In 1998, several Alberta municipalities held plebiscites on the virtues of video lottery terminals (VLTs). These highly addictive gambling machines started to show up in Alberta bars in 1991 and by 1998 Premier Ralph Klein was boasting that they brought more than $1 billion in revenue to the province. What could be wrong with that? Well… the destruction of those families with an addicted gambler for starters. I knew a few of these families and when businessman Jim Gray led an effort to get enough signatures in Calgary to force a municipal plebiscite on the issue, my wife and I volunteered to help.Going door to door to solicit signatures was an educational experience. One of the most common arguments I heard was,“No one is forcing these people to blow all their money on VLT gambling. Why should those who enjoy spending a few bucks have to suffer for the few who can’t control their gambling?”It is a standard libertarian argument. Keep the government out of as many things as possible, notwithstanding that the VLT issue dripped of government interference. No one asked for the terminals, they just showed up. My counter arguments —probably artless — fell on deaf ears. The good news was that the necessary signatures were received, and the plebiscite was held. Unfortunately from my perspective, the citizens of Calgary opted to keep the VLTs. It is called democracy, and I applauded the process if not the result.The point of this is to suggest that my libertarian neighbours were right about at least one thing. The business of spending your entire paycheque on gambling is not coercive. The gamblers I knew who blew up their families opted into the mess they made of their lives.The issue of opting in versus opting out is being discussed in the public forum again. Our premier, to my delight, is suggesting that parents must opt their children into sex education classes. No longer will kids be forced to sit through the ideologies of someone other than their parents unless the parents opt their children into the program. Arguments for the virtue of this position are similar to those of my libertarian friends regarding VLTs. In a “less government is good” world, parents and children should be given options with the freedom to opt in; to make choices as they see fit. Many years ago, my eldest child opted out of the high school sex education curricula and was forced to spend several hours per week writing essays which were not imposed on kids who didn’t opt out. The opt out involved punishment. So, what looked like an option really wasn’t an option and she counselled her younger siblings not to opt out. I am happy to give more details to those teachers who are wondering what problems Premier Smith is trying to solve.The argument against this change in procedure is that, by not opting in, many kids will miss necessary information about human sexuality. In an age of overwhelming sexualization, this argument is weak and it must be recognized that the sex education information delivered to the average Alberta classroom is tinctured by the ideological bent of the person delivering the education. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for parents and students to assess the pedagogic ideology of the teacher and decide whether the hours invested in the class will earn an educational return. On libertarian principles — sex education should not be coerced — I applaud the opt-in option.I would be very supportive of an opt-in provision in another area that might be within the regulatory reach of the premier. That is to require internet service providers within Alberta to provide access to pornographic websites only to those adult subscribers who request it, who opt in to those sites. In a previous article I explained my surprise at learning that this is easily accomplished by internet service providers. Some will argue that this forces service providers to be censors but that is not the case. The service is provided to whoever asks for the service. There is no censorship. And those who don't want it are not coerced to have it. This is entirely different, for example, from the government censorship of political and medical information on the internet. In this example, no one gets the information, especially not those who want it.Surely there is no social or public good argument for the coerced acceptance of internet pornography into every home that has an internet connection. As with VLT gambling, with the opt-in provision, no one loses the right to a desired service. But neither are those who don't want it forced to take it.Over to you Madam Premier. You are on a roll so let's add to it.
In 1998, several Alberta municipalities held plebiscites on the virtues of video lottery terminals (VLTs). These highly addictive gambling machines started to show up in Alberta bars in 1991 and by 1998 Premier Ralph Klein was boasting that they brought more than $1 billion in revenue to the province. What could be wrong with that? Well… the destruction of those families with an addicted gambler for starters. I knew a few of these families and when businessman Jim Gray led an effort to get enough signatures in Calgary to force a municipal plebiscite on the issue, my wife and I volunteered to help.Going door to door to solicit signatures was an educational experience. One of the most common arguments I heard was,“No one is forcing these people to blow all their money on VLT gambling. Why should those who enjoy spending a few bucks have to suffer for the few who can’t control their gambling?”It is a standard libertarian argument. Keep the government out of as many things as possible, notwithstanding that the VLT issue dripped of government interference. No one asked for the terminals, they just showed up. My counter arguments —probably artless — fell on deaf ears. The good news was that the necessary signatures were received, and the plebiscite was held. Unfortunately from my perspective, the citizens of Calgary opted to keep the VLTs. It is called democracy, and I applauded the process if not the result.The point of this is to suggest that my libertarian neighbours were right about at least one thing. The business of spending your entire paycheque on gambling is not coercive. The gamblers I knew who blew up their families opted into the mess they made of their lives.The issue of opting in versus opting out is being discussed in the public forum again. Our premier, to my delight, is suggesting that parents must opt their children into sex education classes. No longer will kids be forced to sit through the ideologies of someone other than their parents unless the parents opt their children into the program. Arguments for the virtue of this position are similar to those of my libertarian friends regarding VLTs. In a “less government is good” world, parents and children should be given options with the freedom to opt in; to make choices as they see fit. Many years ago, my eldest child opted out of the high school sex education curricula and was forced to spend several hours per week writing essays which were not imposed on kids who didn’t opt out. The opt out involved punishment. So, what looked like an option really wasn’t an option and she counselled her younger siblings not to opt out. I am happy to give more details to those teachers who are wondering what problems Premier Smith is trying to solve.The argument against this change in procedure is that, by not opting in, many kids will miss necessary information about human sexuality. In an age of overwhelming sexualization, this argument is weak and it must be recognized that the sex education information delivered to the average Alberta classroom is tinctured by the ideological bent of the person delivering the education. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for parents and students to assess the pedagogic ideology of the teacher and decide whether the hours invested in the class will earn an educational return. On libertarian principles — sex education should not be coerced — I applaud the opt-in option.I would be very supportive of an opt-in provision in another area that might be within the regulatory reach of the premier. That is to require internet service providers within Alberta to provide access to pornographic websites only to those adult subscribers who request it, who opt in to those sites. In a previous article I explained my surprise at learning that this is easily accomplished by internet service providers. Some will argue that this forces service providers to be censors but that is not the case. The service is provided to whoever asks for the service. There is no censorship. And those who don't want it are not coerced to have it. This is entirely different, for example, from the government censorship of political and medical information on the internet. In this example, no one gets the information, especially not those who want it.Surely there is no social or public good argument for the coerced acceptance of internet pornography into every home that has an internet connection. As with VLT gambling, with the opt-in provision, no one loses the right to a desired service. But neither are those who don't want it forced to take it.Over to you Madam Premier. You are on a roll so let's add to it.
