example, all employers are confronted with rules and regulations from Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they regard with contempt — not because they cut into profits, but because they are, simply, stupid. They impede employers yet provide no collateral social benefit. And so employers treat the stupid regulations as obstructions to be fudged or ignored. When they have to comply, they do not see compliance as the right thing to do, but as placating an agency that will hurt them otherwise.

The same thing applies to lesser degrees to all of us who find ourselves doing things that we know are pointless (think of various aspects of tax law) only because we fear attracting a bureaucracy’s attention. For millions of Americans, our day-to-day relationship with government is increasingly like paying protection to the Mafia — keeping it off our backs while we get on with our lives.

The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to institutions abroad and thence to gambling sites.

And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. The libertarian part of me is heartened by this, hoping that a new political coalition will start to return government to its proper functions. But the civic-minded part of me is apprehensive. Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.

Charles Murray is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

[Self Made]

Wow, Charles Murray plays online poker. And when I read "judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players," I think I just guessed who that poster with the intriguing screen name is.

[CutCreator]

that was a great article. i hope its true that this bill has damaged the republican vote. i cant see it, but i will say that this guy knows more than me, so im on board with his opinion.

[sandycove]

Beautifully written, but...

[ QUOTE ]
(an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is a cohesive constituency that votes or is even accustomed to being involved in civic affairs. It remains to be seen that even this disaster will arouse them to register in significant number. We'll see soon enough...

[ QUOTE ]
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe a majority of American citizens believe this law is stupid, or would if they were aware of it, although I do believe the majority would have remained ambivalent if online offshore wagering had stayed in the gray zone.

[ QUOTE ]
it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to institutions abroad and thence to gambling sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll see about that.

I believe too many here are focusing on the letter of the law, and bright ideas to subvert it, while missing its spirit. The weight of the federal government has been brought down against internet gambling and the dogs are being unleashed. This is serious business, with serious consequences, as any number of small countries can attest.

Here's hoping I'm wrong...

[Busted_Flat]

[ QUOTE ]
that was a great article. i hope its true that this bill has damaged the republican vote. i cant see it, but i will say that this guy knows more than me, so im on board with his opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only 3% of Repbulicans were angry enough about this to not vote or even vote Democrat, that would be a 3%-6% swing. In some of these tight races that could be enough to do the trick. I noticed Jim Leach is now trailing in Iowa after leading by double digits only a few weeks ago.

[caguma]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe a majority of American citizens believe this law is stupid, or would if they were aware of it, although I do believe the majority would have remained ambivalent if online offshore wagering had stayed in the gray zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it dependson where you're from. Down here in the south where I go to school with the Southern Baptists, they love the law, but back home up North I know a lot of people are angry about how the government's intruding in our lives.

[Wisch]

I'm angry at the law and angry and the Republicans that pushed it through. But I will still vote Republican come November 6. There are other, far more important, issues at stake.
Wisch

[jackaaron]

I have traditionally voted Republican. However, I will vote Democrat because I have never seen a more dirty way to tell me that I can't handle things on my own. Yes, I love to play poker, and yes I want to play online often.

But, it's much more than that. When a politician, or group of politicians begins to pass bills (especially in the sneaky way this one was passed) that literally TELL me that I can't be trusted to take care of myself, and as a result, my personal freedom is taken away, I will vote against them as punishment. Even if it means voting against them when they actually agree on the largest majority of opinions I have on issues.

It is not right to take our freedoms away in this manner.

As a side note, I am already seeing bumper stickers in my state that say, "Republicans for Strickland." Of course, Strickland is a Democrat running for Governor.

[msuper73]

I live in the south and have always been a republican. I am angry about this legislation, but more disgusted by the underhanded and devious manner in which it was passed. I have written all the reps here in NC to let them know that I and anyone I can sway will be voting straight democrat ticket in November and from now on if im forced to quit enjoying my hard earned money the way I choose. The Republican leadership has infringed upon my rights and shown what hypocrites they truly are and I hope they suffer for it.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm angry at the law and angry and the Republicans that pushed it through and I will continue to vote Democrat

[/ QUOTE ]