From: Karen Selick (kselick@westernstandard.ca)
To: Michael Coren (mcoren@westernstandard.ca)
Date: Nov 6, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Government hypocrisy
The Ontario government recently announced new legislation to ban the advertising of Internet gambling sites. Surprisingly, a spokesman admitted that one motivation was to stop the revenue losses at government-authorized casinos and racetracks. Apparently, gambling addicts aren't the only ones with a habit--the province is also addicted to the tax rake-off from the gambling institutions it licenses and controls. Meanwhile, it mouths platitudes about protecting young people from online gambling. The province also monopolizes liquor sales through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, again purportedly to protect the public. But a glossy flyer arrived with my newspaper recently, inviting me to a free LCBO whiskey tasting. Why is the government pushing booze? This "protecting the public" stuff is utter hypocrisy. The province doesn't want to stamp out vice or protect the vulnerable. It just wants to monopolize the revenues from vice--like any other organized crime syndicate. It should knock off the benevolent parent pose.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
From: Michael Coren (mcoren@westernstandard.ca)
To: Karen Selick (kselick@westernstandard.ca)
Date: Nov 6, 2006 12:45 PM
Subject: re: Government hypocrisy
I agree with you that Canadian governments tend to be hypocritical about these issues. When it comes to tobacco control, for example, the only two logical and ethically consistent choices are to ban it altogether or to tax it like any other product. In other words, if our elected leaders are so protective of our health, they should make it impossible rather than merely financially difficult for people to kill themselves through nicotine use. The better policy is to allow people to make their own decisions. And genuine freedom necessitates the possibility of making the wrong or bad choice. The real issue, however, is more significant than hypocrisy. The same political class that obsesses about tobacco and gambling refuses to address the real causes and addictions behind the greater health and moral crises of AIDS, STDs, family breakdown and abortion. It taxes bad habits but virtually encourages bad lifestyles.
From: Karen Selick (kselick@westernstandard.ca)
To: Michael Coren (mcoren@westernstandard.ca)
Date: Nov 6, 2006 2:18 PM
Subject: re: Government hypocrisy
You're right--hypocrisy is not the worst thing governments do. But when they posture about protecting people's health and pocketbooks, while simultaneously cashing in on people's folly and weakness, they create confusion about the state's proper role. Clearly, governments should quit being hypocritical, but the more interesting question is whether the state should protect people from their own vices, even if it were sincere about wanting to do so. I say no. That's not what governments are for. That's a role for family, friends, counsellors and spiritual advisers. Governments exist to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but not from being harmed by themselves. Too much nannying makes people dependent and irresponsible. These days, governments use socialized medicine as the excuse for intervening. "We have to protect people from smoking or drinking or eating wrong because we're paying for their health care." There's an easy solution to that one--privatize health care.
From: Michael Coren (mcoren@westernstandard.ca)
To: Karen Selick (kselick@westernstandard.ca)
Date: Nov 6, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: re: Government hypocrisy
The answer is somewhere in the middle. In other words, practicality before ideology. The legal system, police, controlled borders, immigration and defence of the state are all legitimate roles for government. Liberty is not an icon to be worshipped but a means for people to lead their lives with the most happiness possible. So, for example, it is entirely acceptable for the state to prevent someone from being falsely labelled a murderer or a thief, but too intrusive for that state to control speech that may merely be offensive. The war on tobacco and alcohol is intellectually dishonest and reveals the modern dilemma. The point I was making was that even when we knew that AIDS was devastating the homosexual community, we were too frightened to question homosexual sex. Yet at the same time, we spent a fortune trying to dissuade people from smoking the occasional cigarette--ideology before practicality.
No comments:
Post a Comment