New at Reason: Drew Carey Defends Poker

Maybe Dallas wouldn't be ranked as the 34th most dangerous city in America if Dallas police weren't devoting precious resources to raiding friendly poker games played by veterans. In his latest video for Reason.tv, Drew Carey examines a paramilitary-style raid on a poker game at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1837 in Dallas, which has now been forced to close its doors.

"Poker is about as American as baseball and apple pie," Carey says in theReason.tv video. "It was born here in America. Mark Twain loved it. He's a great American. Until recently, Supreme Court justices had a monthly game. They're great Americans. You'd think playing poker in a VFW hall would be about as American as anything you could do."

"This story highlights the hypocrisy that surrounds gambling in this country," said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.tv. "States will gladly take your hard-earned money if you want to play the government's lottery. But if you sit down with some veterans to play Texas hold 'em you may end up with cops, in full riot gear, busting down your door. No one gets hurt when consenting adults sit down for a game of cards. And there's no reason for the government to get involved."

The busted poker players have a court date on December 5, 2007.

Watch the video here.

Comments

fyodor | December 3, 2007, 6:25am | #

Just as the government is hypocritical by taking our money when no one else can.

Which you may read either way.

But of course whichever way you read it, the hypocrisy angle is only one aspect of it anyway. Yep, it's ye olde victimless crime. But just as of course, you can always find a "victim" if you're determined to. Invoking the right (or "authority", if you must) to protect people from themselves (at the expense of others who don't need or desire the protection) is usually the easiest way.

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 7:25am | #

No one gets hurt when consenting adults sit down for a game of cards.

I imagine legislators have seen too many westerns. When was the last time someone was shot over a game of cards?

Troy | December 3, 2007, 7:56am | #

Oh yeah, hypocrisy abounds. I love the fact that Arizona has these commercial for our lotto. I mean they are actually paying lots of money to fucking solicit for gambling. Oh sure, they would use that word, but, then, what is the fucking point of the commercials?


I like how it is like a mob movie whereby if you don't use the the system imposed by the mob (read: the government) by gambling outside the system (where the mob doesn't get its take), then you get visited by hired thugs (read: cops)

troy | December 3, 2007, 7:57am | #

I appologize, the State would NOT like to use the term solicit.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 8:24am | #

Troy, this is the one unavoidable problem with government that minarchists don't see: that while any monopoly will abuse its position to extort more money from its clients, government is the worst monopoly of all because its anti-competitive actions are backed up by force that is viewed (IMO wrongly) as legitimate.

There are fantastic arguments to be made against past antitrust cases against IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, etc. The two main arguments minarchists make against such cases---that company X can't make you buy their product, and that smaller competitors to X will eventually appear to undercut their market advantage---do not apply to government.

Until a minarchist can convince me that it's okay for government to possess an unchallenged and unchallengeable monopoly, I will continue to promote capitalist anarchy.

Ken Shultz | December 3, 2007, 8:40am | #

I want my Reason TV!

Compassionate Authoritarian (but really Reinmoose) | December 3, 2007, 8:44am | #

but someone might not be able to handle themselves while playing poker! what about that person, huh? you libertarians are all elitist and think that just because your all white and rich that you should be able to tell everyone else what to do! like.. not...outlawing...poker oh shit I can't even go on like this, it's too pathetic

robc | December 3, 2007, 8:56am | #

squarooticus,

The choice of minarchism over anarchism isnt due to an answer to your question. It is due to the fundamental problem of anarchy - it is only metastable.

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 8:57am | #

States will gladly take your hard-earned money if you want to play the government's lottery. But if you sit down with some veterans to play Texas hold 'em...

Sometimes I wonder if the government, as a demonstration of their power, acts as hypocritical as this on purpose.

Anyone with even the slightest inkling of common sense can see how ridiculous this whole situation is. The power junkies seem to be saying, "Ha, suckers! Look what I can do."

Come to think of it, kind of reminds me of Putin's Russia...

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 9:04am | #

The choice of minarchism over anarchism isnt due to an answer to your question. It is due to the fundamental problem of anarchy - it is only metastable.

An unfounded assertion is not a rebuttal to my simple, logical conclusion.

Jonathan Hohensee | December 3, 2007, 9:10am | #

Chavez sure let himself go. Oh wait, I forgot that this is Reason, who always waits at least 6 hours before posting any news of relevance.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 9:12am | #

Dallas has a new Mayor voting in last Spring. He's a Republican. The former Mayor was a Democrat. (I'd guess the new guy took over the reigns in June or July.)

There's no date on when this occured? Did it happen under the former or the current administration?

I do know also, that Dallas has a highly controversial ultra-liberal/ultra-PC Police Chief, some Lesbian chic, whose main concern in life is enforcing stringent affirmative action programs.

I wonder if going after politically incorrect Veterans to gain more revenue for the city was ultimately behind this?

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 9:15am | #

It's important to remember that the City of Dallas is overwhelmingly run by Democrats from top to bottom. People outside Texas have this view of Dallas as "conservative" or "Bible Belt." And that's true of the suburbs of Dallas, but absolutely not true of Dallas itself. The City is ultra-ultra-liberal.

Amazingly, a Republican just won the Mayorship. So, hopefully we'll see some changes.

But this is not a Bible Belt problem. This is a greedy liberals trying to get their hands on more revenue, and wanting to enact Nanny-state laws on politically incorrect mostly down-home conservative Veterans problem.

robc | December 3, 2007, 9:18am | #

squarooticus,

An unfounded assertion is not a rebuttal to my simple, logical conclusion.

Considering you started with an unfounded assertion:

this is the one unavoidable problem with government that minarchists don't see

I see it. Therefore, not only was it unfounded, it was wrong.

Anarchy is clearly only meta-stable, I dont think that is unfounded, it is just plain common sense.

jj | December 3, 2007, 9:20am | #

Good for you squarooticus, you make a valid point. I like my government with competition. Anarchy all the way.

It used to be that your church/synagogue/family acted as a quasi-government to ensure that you didn't stray to far morally or become addicted. There was great competition in this field and you could abstain if you were okay with the consequences. Now government has become our monopolistic moral police. They police tobacco, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and all the rest. The result: instead of the veterans group having their priest walk in and join them in a game of poker, or at least warn them against the vice of gambling, they have the government arrive with a swat team. We know how well that worked out for Kathryn Johnston.

x,y | December 3, 2007, 9:24am | #

I'm willing to bet this raid had bi-partisan support Dondy. And I doubt there are many elected Democrats or Republicans condemning the DPD on this one.

Astigmatic | December 3, 2007, 9:26am | #

Guys, ReasonTV is great. But the white-on-black design... please. I beg you, on behalf of the legions of us out here who find it nearly impossible to read white text on dark backgrounds -- please revamp the site to something standard.

Just google light text dark background and astigmatism (or presbyopia). I'm not making some politically correct plea to provide "handi-able" access (ugh). You're a political site. This is about communicating your message as broadly and efficiently as possible. There are a whole lot of us out here; this should be a pretty simple call. As it stands, ReasonTV looks like some teenager's dude-Scandinavian-metal-rocks appreciation page.

OK, cue a few commenters to now pipe up and proclaim that they "actually prefer light-on-dark," etc. etc. Let me just preempt them by saying: Your issue with white backgrounds isn't nearly as problematic as our issue with white text.

parse | December 3, 2007, 9:30am | #

No one gets hurt when consenting adults sit down for a game of cards.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think the state has the right to intervene to prevent the harm that sometimes results from adults playing poker, but I wonder what definition of "hurt" you are using that precludes "suffers a serious financial loss."

dpotts | December 3, 2007, 9:30am | #

The main problem I see with anarchy, as attractive as that sounds to me, is that there's a giant power vacuum just waiting for someone to step in and take over. There are far too many people out there who have the "for god's sake, won't somebody do something" mindset. Far better IMO to live under the actual rule of law, where a minimal government is distributed as widely as possible and as close to the local level as possible that can serve to guarantee the maximum amount of individual rights. Yes, government is a construct, it doesn't really exist in the first place, but at a certain level it does have its uses.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 9:39am | #

Astigmatic, I'm not going to gripe at you for voicing a valid bitch. I'm confident that the ultrageeks at Reason TV can make it selectable, if it isn't already. Consumer complaining is VERY libertarian.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 9:47am | #

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think the state has the right to intervene to prevent the harm that sometimes results from adults playing poker, but I wonder what definition of "hurt" you are using that precludes "suffers a serious financial loss."

That's a valid point. When I was younger a saw a sign in a state park - "Do Not Climd Rocks". It pissed me off. I'm sure people get hurt rock climbing. To friggin' bad. Maybe you shouldn't climb rocks, clumsy. Angry that I was being treated like a child that day was my first libertarian epiphany.

Mike Laursen | December 3, 2007, 9:56am | #

I beg you, on behalf of the legions of us out here who find it nearly impossible to read white text on dark backgrounds -- please revamp the site to something standard.

Sorry, you're out of luck. Light text on dark background is de rigueur among user interface designers. You, the lowly end user, will have to wait for the next web UI trend.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 9:57am | #

But if you sit down with some veterans to play Texas hold 'em you may end up with cops, in full riot gear, busting down your door.

Damn, I can't decide what pisses me off more, the complete lack of respect for veterans by the law enforcement community (who constantly bring up how dangerous THEIR jobs are), or the inanity of busting a VFW poker game in riot gear. Send the smallest, mousiest girl on the force, unarmed and solo, and those miscreant gamblers would still all have gotten their undeserved summons.

I no longer support my local police occupiers.

Micha Ghertner | December 3, 2007, 10:00am | #

Far better IMO to live under the actual rule of law

And how's that been working out for ya?

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 10:03am | #

Far better IMO to live under the actual rule of law

And how's that been working out for ya?

I'm 25 and in the U.S., and not totally sure if I've ever lived under the rule of law.

x,y | December 3, 2007, 10:07am | #

parse,

I think you're being too nitpicky re: no one gets "hurt" playing poker. By sitting in the game, you're consenting to abide by its rules. If you lose money, i.e., are "hurt" under a fairly broad defition of that word, it's consented-to harm.

x,y | December 3, 2007, 10:08am | #

We have too much rule of law, IMO.

LarryA | December 3, 2007, 10:12am | #

When was the last time someone was shot over a game of cards?

By other players, or by enforcers?

I wonder what definition of "hurt" you are using that precludes "suffers a serious financial loss."

Most neighborhood games are low ante. You can spend significantly more, significantly quicker at the local stop-n-rob on lottery tickets, with substantially less chance of winning.

As one of our local wits said, "Your chance of winning the lottery is roughly the same, whether you enter or not."

We have too much rule of law, IMO.

I quibble. "Rule of law" should be protecting us from SWAT raids, etc, and it isn't. But we definitely have too many laws.

dpotts | December 3, 2007, 10:24am | #

I'm 25 and in the U.S., and not totally sure if I've ever lived under the rule of law.

I never said we had the rule of law here in the U.S. I said that it is better, IMO, to live with minimal, decentralized government that is dictated by specific rules laid out prior to its existence, than to live in a power vacuum that would be exploited by those with the greatest drive to control others.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:28am | #

I guess Congressman Frank Wolf--who is on a personal crusade against gambling of any kind*--is also an ultra-left PC liberal huh Donder? Take the partisan blinders off.

*Against any form except horse racing. Because hes from Virginia, and the state government makes quite a bit off horse racing.

R C Dean | December 3, 2007, 10:29am | #

I wonder what definition of "hurt" you are using that precludes "suffers a serious financial loss."

The definition that says self-inflicted harm is not a "hurt" requiring a legislative band-aid.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 10:29am | #

Aha! Now we're learning the truth. This DID HAPPEN UNDER THE DEMOCRATS. It occured back in May. That was before current REPUBLICAN Mayor Tom Leppert took office. That little fact, of course, was left out of the Drew Carey piece.

From Google:

By JASON TRAHAN / The Dallas Morning News
[e-mail]

Poker players grumbling over police raids that shut down a veterans' Texas hold 'em game and other card-playing joints are hoping for relief from a bill moving through the Legislature.

Police say the April 14 raid on the Audie Murphy Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1837 in Far East Dallas was spurred by neighborhood complaints, which they say are the driving force behind the past year's stepped-up enforcement of illegal poker rooms.

So far this year, vice detectives have cited players or operators at four poker rooms, the same number as all of last year. At least 79 people have received citations for playing or operating games.

In 2006, 147 poker players received Class C misdemeanor gambling tickets, which carry a maximum of a $500 fine. Thirty-five people accused of running the joints were arrested for Class A misdemeanors.

In 2005, police raided only one poker operation.

"The law is on the books," said Deputy Chief Julian Bernal, commander of Dallas' vice and narcotics detectives.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:34am | #

Yeah Dondi, this would have never happened under "libertarian Republican" Benito Giuliani. Nope, he loves gambling. Loves it. Except he used his thugs to shut down things like this in New York all the time.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 10:35am | #

Like it or not, this is a partisan issue.

The Democrat Party has become more and more Nanny-state as of late:

1. Banning smoking on public beaches, in public parks, and inside your own car in California.

2. Banning smoking in bars and bingo halls in Anchorage, Alaska.

3. Banning "sexy" mudflaps for pick-up trucks in Arizona.

4. Running off-road vehicle enthusiasts out of public parks and off of public lands with increasing environmental restrictions.

5. Cracking down on prostitution cause of "public health concerns."

And now we learn...

6. Arresting peaceful poker players at bingo halls in Dallas, Texas.

So, how do partisan Libertarians respond? Why ignore the fact that all these assaults on our freedoms are coming from the Democrat Party. Can't do damage to the myth that "Republicans are equally bad as Democrats." After all, if Republicans are starting to be better than the Dems even on social issues, than how can partisan Libertarians maintain that myth?

And if they nominate the "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" GOPer like Rudy, well, pun intended...

All bets are off, so to speak.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 10:36am | #

Cesar, can you cite some links or facts of Giuliani cracking down on poker players in NYC as Mayor?

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 10:37am | #

dpotts,

Agreed. It's merely a matter the scale of time. Anarchy would quickly turn authoritarian, but our former minarchy has slowly degraded into... well, what it is today.

While minarchy and the rule of law may slow the process down, it seems hard to quite believe humans genuinely want to be free. I keep hoping this is not true, but based on the world today, I'm not holding my breath...

Vlad Drac | December 3, 2007, 10:39am | #

Eric, I couldn't give two soggy shits. Your pwecious Wepubwicans have been fucking us in the ass with equal fervor and gusto. Where the Democrats aren't joining in this mass sodomy, they've been doing everything from actively aiding and abetting, to sitting back and cheering as they watch from the balcony sipping champagne.

Violating individual rights is the only remaining truly bipartisan cause. Needless to say, I do not support it.

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 10:39am | #

Eric DOOONNNDEROOOOOOO:

"Blah blah blah, Red Team Go!, blah blah blah..."

Folks, please don't feed the trolls...

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:41am | #

Eric, I'll be happy to send the Giuliani campaign an email and ask 1) Giuliani his position on gambling, and 2) what he did to reduce "illegal" gambling in New York City as mayor. Something tells me you won't like the response.

But you won't care. ISLAMOFASCISM IS BAD! BAD! AND BENITO WILL PROTECT ME!

I'll email them right now and post the response here.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 10:42am | #

Considering you started with an unfounded assertion:

> this is the one unavoidable problem with
> government that minarchists don't see

I see it. Therefore, not only was it unfounded, it was wrong.

I suppose I should preface my statement with "in general." Because, in general, minarchists sweep the government-as-monopoly issue under the rug with statements like, "We need to limit the power of government." Great idea. HOW?

Anarchy is clearly only meta-stable, I dont think that is unfounded, it is just plain common sense.

Given the inequities in wealth distribution, a social safety net is a required part of any modern economy. It's just plain common sense.

Right?

Kyle

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 10:45am | #

Drew Carey is a great guy, and an even more fantastic Libertarian. But truth be told, Drew Carey is a partisan Libertarian. He's on record in support of the Libertarian Party.

Of course, Carey is going to conveniently neglect to point out, in his otherwise good video, that the people who cracked down on these Veterans WERE DEMOCRATS!!

You see, the viewer, mainly outside Texas, instinctively thinks:

"Hmmn, Dallas? Hmmn, Bible Belt?

Yupper, those goddamned Fundamentalists again cracking down on vices like poker."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG!

This is a clear case of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS cracking down on vice.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS IS OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL, AND NOT JUST LIBERAL BUT ULTRA-LIBERAL.

The City is controlled by what has been derisively called a "Gay Mafia" of hard Left political activists, including the openly Lesbian/Radically Feminist Police Chief.

Kind of changes the whole picture now doesn't it? Doesn't quite fit into that nice, neat partisan Libertarian template of:

Republicans = Bad, Fundamentalist Christians who hate Fun

Democrats = Bad on fiscal matters, but generally tolerant and wanting to leave people alone

No Siree. The new emerging template, which partisan Libertarians are refusing to acknoledge:

Democrats = Really bad on economic issues, Nanny-stater on social matters

Republicans = Generally okay on economic matters, still bad on the Drug War and Abortion, but getting better on other social matters like Free Speech rights, Smoking, Poker, Casino Gambling, and even Sex.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:48am | #

I'm sorry Taktix, but its hard to resist a hard core Giuliani supporter who complains about police raids on vice "crimes". As soon as I post Benito's response I'll promise never to respond to him again.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 10:50am | #

Far better IMO to live under the actual rule of law, where a minimal government is distributed as widely as possible and as close to the local level as possible that can serve to guarantee the maximum amount of individual rights.

Describe how to get to this minimal government of which you speak.

Clue: it ain't gonna happen. Anarchy (at least at the federal level) resulting from revolution or secession is far more likely than a voluntary redistribution of power from the feds to the states.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:54am | #

A weak federal government with strong states can be very tyrannical as well. Ask blacks in the South pre-civil rights, or look at the Confederation period.

The key is a balance between state and federal powers, so they serve as a check on one another.

I will agree that currently the balance is far too tilted towards the feds.

Micha Ghertner | December 3, 2007, 10:55am | #

it is better, IMO, to live with minimal, decentralized government that is dictated by specific rules laid out prior to its existence, than to live in a power vacuum that would be exploited by those with the greatest drive to control others.

Rules don't enforce or interpret themselves, no matter how specific you make them prior to a state's existence. Rules are enforced and interpreted by people - the same people who, coincidentally, have the greatest drive to control others. Interesting how that works, no?

Andrew | December 3, 2007, 10:57am | #

Oh please, Dondi. Republicans supporting gambling? You kidding me? Just look at Florida right now and see what the legislature is trying to do to stop the deal with the Seminole Indians giving them full casino gambling rights.

And smoking? Please. The smoking bans I've seen have been bipartisan. And it's not the "libruls" who are advocates of anti-gay sex provisions in the law.

Republicans are just as Nanny-Stater as Democrats. One is not any worse than the other in our current 1.25 party system (used to call it a 1.5 party system, but it's obvious they've come together on large amounts of economic and social policy)

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 10:58am | #

Folks, please don't feed the trolls...

Is somebody trolling? My Page Down reflex is now subconscious for certain dumbshits.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 10:58am | #

Heres another interesting factoid, Dondero.

Far more Republicans than Democrats voted to oppose banning online gambling. And the bill was sponsored by two Republicans, with the biggest opposition coming from Barney Frank.

So again, tell me how great Republicans are for civil liberties and ending vice "crimes".

Don't let your head explode.

fyodor | December 3, 2007, 11:01am | #

Given the inequities in wealth distribution, a social safety net is a required part of any modern economy. It's just plain common sense.

Right?

If you flew into the sun you would burn up and die. Right? No of course not, it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on common sense without direct proof.

Dondero, whatever the potentially legitimate beefs one may have with regulations against off-road vehicle use on public lands, their purpose is to protect the public lands, not the off-road vehicle users, and thus they do not qualify as nanny-statism. Unprincipled factional power politics perhaps, but not nanny statism.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 11:05am | #

A weak federal government with strong states can be very tyrannical as well. Ask blacks in the South pre-civil rights, or look at the Confederation period.

The key is a balance between state and federal powers, so they serve as a check on one another.

And I argue that this is unadulterated libertopian folly. (And people call anarchy metastable!)

You've already seen what happens when you create a weak federation of supposedly sovereign states: power centralizes over time. There is a very strong counterexample to this approach, because the entire purpose of our now abrogated Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government to specific, enumerated powers. What's the score on that now?

I argue the only solution is to devolve power completely to localities and let them compete with each other for residents and capital. Surely there will be cities and towns with institutionalized racism/sexism/otherism. Fabulous: with the mobility that exists in today's society, those cities and towns will be at a competitive disadvantage versus freer cities and towns.

For some reason, most people I've encountered look at the civil rights record of the past 70 years and say, "Wow, government did a great thing!" I'd like to ask those of you who think this: why exactly you think the government had any substantive positive impact on racism? It seems to me that government, by violating the freedom of association supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution, served mainly to create ill will at interlopers telling people how to live their lives and how to think. Why do you attribute progress against racism more to civil rights legislation than to increased mobility, both of people and of capital?

robc | December 3, 2007, 11:10am | #

And people call anarchy metastable!

I thought I was being nice by not calling it unstable.

Anarchy would be fine, if it could last.

I argue the only solution is to devolve power completely to localities and let them compete with each other for residents and capital.

That isnt anarchy. I thought you favored anarchy?

Compassionate Authoritarian (but really Reinmoose) | December 3, 2007, 11:12am | #

I'm sorry, but I don't know any libertarian who doesn't think the Democrats are nanny-statists. Thhey're mostly nanny-statists for the children and for your health, and Republicans are nanny-statists for G*d's will and your afterlife.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 11:13am | #

squarooticus-

The Jim Crow laws of the south violated freedom of association. They mandated that business owners had to have separate facilities for blacks and whites, that blacks couldn't eat at the lunch counter, etc.

I also make a difference between the early (1956-1968) civil rights movement and the "civil rights" movement of Jackson and Sharpton. Equality before the law, yes. Voting rights, yes. Repealing of laws mandating segregation of races, yes.

Affirmative action, no. Busing, no, etc.

If a business owner wants a big WHITES ONLY sign they are free to do it and lose tons of business. But pre-civil rights there were state laws on the books saying a business owner must do that, preventing any competition from sprouting up. If thats not a violation of property rights I don't know what is.

Reinmoose | December 3, 2007, 11:13am | #

Now, I meant that above comment seriously, so it should just read "Reinmoose"

robc | December 3, 2007, 11:16am | #

Cesar,

The problem was that the anti-association Jim Crow Laws were replaced with anti-association Civil Rights Laws. They couldnt just let people associate as they chose.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 11:18am | #

The problem was that the anti-association Jim Crow Laws were replaced with anti-association Civil Rights Laws. They couldnt just let people associate as they chose.

Yes, and I disagree with those laws. Blacks and Hispanics are too big of a market to piss off, not to mention all the boycotts any business would face today if it decided to go Jim Crow.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 11:19am | #

That isnt anarchy. I thought you favored anarchy?

I favor anarchy for myself. If others don't want anarchy, bully for them. I'm certainly not about to get into the business of spreading anarchy by the sword.

I doubt the world would ever be all or mostly or even largely anarchic, but right now I don't even have the choice, even if a bunch of like-minded people and I decided we wanted to buy a lot of contiguous land in New Hampshire, hire a security contractor, and declare ourselves independent of the US. We would be crushed like bugs.

And why? Fundamentally, for the following two reasons:

(1) You don't really own your land. The government owns it; you simply take care of it for them until the point at which they want it back.

(2) You owe taxes. It doesn't matter that you are willing---hell, thrilled!---to pay per-use for those things you use. Dammit, you owe the state money just because they say so, and you can eat a dick if you don't like how the mob, through their elected mob bosses and enforced by their gang of thugs, spends it.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 11:23am | #

The Jim Crow laws of the south violated freedom of association. They mandated that business owners had to have separate facilities for blacks and whites, that blacks couldn't eat at the lunch counter, etc.

Even if true (I simply don't know specifically what Jim Crow laws did or did not do), the civil rights laws went too far in the other direction: instead of leaving it up to the property owner, as the 1st requires, they told property owners how to run their businesses.

The resulting doctrine of the "public accommodation" is the foundation on which the modern nanny state is built. But don't expect it to stop there, as recent moves to ban smoking in private vehicles and homes has demonstrated.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 11:25am | #

Even if true (I simply don't know specifically what Jim Crow laws did or did not do), the civil rights laws went too far in the other direction: instead of leaving it up to the property owner, as the 1st requires, they told property owners how to run their businesses.

The resulting doctrine of the "public accommodation" is the foundation on which the modern nanny state is built. But don't expect it to stop there, as recent moves to ban smoking in private vehicles and homes has demonstrated.

Yes, the civil rights laws mandating things are bullshit as is affirmative action, bushing, "fair housing" etc.

James Bovard in particular has written some good articles on what a farce fair housing is. Ex., if you happen to mention theres a Synagogue near by, you're violating the act. If you even say "walking distance to the subway" you're violating the act by discriminating against people in wheel chairs. Its truly inane.

robc | December 3, 2007, 11:26am | #

We would be crushed like bugs.

Thanks for proving my point. Metastable.

parse | December 3, 2007, 11:27am | #

I wonder what definition of "hurt" you are using that precludes "suffers a serious financial loss."

The definition that says self-inflicted harm is not a "hurt" requiring a legislative band-aid.

RC Dean, I already said I didn't think the legislative band aid is required. Do you think "Any self inflicted harm is not a hurt"? I think it's better to say "Yeah, some people get hurt gambling. I'm not willing to give the state additional power (and deprive individuals of their liberty) to protect those people from themselves."

Another problem with emphasizing the "self inflicted" part of the equation is that it can feed the notion that any harm that isn't self inflicted entitles the person who suffered it to some goverment remedy. I think families of gamblers are also sometimes hurt, through no fault of their own, by the losses that gamblers suffer. Should government intervene to prevent that?

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 11:35am | #

> We would be crushed like bugs.

Thanks for proving my point. Metastable.

I imagine your trying to set up a minarchist state on the same set of land as my hypothetical anarchy would have the same result, with all the attendant dick-eating. :-) I don't think that proves minarchy is metastable.

Micha Ghertner | December 3, 2007, 11:41am | #

Anarchy would be fine, if it could last.

Minarchism would be fine, if it could last.

Actually, that's not entirely true. There are two main objections minarchists have against anarchy: the public goods argument (absent state subsidy, the provision of rule-making, adjudicative, and enforcement services will be underproduced) and the abusive monopoly argument (the objection voiced in this thread - that anarchy is unstable because of power imbalances).

However, these two minarchist objections to anarchy do not alone justify a minimal state that itself provides these goods; rather, these objections, if valid, merely justify a remedial state that ensures that these services are provided. This is the same as the distinction libertarians constantly make between public schools and school vouchers: if it is the case that a free market alone will fail to produce an efficient level of education, then the correct response is state subsidy of education, not state provision.

This argument is taken from John Hasnas' "Reflections on the Minimal State", 2 Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 115 (2003)

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 11:45am | #

Who are the top two Lobbyists in the Nation for the Gambling industry?

Answer:

Frank Farenkoph, former Republican National Chairman & Poker Players Alliance Chairman Alfronse D'Amato.

Wanna run that by me again? What was that? Republicans don't support Gambling?

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 11:46am | #

Wanna run that by me again? What was that? Republicans don't support Gambling?

You would make a great engineer, Dondero: proof by example.

Sigh.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 11:48am | #

Andrew, look I understand exactly where you are coming from. Of course, you have to maintain the myth; that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. So, when it's pointed out to your that it's Democrats these days, in 90% of the instances who are banning everything from smoking at the beach to the right of off-roader vehicles to ride on dunes in southern Cal, you have to do everything you can to deride such information.

You see, if that myth is ever busted, it would mean that the Libertarian Party IS indeed aligned with the GOP. Then people will start scratching their heads, and saying, "well, wait a second, why don't I just run as a Republican, when I'll have a better chance of actually winning."

I've got your number Andrew. You're just succeeding at fitting the stereotypical partisan LPer to a tee.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 11:52am | #

Donderoooooo, look at the link to the House vote above. Why was it sponsored by two Republicans? Why did far more Democrats than Republicans vote against it? Why were those Democrats that did vote against it almost entirely form "red" states?

Please explain this to me. Pretty please?

bill | December 3, 2007, 11:53am | #

Wait a minute. According to the video it's only illegal for the House to take a cut. Why were the individuals charged with illegal gambling? Only the VFW post was violating the law.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 11:54am | #

Should read, "those Democrats that did vote for it."

Micha Ghertner | December 3, 2007, 12:29pm | #

it's Democrats these days, in 90% of the instances who are banning everything from smoking at the beach to the right of off-roader vehicles to ride on dunes in southern Cal,

Maybe it's just me, but the losses associated with the Iraq war make the loss of a right to ride off-road vehicle on dunes (as unjust as it may be) look a little silly in comparison:

"What has the big government program they favored brought? The cost in dollars will far exceed a trillion, but the economic loss goes far beyond that, once we consider the credit expansion, opportunity costs and mass destruction of wealth involved. The cost in life is almost too gruesome to contemplate. And many thousands of America’s young men and women are now forever wounded, physically and psychologically. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans were slaughtered and millions lost their homes."

Shorter Dondero: Pay no attention to the trillion plus dollars lost and thousands dead due to our misguided foreign adventures, THOSE DEMS WONT LET YOU RIDE YOUR MOTOR SCOOTER!

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Pay no attention to the trillions of dollars we'll need to spend to fight the Islamo-Fascists if they succeed in aligning with the Mexican Drug Cartels, and are on our borders with Mexico within two years, and we're forced to fight them on our own soil.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 12:46pm | #

As a rational environmentalist (we do exist), I have seen first hand what an off road vehicle can do the landscape in an arid ecosystem. I haven't seen how long said ecosystem takes to recover because I stoppped driving past the scar (San Diego County) after seven years.

Just sayin'.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Dondero, please respond to my two above posts about the internet gambling ban and how its biggest supporters were Republicans and red state Dems before bringing up the IslamofascistThreatToMexico.

robc | December 3, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Pay no attention to the trillions of dollars we'll need to spend to fight the Islamo-Fascists if they succeed in aligning with the Mexican Drug Cartels, and are on our borders with Mexico within two years, and we're forced to fight them on our own soil.

Ending the WoD solves that problem. Legalization either kills off the cartels or turns them legitimate.

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 12:54pm | #

I didn't know Reason did bumps in its blog topics.

Mike M. | December 3, 2007, 12:56pm | #

Isn't it great that we treat our military veterans so well here in America these days?

I wonder if people would still get the SWAT team treatment if they were playing contract bridge, Old Maid, or UNO for money instead of poker, or if it's simply that poker has become too big and popular in the last few years and has therefore been deemed the new domestic menace.

de stijl | December 3, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Not just any old VFW - they hit the freaking Audie Murphy post!

danishgirl | December 3, 2007, 12:58pm | #

This happened just down the street from me. They were playing for a lot of money and as far as I know, gambling is illegal in the state of Texas.

Do I think it was ridiculous that over a dozen police officers were sent in on a bunch of older men and women? Of course! However, they were still breaking the law.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 1:05pm | #

However, they were still breaking the law.

As a patriotic, freedom loving, American, I try to break a law every single day. It's so easy.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 1:11pm | #

Illegal!=immoral.

Have you ever smoked marijuana danish girl? Jaywalked? Been speeding?

Brian Sorgatz | December 3, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Whoa! In the course of a few minutes, this Reason.tv plug traveled quite a ways up the blog column.

Nancy | December 3, 2007, 1:16pm | #

From now on I'm countering every argument for or against something with a reference to the Iraq war and how much it costs. And to think it took me this long to see the wit.

Micha Ghertner | December 3, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Pay no attention to the trillions of dollars we'll need to spend to fight the Islamo-Fascists if they succeed in aligning with the Mexican Drug Cartels, and are on our borders with Mexico within two years, and we're forced to fight them on our own soil.

So, Eric, you would never support a candidate (like Rudy) or a party (like the Repubs) who advocates the continuation of the war on drugs, right? Cause that would mean you are indirectly supporting the Mexican Drug Cartels (which wouldn't exist in the absence of the WoD), who, in your estimation, will soon be teaming up with oh-so-scary-and-powerful IslamoFascists to form a supervillain group the likes of which we've never seen, and which only a superhero group along the lines of the Green Lantern Corps could ever hope to stop.

So that must mean you support Ron Paul and/or the Libertarian Party, right Dondero? Otherwise you'd be supporting terrorism, and we wouldn't want that.

Brandybuck | December 3, 2007, 1:20pm | #

The only path to anarchy, short of the massive chaos and unheaval of violent revolution, is through minarchy. Thus I continue to promote minarchy.

Ska | December 3, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Beware of a military invasion of the US by Islamic fundamentalists via Mexico.

Alllllllllllrrrriiiiiiiiiiighty then.

Chris | December 3, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Now how is the government going to tax your winnings properly if you don't gamble in the designated gambling areas?

If they can't tax it, you can't have it.

creech | December 3, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Let's hope that the Ron Paul group in Dallas is out there in front of the courthouse with
"Free the VFW (whatever number)" signs. Libertarians can make use of photo ops too.

Ska | December 3, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Now, now, J sub D - freedom is submitting to authority. Haven't you learned anything yet?

bill | December 3, 2007, 1:54pm | #

@danishgirl

Did you watch the video. According to the attorney it's only illegal for the HOUSE, the establishment were the game is taking place, to take a cut of the money. It's NOT ILLEGAL for individuals to wager amongst themselves. I am of course taking his word on the matter.

Brian | December 3, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Someone asked when the last person shot over a game of cards was--it happened in New York City recently. By armed robbers. Turns out that when gambling and private gun ownership are both illegal, these underground poker games are a sweet target for criminals.

Legalize gambling, and the clubs could get legitimate security and police protection.

Legalize gun ownership, and the clubs could defend themselves.

If it weren't for New York's nannying, Frank DeSera would probably be alive today.

Andrew | December 3, 2007, 1:59pm | #

One of the problems with trying to communicate with Donerdooooooo is that I'm never sure when it's the real Dondi versus when it's a parody.

But seriously, if you really are claiming that the Dems are behind 90% of the nanny state stuff, you're either stupid, naive, both, or you're a puppet with Giuliani's hand up your butt. Either way.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Its worth pointing out that Mexico was very close to ending their own drug war until the Bush administration strong-armed them into changing course.

I'm Dan T. and I Approve This Stupid Fucking Post | December 3, 2007, 2:10pm | #

But gambling is a net drain on society. It is a violation of the social contract we all signed when we slipped out of our mommy's vagina.

CharlesWT | December 3, 2007, 2:12pm | #

"...including the openly Lesbian/Radically Feminist Police Chief."

That's Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, not the City of Dallas Chief of Police.

R C Dean | December 3, 2007, 2:14pm | #

They were playing for a lot of money and as far as I know, gambling is illegal in the state of Texas.

It is perfectly legal to play poker for money in Texas. What is not legal is for the house to charge you for the privilege.

whit | December 3, 2007, 2:27pm | #

"No one gets hurt when consenting adults sit down for a game of cards"

i 100% support the right to play cards, and i 100% oppose the actions of liberal states like WA that make online poker a C felony.

with that in mind, saying "no one gets hurt" in a game of poker is absurd.

the point is that it's none of the govt.'s business. poker games are zero sum (and that's w/o counting the rake). some people get hurt, others make $$$$.

but saying nobody gets hurt in a poker game (for money) is laughable rhetoric and hurts the cause, cause it's false.

an analogy would be like those who are agains the war on drugs (like me), but make claims like "marijuana is 100% safe". no drug is 100% safe. rhetoric is bad.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Andrew, if you're never sure or not if it is indeed me, simple solution. Pick up the damn phone and ask.

My cell #832-896-9505.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 2:43pm | #

I do stand corrected on the Dallas Police Chief. Indeed Lupe Valdez is Dallas County Sheriff, not Dallas-City Police Chief. But this doesn't change the fact, that this happend under a Democrat Mayor. And one would presume, that a Democrat Mayor would appoint a Democrat City Police Chief, as well.

The fundamental point is this: Since Tom Leppert was elected Mayor last June, has the Dallas Police Dept. been raiding poker games, as they were under the previous Mayor?

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 2:48pm | #

The fundamental point is this: Since Tom Leppert was elected Mayor last June, has the Dallas Police Dept. been raiding poker games, as they were under the previous Mayor.

And my fundamental point is banning internet gambling was fundamentally a Republican idea. Thoughts, Dondi?

First Little Pig | December 3, 2007, 2:52pm | #

"They were playing for a lot of money and as far as I know, gambling is illegal in the state of Texas."

Written to comments on a blog in which probably 90% of participants believe that gambling should be legal -- that the state has no right to interfere in this private, consensual activity....

Click my name for some red meat re Ghouliani and gambling in NYC under his helm. He advocated casinos in NYC so that the city could make lots of money and he hounded casino boat operators fiercely, making it impossible for them to do business in the NYC area. In other words, gambling was fine as long as he got money for NYC but was not if he did not get his take.

J sub D | December 3, 2007, 2:52pm | #

Thoughts, Dondi?

Cesar, there's no there, there.

Read it aloud and it makes sense.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 3:19pm | #

I'm sorry I responded to him, but it was so easy to give him a thorough ass kicking on the subject I couldn't help myself.

drworm | December 3, 2007, 3:41pm | #

I believe the problem here is not the fact that people are gambling, they are just gambling without the state or federal gubment getting a piece of the action. Just like when someone is running numbers or sports booking without Tony Saprano getting his piece, he is going to bust you up until he does. same exact thing. Thats what this gubment has turned into organized crime. except this organized crime has no watchdog.

John Rhoads | December 3, 2007, 3:42pm | #

but saying nobody gets hurt in a poker game (for money) is laughable rhetoric and hurts the cause, cause it's false.

It depends on what you mean by hurt. Generally, I don't feel that I've been hurt when I lose playing poker anymore than I feel I have been hurt if I spend $10 to see a movie. In either case I'm spending money for entertainment, and I don't see why the fact that it is possible the I might make money for my night of entertainment suddenly transforms this transaction into one in which I have been hurt.

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Cesar,

I understand the urge. I refrain (mostly) by recalling when Awik called me a pussy for disagreeing with one of his other, incredibly stupid points.

Remember that Dondi? Or were you too far into your fifth bottle of Tequila that day?

Reinmoose | December 3, 2007, 4:31pm | #

Cesar -
You really haven't lived until you've been personally threatened by Dondi. I recall him saying something about reaching through the screen...

Manny the Old Timer | December 3, 2007, 4:38pm | #

Any one of the fathers of any of those cops would be embarrassed. What a disgrace.

Cesar | December 3, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Remember that Dondi? Or were you too far into your fifth bottle of Tequila that day?

I seriously think hes drunk half the time he comes on here. The stuff he posts, the all caps, the rage. Hes like the internets version of that drunken douchebag at the local sports bar.

And having a few shots or a few beers and fooling around on the internet is a bad, bad, bad idea. Particularly if you're surfing ebay.

Aresen | December 3, 2007, 4:50pm | #

When was the last time someone was shot over a game of cards?

The State of Michigan vs. Helen Davies (1998)
Kenneth Menzies had bid a small slam (doubled and vulnerable) in hearts, but had 3 losing diamonds and a losing spade trick. Helen led a small spade to her husband Arthur, who took it with his Ace. Then, despite the fact that dummy (Claire Menzies) was showing a void in spades after playing her singleton five, Arthur led back his King of Spades, allowing the Menzies to trump it from dummy.

After taking the trump cards held by the Davies, Arthur led his singleton club back to the 150 club honors in his partners' hand. He ruffed his losing diamond tricks on dummy's clubs, then went on to make the contract and rubber by cross-trumping his spades and the diamonds in dummy.

The jury acquitted Helen Davies of murdering her husband, ruling justifiable homicide.

The judge did, however, sentence Helen Davies to five years without parole for not taking the diamond tricks first.

In a final note, Helen Davies was fatally stabbed in 2001 by her partner during a bridge tournament at The Michigan State Women's Penitentiary when she doubled a four spade contract despite having only 4 high card points and a void in spades.

R C Dean | December 3, 2007, 5:44pm | #

After taking the trump cards held by the Davies, Arthur led his singleton club back to the 150 club honors in his partners' hand. He ruffed his losing diamond tricks on dummy's clubs, then went on to make the contract and rubber by cross-trumping his spades and the diamonds in dummy.

I'd've shot the bastard, too, for setting that up. No wonder the jury acquitted.

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 6:04pm | #

After taking the trump cards held by the Davies, Arthur led his singleton club back to the 150 club honors in his partners' hand. He ruffed his losing diamond tricks on dummy's clubs, then went on to make the contract and rubber by cross-trumping his spades and the diamonds in dummy.

This must happen all the time. I see stories about bridge in the paper every day.

Eric Dondero | December 3, 2007, 6:40pm | #

Again, I'll ask the question. Why are you all avoiding the most important aspect of this story? The fact that this happened in a very liberal politically correct city run by Democrats?

Was it an accident that all these PC libs went after conservative Veterans?

Try to imagine if you will, the Dallas Police doing the same to a favored minority group holding a poker match in a bar. Or for that matter, at some Gay joint. Could you imagine the outcry?

Nope, gotta go after "those damn Re-publicans..."

RedWhite&Brooklyn | December 3, 2007, 7:35pm | #

"conservative Veterans"???? What planet are you living on? Bushworld? Cheneyland?

With one exception that I know of, all of the vets coming back from our debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan who are running for congress are Democrats (and it's the Democratic Party, knuckleheads... not the Democrat Party. If you want to drop part of the name because you mouth is too dumb and lazy to say a four syllable word, we get to call you guys the Repug Party. Idiots!), and not what the press would call "conservative" Democrats, either.

Almost every fellow vet I know has no stomach for the chickenhawks, draftdoger tough talkers and AWOL Commander-in-Theif that the Repug Party has given us, and they knew, even before 9-11, how Bush was slashing funds for the VA hospitals, and have been gladly voting Democratic.

Assuming that someone is a Repug or a "conservative" because he is a Veteran is bull____. Most of the members of Congress & the Senate who have a DD-214 on their wall are Democrats, while not even one member of senior White House staff has one.

Nobody Important | December 4, 2007, 8:53am | #

Taktix® | December 3, 2007, 7:25am
I imagine legislators have seen too many westerns. When was the last time someone was shot over a game of cards?

Not cards, but Sal Culosi was shot to death for betting on sports games.

Read "In Virginia, The Death Penalty for Gambling". Remember that the illegal bet was prompted by the undercover cop investigating Culosi. A follow up here.

And then there's this:

A guard paid to watch over an underground poker games isn't going to engage in a deadly shootout with the police. If two uniformed officers come to the door, they may try to stall while the game gets cleaned up. But they aren't going to come out firing over what will likely be a series of misdemeanor charges. They may come out shooting, however, if a black-clad SWAT team batters down the door and comes in with weapons drawn, and the guards mistake the police for another attempted armed robbery -- which is exactly what happened a few years ago in Virginia Beach, when security guard Edward C. Reed was killed by a SWAT team while guarding a private club where suspected gambling was going on.

More about that incident here.

lowkey | December 7, 2007, 12:48pm | #

squarooticus | December 3, 2007, 8:24am | #
Until a minarchist can convince me that it's okay for government to possess an unchallenged and unchallengeable monopoly, I will continue to promote capitalist anarchy.

There's the flaw in your logic. The government does not have an unchallengeable monopoly. It may be currently unchallenged but it is the duty of the people to stand up to abusive government which the 1st and 2nd amendment provide plenty of backing for.

Greyfury | December 8, 2007, 3:45am | #

To The Citizens Of Dallas:

How can you live in this country and let such unamerican assholes run your city? When you live in as dangerous a city as yours and 'The Police' deem it necessary to raid a friendly poker game at a VFW no less. It must have been a very slow night with nothing else to do, huh??? I would be so up in arms that I would not rest till every last person, from the lowliest police officer the highest ranking official, even if it went to the mayor or governor, lost their jobs!!!!!