In light of the events reported on the front page of Thursday's Times-Union concerning illegal gambling activity at a local establishment, a critical examination of the movement to eradicate victimless "crimes" seems appropriate.
Nothing could be more evident than the widespread acceptance of wagering on sporting events as a harmless pastime. If you doubt the veracity of this claim then visit any office - or even school - in the local community during March Madness as upstanding individuals from all walks of life pay five dollars and fill out their NCAA tournament brackets. According to Thursday's article, police have suspected that an employee of a local establishment has organized gambling activity involving numerous people, resulting in a search of the premises. Considering that alleged participants included prominent members of the community (possibly even city or county employees) it seems safe to presume that a larger number of ordinary citizens were involved as well.
Given the prevalence of sports wagering and the deafening silence emanating from those who oppose it, what can we say about the state's propensity to prohibit or regulate it in addition to other activities of a dubious nature, such as recreational drug use, smoking, drinking, or even prostitution?
Such activities, whether immoral or not, are strictly voluntary and pose no threat, in and of themselves, to the rights of other individuals. Who could possibly take the stand to testify that they were harmed by someone betting on a Colts game? Where is the victim when someone is arrested for using marijuana? To argue that such activities harm the acting individual, and should thus be regulated, is to deny the very basis of human freedom in the form of self-ownership.
It is not the purpose of this letter to defend the moral worth of any of these activities, but only to suggest that the tendency to criminalize any behavior which you or I might deem troublesome carries with it dire consequences as far-reaching as they are expensive. While these choices may very well be poor decisions or morally corrupt, they are and should remain private decisions. Regulating morality through the force of legal statute has an abysmal track record with respect to stamping out targeted behavior, to say nothing of the indifference and moral dependency borne out of expecting the state to make personal decisions for us. Consider the possibility that expecting government to provide you and others with a moral compass cannot, in any sense of the word, be considered responsible, nor could one with such expectations be properly suited for a free society.
Of greater concern are the side effects of politicized behaviorism in the form of the state's regulatory apparatus. Laws attempting to criminalize victimless activity call out the worst traits of society, breeding a climate of fear, suspicion, and distrust as private individuals are incentivized to conspire with government officials against their neighbors. So pervasive is this phenomenon that it is nearly viewed as part of nature itself, tacitly encouraging the state to stray from protecting private property and individual rights - both hallmarks of the American political tradition - to regulating private decisions of conscience at massive expense to the taxpaying community. We should worry, for history tells us that state-enforced morality is a runaway vehicle with no brake pedal. If you disagree, then perhaps you may reconsider when your favorite pastime is deemed a danger to yourself, whether that be eating a Big Mac, hunting with your favorite rifle, smoking a cigarette in your living room, or even worshipping in your local church. Given the direction the wind is currently blowing, now would be a good time to reflect on the dangers of making the state the ultimate decider in our lives, for history's graveyard is already littered with the refuse - sometimes in the form of life and limb - of the state's boundless quest to enforce collective morality.
