Talk:CA's Prop 68

From Libertarian Wiki

The reason why the LP of California Executive Committee didn't take a position on Prop 68 is simply that no one had presented us with a compelling case by the time we considered the propositions at our August meeting. - M Carling 9:01, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Backwards position (NPOV)

The only reason I knew anything about this issue was that I happened to play poker in a few LA-area cardrooms before Election Day.

If the LP's position was No (pro-Indian gaming), then the LP's position was a status quo that entails the very Statist use of goverment power to favor one class of business (Indian gaming) over another class of business (local cardrooms). As I understand it, the point was that the state wanted to get revenue in lieu of taxes from the Indian casinos, and proposed to do it by allowing slots in the local cardrooms as well. Now, I'm not for state extortion, but the State shouldn't be restricting slots to the Indian reservations in the first place. The only reason there was anything to extort was because of Statist meddling in gaming.

I understand the position that any tax (or remittance in lieu of tax) is wrong, and anti-Libertarian, but I disagree. In issues like this the Libertarian is forced to identify the second-best outcome. In other words:

1. No restrictions on urban cardrooms; no restrictions on Indian casinos. (This would happen if 68 passed and the Indian casinos refused to pay, but it shouldn't require all that.)
2. (68 passes; Indian casinos cede) Restrictions remain on slots at urban cardrooms; Indian casinos retain slots, but are expected to pay a "tax" like the cardrooms do.
3. Status quo: Restrictions and tax on urban cardrooms; no restriction and no tax on Indian casinos

I fully agree that 2 and 3 are far worse than 1. The question is, which is worse, 2 or 3? I would argue that 3, although involving less "tax", is worse to a Libertarian, because the authority of the state is favoring some enterprises over others. 2 is bad, but at least it's bad in a way that's fairer to all actors. So in my book, to oppose a somewhat Statist view, the LP apparently took an even worse position: Some forms of business deserve State sanction above other forms. Yuck!

At the very least, this article doesn't represent a universally-obvious Libertarian view, so I've marked it NPOV.

NOTE: I'm assuming in the above discussion that the stated view is that of the local LP, not just of one author. Apologies if this isn't the case.

EqualOpportunityCynic 07:42, 7 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Why even debate this? It failed on Nov. 2, 2004. The link to the oppose website is dead. The LP of California state excom took no position, as stated above by M Carling. The position on the content page is the position of the editors, mainly myself. On other controversial propositions, both sides were presented. No one added a pro side by the time of the election. Paul Studier 17:16, 7 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Oh, it has very little relevance now -- I just happened to find it through surfing today and was a little surprised to find this presented as the Libertarian position. As you correctly state, it's a dead issue now, unless the issue resurfaces in future initiatives or someone consults the page for archival purposes. - EqualOpportunityCynic 17:31, 7 Jun 2005 (PDT)