Cato Institute Critical Of Web Interference

Published: Friday, February 24, 2006 Online-Casinos.com

CATO INSTITUTE CRITICAL OF INTERNET INTERFERENCE

Libertarian body attacks moves to curtail freedom of the Internet

The Washington-based Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation protective of American freedoms, launched a critical attack on US legislators for trying to ban online gambling this week.

In an erudite article titled 'Whatever Happened to Leaving the Internet Unregulated'? by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. and Adam Thierer the libertarian body critically examined the attempted inroads into the freedom of the Internet by governments and other bodies in recent times, including a section on Internet gambling.

The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

The article argues that government interference is not warranted or desireable and decries the nanny state mentality of legislators seeking to ban the entertainment on tenuous grounds, with enforcement by means that may not be morally acceptable or capable of effective enforcement.

"Banks and Internet Service Providers would be drafted into the role of snooper, sifting all financial transactions. And not surprisingly, credit card companies don't want to be held responsible for assuring that companies for which they process card services are not involved in gambling operations," the authors write.

In another passage, the article states: "Another rationale for gambling restrictions is to target, not the gamblers, but shady dealers who run phony, fraudulent operations - or to protect people from gambling addiction. This is paternalism: consumers should screen any gambling operations with which they transact, and avoid fly-by-night operators. Beyond that, most people realize that gambling is a pastime in which the house usually wins. While gambling is a problem for some who have trouble controlling themselves, others enjoy the challenge or just think it's fun, and are able to contain their addictive impulses.

"What constitutes "gambling" is often in the eye of the legislator. Fantasy sports get a limited exemption in proposed legislation, as do horseracing and jai alai. And investing in stocks can be a "gamble" in the sense that "the opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance" -- as proposed legislation defines gambling. Yet the anti-gambling proposals exempt "any over-the-counter derivative instrument," though these clearly are not for the squeamish."

Commenting that it is not the job of politicians to hector constituents about morality or finances, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) summed up the matter. "The overriding freedom issue [with respect to gambling] is whether or not government should be involved in trying to improve personal behavior by an authoritarian approach by the use of law. This really falls into the category of legislating morality. I don't happen to like gambling, and I think it is rather dumb, to tell you the truth, but in a free society, people should have the right to do dumb things."

The piece ends on an ominous note: "Once we travel down the road of regulating behavior on the Internet, there's basically no limit to government's ability to regulate voluntary speech and interaction and to substitute its moral vision for those of individuals."