A La Carte (11/18)

Why is McKellan so threatened by an obvious work of fiction (in his mind) that he has to destroy other people’s property? Does he go to the library and set fire to the books he doesn’t like, as well? I thought liberals thought printed matter was sacrosanct no matter what the contents. I’m soooooooo confused.

Yeah, I don’t think Johnson’s argument works at all. The point that it always involve someone losing, and sometimes when they can’t afford it, is equally an argument against buying and selling things. I can only make a profit in my store if people voluntarily “lose” their money. And maybe the stuff they buy isn’t a good decision for them, despite it being something that really could give value to someone else, so in reality, they DON’T gain any value. Does that mean I shouldn’t have a store?

IMO gambling is one of those things that is best avoided nearly all the time, and definitely by those for whom it creates even a twinge of conscience. But I do think Johnson has a conclusion looking for an argument, which is how nearly all of the absolutist anti-gambling arguments I’ve seen work.

And, BTW, the word “gambling” is itself fuzzy. There are some things that we call gambling that really don’t fit any of Johnson’s arguments. Is giving a five-dollar donation to the volunteer fire company and maybe getting a fruit basket in return morally the same thing as playing the slots?

I don’t mean to qualify the issue out of existence, only to say that if you’re going to condemn a whole laundry list of things under one name, your arguments had better work for all of them. Otherwise, while they may still all arguably be wrong, you have to make the case a little differently in different cases.

Fair enough, Dennis. I was working on the assumption that initial post summarized his argument. It’s hard to see the point of it, if it was not that. Was it wrong to deal with what he DID say?

David, that’s a fair shot, but in my own defense I’d say that going on the assumption that Phil’s initial post contained his main points, and that I’ve seen those arguments fleshed out elsewhere, I was sort of assuming where his argument was going. At any rate, he DID make some arguments, even if he reserves the right to make more, or more complete ones, later. And I found those arguments wanting, as far as they went.