Hmmm.... you have many interesting points. We appear to both want to
get to the same point. It's that age old question: is a half-step
worse than no step?
One of two things could happen with a Racino: first, it could turn
out that Minnesotans find out that we are capable of being responsible
adults, and that opens the door to further competition.
or...
The Racino makes so much money that they can unilaterally ensure that
there will be no future competition with a few late night visits
to key legislators and a few briefcases full of money.
Which is more likely? The latter, by a mile.
So then the question becomes, given political reality, is it better to
give citizens a little freedom, or none at all? As I said, it's a
tough question. Personally, I favor a little, but that may just be
becaused I live in Shakopee, enjoy gambling and poker, and would love
to see a Vikings stadium just a few miles from my house.
But I also support other baby steps toward freedom, such as school
vouchers and mandatory privatized retirement accounts. So I am
somewhat consistent...
Rent This Space
netscape.net> wrote:>
>
> Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>> Rent This Space
netscape.net> wrote:>>>
>>>> Canterbury wants to build a stadium in Shakopee *using their own money*.
>>>> That's right, no corporate welfare.
>>>
>>> A state chartered oligopoly is by definition corporate welfare.
>>
>> I agree that state-limited competition is worse than open competition,
>> but a stadium built with people voluntarily spending money on their
>> own choice of entertaiment is better than a stadium built with money
>> taken involuntarily from people who have no interest in sports and
>> can't really afford to give up any more of their paycheck.
>
> No it isn't because it breeds more corporate welfare and stifles open
> competition. The effect is similar to municipal liquor stores. One
> could argue that "munis" are better than no liquor stores (or
> prohibition)
> but the existance of "muni"s stifles attempts to allow open
> competition.
> Once a community establishes a "muni" they have created a revenue
> stream (and consitutuents) that fight to prevent open competition.
> It's darn near impossible to get a community to give up its "muni".
>
> A racino would have the same effect.
>
>>> The NFL has not indicated that they want a new staduim funded
>>> by gambling money.
>>
>> Apparently, they have shown no opposition to this either.
>
> Only because the racino is not a serious proposal.
> The NFL has a long history of avoiding gambling.
>
>>> The racino proposals are corporate welfare. If the proposal was to
>>> legalize
>>> gambling (the various forms that are prohibited), you would have a
>>> point, except
>>> that would allow competition that the racino proponents oppose because
>>> it
>>> would cut into the profits, part of which would be used to fund the
>>> stadium.
>>> Without government protection from competition, there would not be
>>> sufficient
>>> profits to fund a new stadium.
>>
>> That is an interesting question in and of itself. Would Shakopee
>> become 'Vegas of the Midwest'? Would that slice the pie too thinly?
>> If you look at all the money in Vegas and even at Mystic Lake, I
>> suspect we have a ways to go before the market is saturated.
>
> Vegas has no pro sports (unless you count UNLV). Would Vegas
> be as big if it started with a state established casino? I don't think
> so.
> Competition has fueled Vegas' growth.
>
>> But the important point in it all: while limiting the free choices of
>> adults on how to spend their money is not an ideal solution, it is
>> better than forcing adults to involuntarily spend their money on things
>> they don't want. In politic, sometimes we take what we can get.
>
> A racino isn't "free choice" any more than any other state run
> industry.
>
> A tax is more honest because it's more clear what is going on, rather
> than hiding it as pretend capitalism (which only gives capitalism a bad
> name).
>
