Illinois General Assembly, video gaming, and a lesson on law
I’m changing direction this week. Although I plan more posts on healthcare nationalized, this week I’m going to cover the State of Illinois and its new push to increase revenue by allowing gambling/video gaming throughout the State.
I had intended to end my series on video gaming on Saturday. However, I have more to say and it seems apparent that healthcare nationalized will not occur this week and may not occur this year—nor should it.
Therefore, I’m going to write a few more posts on video gaming and then return to healthcare nationalized.
I am saddened that it seems necessary to write a post to remind government officials of the purpose of laws. However, from the video gaming law it seems apparent that a majority of our State legislature do not have a clue.
So tonight, a very basic and brief civic lesson for government officials:
I actually used a very small portion of the following in a Bible study class I taught Sunday morning teaching junior high school students.
What entities determine right from wrong? The answer is five different entities.
1) The first is oneself. We each, over time, develop our own concept of right and wrong. The Bible condemns individuals and groups (the Jewish nation) for “doing that which is right in their own eyes.” If everyone did “that which is right in his own eyes,” we would have, by definition, anarchy. If everyone did “that which is right in his own eyes,” he/she could justify murdering his neighbor for doing him harm because it was “right in his own eyes.”
2) The second is parents/family. For years, there has seemed to be an attack on the basic structure of society—parents and families. This attack seems to be to weaken the authority and ability of parents and the family to hand down the basic tenets of right and wrong. However, that’s a whole different topic that I can’t deal with tonight. Perhaps at some future time.
3) The third is society/culture. Every society/culture has its set standards of right and wrong. These, of course, can fluctuate and change over time.
For the above three entities, most of the values concerning right and wrong are not written down but rather develop over time and are passed forward from generation to generation. Of course, interaction between all three groups is normally occurring which changes and alters the concepts of right and wrong. However, there are always concepts of right and wrong no matter how distorted they might seem to others and/or outsiders.
4) The fourth is government. Society early on learned that to prevent anarchy, laws (rules and regulations) had to be developed to protect the members of society. And that is the purpose of State governments—to protect their citizens and others within their boundaries. For everyone to know and understand the laws, they had to be written down. To have an impact upon the society, the laws also had to be enforced and had to have some sanction imposed upon those who violated the laws.
The argument used by some that governments can’t legislate morality is PURE, TOTAL nonsense. All laws are written for that very purpose—to regulate right and wrong. Tax laws are part of the equation because all governments need the financial ability to enforce the rules and regulations and to provide the required sanctions when the rules and regulations are violated. If governments can’t regulate morality then all laws against murder would be useless. Of course, no law completely eliminates all occurrences of the behavior that is being regulated.
In fact, any law results in one of four reactions by people who make up the society. Who is a part of each of the four groups may change from law to law and the percent of members in the society who are in each of the four groups will change from law to law. Nevertheless, there are, for practical purposes, always four groups.
1) There are some people who never needed or will never need the law to be passed. According to their value system of right and wrong, they would never participate in that behavior. Thus, even if there was no law, their behavior would not change. For example, being opposed to gambling, they would not participate in video gaming if illegal and they would not participate in video gaming if legal. Their behavior in that specific area will not change whether legal or illegal.
2) There are those who will do as they please regardless of the law. If the behavior is illegal they will do it anyway except to the extent they fear being caught and punished. Thus, they would not murder someone next to a policeman unless that policeman was involved. But, if they felt it was appropriate and they had dismissed enforcement or sanctions, they would have no qualms with committing murder. Thus, even if video gaming is illegal, they would still participate in that illegal behavior.
3) There are those who will not participate in a behavior if it is illegal, but if legal, they will. Often, this group is the most important of the four groups in relation to that particular law. Whether or not a specific activity is legal or illegal DOES have a great impact on these individuals. How many there are in this group does vary however. And this is one area that I have not read about in any of the news stories on video gaming.
How many more people will gamble because video gaming is NOW legal who did NOT gamble before when it was illegal? Did the State legislature even consider this? How many more lives will be ruined through a change in the law. A change that now says that video gaming is perfectly acceptable—it is no longer wrong behavior—and has the BLESSING of State government. How many people will this change in law CORRUPT in the name of generating MORE revenue for the State?
4) The fourth group is between groups two and three. Under the appropriate circumstance(s) they will participate in an illegal activity but they do not have the attitude of the second group that I will do it regardless of the law. In general, they weight, in part, whether or not the law will be enforced and if the sanctions that could be placed upon the individual is a sufficient deterrent. For example, if the law is vigorously enforced and if the penalty is conceived as high, the individuals would be less likely to participate in the behavior. If enforcement is lax and penalties are slight, they will be more likely to participate.
We know that, at one time, gambling including video gaming was considered improper, wrong behavior. How do we know this? Because there were laws against the behavior. Governments do not rationally have laws prohibiting positive, right behavior.
And yet, I have not read one instance of any legislator claiming that gambling including video gaming is now positive, right behavior. What I have read are rationalizations. For example, “It will provide jobs!” Nonsense. It is a transfer of money. It may provide different types of jobs than would be provided with a different mix of spending. However, it can not provide new jobs because it is a transfer of money from one group (individual gamblers) to other groups (governments, video gaming machine makers, shop owners who provide video gaming, and some actual winners).
What is this new law? It’s a scheme to give MORE money and power to State government. It’s a “the ends justify the means” concept of providing more money to State government even though it will undoubtedly increase gambling addiction and cause local problems. And the State knows it! Why else would they provide money within the law for “programs for the treatment of compulsive gambling,” prohibit the use of the machines for people under the age of twenty-one, and provide a means for both communities and unincorporated areas of a county to opt out of the law?
Did your Representative vote to increase gambling in Illinois? Why? Did your Senator vote to increase gambling in Illinois? Why?
I’m changing direction this week. Although I plan more posts on healthcare nationalized, this week I’m going to cover the State of Illinois and its new push to increase revenue by allowing gambling/video gaming throughout the State.
I had intended to end my series on video gaming on Saturday. However, I have more to say and it seems apparent that healthcare nationalized will not occur this week and may not occur this year—nor should it.
Therefore, I’m going to write a few more posts on video gaming and then return to healthcare nationalized.
I am saddened that it seems necessary to write a post to remind government officials of the purpose of laws. However, from the video gaming law it seems apparent that a majority of our State legislature do not have a clue.
So tonight, a very basic and brief civic lesson for government officials:
I actually used a very small portion of the following in a Bible study class I taught Sunday morning teaching junior high school students.
What entities determine right from wrong? The answer is five different entities.
1) The first is oneself. We each, over time, develop our own concept of right and wrong. The Bible condemns individuals and groups (the Jewish nation) for “doing that which is right in their own eyes.” If everyone did “that which is right in his own eyes,” we would have, by definition, anarchy. If everyone did “that which is right in his own eyes,” he/she could justify murdering his neighbor for doing him harm because it was “right in his own eyes.”
2) The second is parents/family. For years, there has seemed to be an attack on the basic structure of society—parents and families. This attack seems to be to weaken the authority and ability of parents and the family to hand down the basic tenets of right and wrong. However, that’s a whole different topic that I can’t deal with tonight. Perhaps at some future time.
3) The third is society/culture. Every society/culture has its set standards of right and wrong. These, of course, can fluctuate and change over time.
For the above three entities, most of the values concerning right and wrong are not written down but rather develop over time and are passed forward from generation to generation. Of course, interaction between all three groups is normally occurring which changes and alters the concepts of right and wrong. However, there are always concepts of right and wrong no matter how distorted they might seem to others and/or outsiders.
4) The fourth is government. Society early on learned that to prevent anarchy, laws (rules and regulations) had to be developed to protect the members of society. And that is the purpose of State governments—to protect their citizens and others within their boundaries. For everyone to know and understand the laws, they had to be written down. To have an impact upon the society, the laws also had to be enforced and had to have some sanction imposed upon those who violated the laws.
The argument used by some that governments can’t legislate morality is PURE, TOTAL nonsense. All laws are written for that very purpose—to regulate right and wrong. Tax laws are part of the equation because all governments need the financial ability to enforce the rules and regulations and to provide the required sanctions when the rules and regulations are violated. If governments can’t regulate morality then all laws against murder would be useless. Of course, no law completely eliminates all occurrences of the behavior that is being regulated.
In fact, any law results in one of four reactions by people who make up the society. Who is a part of each of the four groups may change from law to law and the percent of members in the society who are in each of the four groups will change from law to law. Nevertheless, there are, for practical purposes, always four groups.
1) There are some people who never needed or will never need the law to be passed. According to their value system of right and wrong, they would never participate in that behavior. Thus, even if there was no law, their behavior would not change. For example, being opposed to gambling, they would not participate in video gaming if illegal and they would not participate in video gaming if legal. Their behavior in that specific area will not change whether legal or illegal.
2) There are those who will do as they please regardless of the law. If the behavior is illegal they will do it anyway except to the extent they fear being caught and punished. Thus, they would not murder someone next to a policeman unless that policeman was involved. But, if they felt it was appropriate and they had dismissed enforcement or sanctions, they would have no qualms with committing murder. Thus, even if video gaming is illegal, they would still participate in that illegal behavior.
3) There are those who will not participate in a behavior if it is illegal, but if legal, they will. Often, this group is the most important of the four groups in relation to that particular law. Whether or not a specific activity is legal or illegal DOES have a great impact on these individuals. How many there are in this group does vary however. And this is one area that I have not read about in any of the news stories on video gaming.
How many more people will gamble because video gaming is NOW legal who did NOT gamble before when it was illegal? Did the State legislature even consider this? How many more lives will be ruined through a change in the law. A change that now says that video gaming is perfectly acceptable—it is no longer wrong behavior—and has the BLESSING of State government. How many people will this change in law CORRUPT in the name of generating MORE revenue for the State?
4) The fourth group is between groups two and three. Under the appropriate circumstance(s) they will participate in an illegal activity but they do not have the attitude of the second group that I will do it regardless of the law. In general, they weight, in part, whether or not the law will be enforced and if the sanctions that could be placed upon the individual is a sufficient deterrent. For example, if the law is vigorously enforced and if the penalty is conceived as high, the individuals would be less likely to participate in the behavior. If enforcement is lax and penalties are slight, they will be more likely to participate.
We know that, at one time, gambling including video gaming was considered improper, wrong behavior. How do we know this? Because there were laws against the behavior. Governments do not rationally have laws prohibiting positive, right behavior.
And yet, I have not read one instance of any legislator claiming that gambling including video gaming is now positive, right behavior. What I have read are rationalizations. For example, “It will provide jobs!” Nonsense. It is a transfer of money. It may provide different types of jobs than would be provided with a different mix of spending. However, it can not provide new jobs because it is a transfer of money from one group (individual gamblers) to other groups (governments, video gaming machine makers, shop owners who provide video gaming, and some actual winners).
What is this new law? It’s a scheme to give MORE money and power to State government. It’s a “the ends justify the means” concept of providing more money to State government even though it will undoubtedly increase gambling addiction and cause local problems. And the State knows it! Why else would they provide money within the law for “programs for the treatment of compulsive gambling,” prohibit the use of the machines for people under the age of twenty-one, and provide a means for both communities and unincorporated areas of a county to opt out of the law?
Did your Representative vote to increase gambling in Illinois? Why? Did your Senator vote to increase gambling in Illinois? Why?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home