A rant about poker and politics

On days like today, when election news is all that's on, I can't help thinking about how screwed up American politics are, and what a pathetically small place the whole concept of liberty has in the platform of most politicians and the minds of most American voters.

To the extent that they talk about it at all, those who tried (and continue to try) to make online poker difficult or impossible justify their actions by saying that they wanted to protect children and/or compulsive gamblers.

I look at it differently, and suggest that you should, too. What I hear those politicians telling me is, "The ability to choose to play poker on your computer is really just way more freedom than I think you should have, so I'm going to take it away from you."

Doesn't that piss you off? Isn't that about as horrendous and insulting a thing as somebody you elected to serve your interests could say or imply to you? Doesn't that make you want to devote some time and money to making sure that such arrogance gets soundly renounced on election day?

It isn't just about poker, though. As much as I love the game, I'm not so delusional as to think that it is the central issue of our day. But I submit that what a politician thinks and does about poker is a pretty good surrogate (the term "litmus test" has acquired a bad reputation as regards things political, but I think it's legitimate) for what he thinks and does about personal freedom generally. After all, if a politician thinks that you can't handle a low-stakes poker game in your pajamas, you can just imagine what else he will think is too much freedom for you.

Many of the same politicians who voted for the abominable UIGEA also recently voted for the repulsive energy bill late last year. Among other things, this will eventually ban all incandescent light bulbs. The supporters couch their victory in terms such as saving the planet from global warming. Rubbish. What I hear in those votes is this message, loud and clear: "You really can't be trusted with a decision as monumental as what kind of light bulbs to put in your house." These arrogant bastards think that they know how to make that decision for me better than I can make it for myself, so they arrogated the power to decide it for everybody. (Do you see anywhere in the Constitution that Congress shall have the power to decide what kind of light bulbs you buy? It's not in my copy.)

Again, doesn't that make you deeply angry?

You can take nearly any political issue and look at it through the lens of personal liberty. Do your elected representatives want to raise the minimum wage? Well, another way of looking at it is that they don't think you, as either an employer or an employee, are competent to make a good bargain as to the value of one's time and labor.

Do they support mandatory increases in automobile fuel efficiency? That means that they don't trust you to decide for yourself how to balance, optimally for your specific situation, vehicle capacity, initial car cost, operating costs, power, and safety (and rest assured that every notch upward in fleet economy means that more people will die, because manufacturers will cut weight, and lighter cars are less crashworthy, all else being equal). That's just far, far too complex a set of of factors for you poor, stupid people to weigh on your own.

Do they want to restrict your right to donate money to the candidate or party of your choice, or limit what political advertising you and/or groups you support can purchase near election time (read: McCain-Feingold amendment)? That is a perfectly clear message to you that you're incompetent to spend your money on your political goals wisely--and the First Amendment be damned.

Do they oppose even partial privatization of Social Security? If so, it's because they see you, the foolish citizen, as way too stupid to make sound long-term investments on your own behalf.

Do they support the horrendously expensive boondoggle called the war on drugs? That's because they think that they, and not you, should be entitled to decide what substances you ingest, inhale, imbibe, or inject.

And perhaps most importantly, what do they think about money? I remember that moment of clarity in 1999 when Bill Clinton slipped and let his real thoughts show, when he was asked about the possibility of refunding some of what was then a budget surplus to the people. He said, "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right."

Do you hear that--you might not spend your own money "right." He knows better than you do where that money should go. What he wants to do with it is more important than anything that you mere citizens could possibly want to do with it. The same idea is reflected, though a little less flagrantly, in his wife's recent unguarded moment, when she admitted that the nation couldn't afford all the ideas she has for federal spending. There is simply no doubt that she thinks you are keeping too much of your own money--she needs to take more of it from you, and do things with it that really matter, unlike your own pathetic little goals and preferences for it. She is far from alone in this desire.

The politician who thinks you can't be trusted with the decision to play poker will most likely also think that you can't really be trusted with how you raise your children, school choice, the decision to purchase a firearm, decisions about alcohol and tobacco use, picking your own health care plan, selecting a mortgage you can afford (some want a huge increase in regulations on that whole industry), and a million other choices that we have to make as citizens and consumers. It's all just too much for you to handle, they think (and occasionally say out loud). We need to do it for you.

I cannot even begin to express the contempt I have for elected officials who bring such condescending attitudes to their term of service. It is positively vile. It does not begin or end with poker, but their views on your freedom to play the game make a pretty good single-issue sample test for the larger question of whether they really, truly, deeply believe that you should be left alone to make virtually every other decision for how to lead your life.

Sadly, and to my great consternation, there are very, very few politicians who genuinely think you can live your life without the government guiding you at every turn.

There is, as far as I know, only one presidential candidate who goes against the grain on all of this. Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) says in every stump speech, "I don't want to run your life"--and he means it. How sad and ironic that in the "land of liberty" this message makes him a maverick and an outcast.

If my words and thoughts here have not roused you to a sense of righteous anger at how nearly every current office-holder and candidate treats you and thinks of you, then I have failed. But I'll make one last effort, by embedding below one of the greatest scenes in movie history. Maybe Peter Finch, in his masterful portrayal of Howard Beale ("Network," 1976), can accomplish what I have not, and make you want to "throw the bums out," as the saying goes.

You've got to get mad!