Casino gambling is today a ¡®hot button¡¯ issue. A recent MetroPost editorial (April 7, 2024) notes that a casino in Dumaguete ¡°promises both economic prosperity and moral ambiguity.”
Garfield, the cat, says, “I’ll take both.”
A casino is said to promote gambling addiction, a distinct human weakness. Should we include cats? They are better positioned because of their nine lives.
But casino gambling leads to “societal decay.” The honest virtues of hard work would give way to a desperate dependence on ruinous risk-taking.
Gambling then leads to losses that many cannot afford. And when we have nothing left to lose, an old song says that we would have achieved freedom. Freedom? What, no parks?
Societal decay would increase the crime rate and make the poor even poorer. A Church leader worries that a casino would disadvantage the marginalized sectors and students. I thought religious leaders focused only on the afterlife. Okay, religion these days is very ‘woke.’ Good.
Another way of looking at casinos is to ask how they would fit in the life of Dumaguete City. JG Umbac (Metropost, May 5, 2024) argues that we still struggle with ‘livability’ issues (traffic congestion, water supply, garbage disposal, overpopulation, sidewalks, the dire state of public education, etc.). A casino just adds to the burdens on public governance.
In a more recent column, Umbac deals with the consequences of the casino proposal. He reiterates his view that the proposal would clash with current priorities, while changing the character of the city. He wonders if the casino would benefit public officials. Exactly how is left to the imagination.
A serious objection is that casinos facilitate money laundering. This remains the case even if, since 2017, casinos have become ¡®covered¡¯ entities under our money laundering laws. The threshold limits for required reporting are quite high, and they allow dirty money to be ¡®washed¡¯ in a casino. Cleanliness, they say, is next to godliness. Religious leaders should be running casinos.
Those who favor casinos are more sophisticated, if not coy. A local business leader withheld comment, saying he didn’t have enough details.
Of course, we all know, and the MetroPost editorial concedes, there can be economic gains. This, however, is a weak argument. It can be improved if we use the profits of the casino operator to benefit the poor. We already undertake this kind of redistribution in the activities of government-run lotteries. So far, so good. Go, go.
The primary justification is, nonetheless, academic and philosophical. Gambling is a ¡®fact of life.¡¯ Humans decide in the face of uncertainty, and every day they gamble. We gamble on the low probability of natural disasters and cover the risk through insurance contracts and common-sense preparedness. A gambler in a casino knows that the house usually wins, but he plays for thrills.
Dostoyevsky well portrayed these thrills in his 1866 novel Crime and Punishment. There is something to winning when you expect to lose. Pleasant surprise? Blessings from above? Cheap thrill?
The lesson from Dostoyevsky is that thrill-seeking in the extreme can have very negative consequences. ‘Live and let live’ can mean ‘Live and let die.’
Gambling addiction is like alcoholism or dependence on illegal drugs. Society has then to devise ways to prevent or limit these kinds of self-abuse. But these are extreme cases. Tourists don’t die; they leave happy and even return. Okay, we want to prevent locals from ruin.
We should require casino patrons to be old enough, have passports, and give evidence of income or wealth. We can give them ‘membership’ cards issued by the local Barangays in the same way as Senior ID cards. I like this idea.
A libertarian would argue that the transfer of wealth from gamblers to the house results from a voluntary transaction. By construction, a bet at a casino is a ‘win-win’ proposition. It is a private exchange. The casino sells thrills. The gambler buys them, knowing that the casino makes a profit. The transaction is not different from an insurance contract. The insurer sells peace of mind instead of thrills.
A society that is neither paternal nor dictatorial would not ban gambling. Interestingly, this argument goes against the grain of Filipino culture. We like to meddle in the lives of our neighbors. We are our brothers’ keepers.
Consider the view from economics. Casino gambling is a form of entertainment, and a part of the tourism industry.
True, a casino will need related infrastructure such as a larger airport. We just have to be mindful of the rate of return on such investments.
Economists also suggest regulating the casino industry to limit its untoward consequences. This line of thought is nonetheless so de cajon. It ignores morals as a consideration. There are limits to the advice that economists offer.
In the end, the existential choice can go either way.
Public morality suggests caution or an outright ‘no.’ So does our culture. Our desire for a livable city also militates against the proposal.
Certain groups favor the proposal. These include philosophers, libertarians, economists, and business leaders.
Moreover, using casino profits to benefit the poor tilts the proposal toward the ‘yes’ side. Ironically, social justice can favor casinos.
Garfield sits on the fence. He likes it up there.
Perhaps the issue is not whether a casino should be in our future. The problem is how. We can agree to regulate casino gambling. We then ask ourselves who will regulate.
We then search for good and honest and sincere regulators…oh, never mind.
______________________________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]; Twitter: @ORoncesvalles
