View Full Version : A Conundrum -- looking for advice
AbolishTheGovt
11-01-2008, 03:52 PM
Here in Ohio, we're voting on something called "Issue 6," called "The Casino Issue," which, if approved, would allow one casino to open in Ohio. Currently, none are allowed.
If an Ohioan votes FOR this, the free market will be opened up a little bit more, and a service that many people desire and are able to pay for will be allowed to be offered. But, if we vote FOR this, part of the deal is that this casino will be guaranteed a monopoly and that the state govt will be granted the power to tax all casinos in the state at a rate of THIRTY PERCENT of their revenues.
However, if an Ohioan votes AGAINST this, it will simply perpetuate an unlibertarian ban on casinos in the state, and a service that many people desire and are able to pay for will remain denied to them. But if we vote AGAINST this, we will be denying the power to government to set up monopolies of private businesses and we will be denying the government the power to tax private enterprises at such outrageous rates.
How should a libertarian vote on such an issue?
ShowMeLiberty
11-01-2008, 04:33 PM
I'd be inclined to vote yes on the "foot in the door" prinicple. It may be a monopoly of one casino at first but it may not stay that way. I imagine it will be hard for the state to resist the additional tax revenue that additional casinos would make possible.
Kevin_Kennedy
11-01-2008, 04:45 PM
There's more to the issue, such as the the company wanting to build this casino owing back taxes in I think Louisiana. I will be voting against Issue 6 and I don't believe that goes against my Libertarian or free market beliefs.
danberkeley
11-01-2008, 05:03 PM
Here in Ohio, we're voting on something called "Issue 6," called "The Casino Issue," which, if approved, would allow one casino to open in Ohio. Currently, none are allowed.
If an Ohioan votes FOR this, the free market will be opened up a little bit more, and a service that many people desire and are able to pay for will be allowed to be offered. But, if we vote FOR this, part of the deal is that this casino will be guaranteed a monopoly and that the state govt will be granted the power to tax all casinos in the state at a rate of THIRTY PERCENT of their revenues.
However, if an Ohioan votes AGAINST this, it will simply perpetuate an unlibertarian ban on casinos in the state, and a service that many people desire and are able to pay for will remain denied to them. But if we vote AGAINST this, we will be denying the power to government to set up monopolies of private businesses and we will be denying the government the power to tax private enterprises at such outrageous rates.
How should a libertarian vote on such an issue?
Protest vote!
I'm voting against it. My thinking is that it's less a "foot in the door" than a "special privilege" and a "monopoly". :)
I'm voting against all the Ohio constitutional issues, I think. The one that has me wondering is the one guaranteeing "reasonable" use of ground water on one's property. This POS could bite either way.
JohnJay
11-01-2008, 05:22 PM
Maybe trying to spin my personal bias . . . however
I may not be so convinced that libertarians should/would support casinos -
individual rights to be tricked out of money - there is a victim.
Truth Warrior
11-01-2008, 05:28 PM
Be a libertarian, don't vote. Otherwise you're just another mis labeled statist.
Kevin_Kennedy
11-01-2008, 06:42 PM
I'm voting against all the Ohio constitutional issues, I think. The one that has me wondering is the one guaranteeing "reasonable" use of ground water on one's property. This POS could bite either way.
The water issue is Issue 3, I'm voting Yes on that one. I'm voting No on all the rest though.
jabrownie
11-01-2008, 07:21 PM
I'd be inclined to vote yes on the "foot in the door" prinicple. It may be a monopoly of one casino at first but it may not stay that way. I imagine it will be hard for the state to resist the additional tax revenue that additional casinos would make possible.
The Ohio measure would be a constitutional amendment, I don't think it would allow for any future additional casinos absent another constitutional revision (unlikely). Thus, it's more creating a private monopoly for one person then advancing any meaningful opening of free enterprise.
AbolishTheGovt
11-02-2008, 01:21 AM
So, I'm thinking I'm just going to have to vote no or not vote on Issue 6. I sat down and asked myself "What Would Ron Paul Do?" Ron Paul would not vote for any proposition or legislation, even if it contains 99% good things, if it grants even one illegitimate power for the government. I don't think I can, in good conscience, grant the Ohio government the power to guarantee a forcibly-maintained monopoly for one private business, in a certain sector of the economy. I just don't believe a government should have that power, even if it means that the Ohio marketplace will be denied its first casino.
Another question to my fellow Ohioans--I've only had time to glance over the state-wide office candidates, and haven't found any I particularly like. Are there any candidates other than Robert Owens for Attorney General that are good for the cause of liberty?
moostraks
11-02-2008, 06:20 AM
Been stewing on this issue as well. I am voting against it because it is a monopoly by constitutional ammendment so as others have stated it isn't opening any doorway for anyone but this one individual (entity). With the cloud of unpaid taxes to Louisiana it seems he isn't reputable and that may be a secondary thought to consider by those wavering in their decision.
Will be cramming here to find what local level leaders might help our movement. As I am battling a stomache flu it is making concentrating so much fun. I got the cheat sheet for the other constitutional issues and will be reviewing that this evening. Fun, fun! I likewise would appreciate any tips on statewide officials that might narrow my searches...
Re: Issue 3, the following very through explanation is from a person in my meetup:
The Great Lakes Water Compact applied to only the upper counties of Ohio: approximately a 35 mile swatch along the north shore. The Ohio Amendment applies to the entire state of Ohio! What the Compact missed in taking peoples water rights, the amendment will take. What people could not stop in the Compact will escalate it the amendment passes. Both the Compact AND the Ohio Amendment are a snow job: they're deceptive and misleading and do nothing but take water rights away from the people. Did you read the Amendment?
Let me bring some of the deception to your notice.
AMBIGUITY #1
Proposed Amendment Section 19b (B) states,
“The preservation of private property interests recognized under divisions (C) and (D) of this section shall be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare as provided in Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution.”
The Section 19 of Article I referred to by the proposed Amendment is the existing Eminent Domain section which states in part,
“Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare.”
This is almost the same verbiage except for one main word: the main difference in the wording of the proposed amendment is the absence of the word “ever”. Upon information and belief, and the writer believes, that this is indicative that the inviolate holding of private property shall no longer continue forever but is in the process of ending.
AMBIGUITY #2
Proposed Amendment Section 19b (C ) states,
“A property owner has a property interest in the reasonable use of the ground water underlying the property owner’s land.”
Please note that this wording does NOT state that the property owner “has a property interest in the ground water”, but instead, the property owner only has a property interest in the “reasonable use of” the ground water.
Upon information and belief, and the writer believes, that this section takes the owner’s interest in his ground water and gives him interest only in the “reasonable use of” his ground water. Writer submits that “reasonable use of” is different from “interest in” the water.
AMBIGUITY #3
Proposed Amendment Section 19b (D) states,
“An owner of riparian land has a property interest in the reasonable use of the water in a lake or watercourse on or flowing through the owner’s riparian land.”
Please note that this wording does NOT state that the property owner “has a property interest in the water on his riparian land”, but instead, the property owner only has a property interest in the “reasonable use of” the water on his riparian land.
Upon information and belief, and the writer believes, that this section takes the owner’s interest in the water on his riparian land and gives him interest only in the “reasonable use of” the water on his riparian land. Writer submits that “reasonable use of” is different from “interest in” the water.
AMBIGUITY #4
Proposed Amendment 19b (E) states in part,
“An owner of land voluntarily may convey to a government body the owner’s property interest held in the ground water underlying the land or nonnavigable waters located on or flowing through the land.”
Please note that this wording does NOT state that the property owner may convey his interest in the “reasonable use of” the ground water or nonnavigable waters located on or flowing through the land, but instead that he may convey the owner’s actual “property interest held in the ground water…or nonnavigable waters located on or flowing through the land. In this case, contrary to Ambiguities # 2 & 3 where Ohio is conveying interest in the “reasonable use of” water to the owner, now, Ohio is not desiring to receive interest in the “reasonable use of” the water but instead, wants the actual interest in the water itself. Writer submits that this supports the writer’s belief that Ohio recognizes that “reasonable use of” is different from “interest in” the water.
AMBIGUITY #5
Proposed Amendment 19b (E) states in part (second sentence),
"The state, and a political subdivision to the extent authorized by law, may provide for the regulation of such waters."
First of all the word "may" shall be read as authority to not as a posssibility of. This is where the state will get the authority to install water meters on land owner's water wells. Andd with the power to do that comes the power to control amounts of water. Without water you die. Or more mildly, without water you succumb.
This is what land owners have now...
This amendment appears to be contrary to the Memorandum of April 9, 2007, From: Louis L. McMahon, Esq., To: Steve Stover, OSBA, Re: Great Lakes Compact Legislation Analysis Section II, A, para. 1, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/committees/study/2006/GLAKE/files/aug21_mcmahon.pdf which states,
“Ohio law recognizes real property rights in riparian water2, [and] groundwater, 3…”
2 Mansfield v. Balliett, 65 Ohio St. 451 (1902)
3 McNamara v. Rittman, 107 Ohio St. 3rd 243 (2005)”
Ohio law recognizes that private property owners have the right to dam a non-navigable streamand to exclude the public"
This authority shall be lost if the amendment passes.
The Memorandum, Section II, C, para. 5 also cautions the risk Ohio accepts with regards to Ohio’s
“…broad recognition of private property rights, including real property rights in the use of groundwater.”
Did you get that? To USE water, not reasonable use of water.
Vote NO on issue 3. Save your water.
enjerth
11-03-2008, 01:14 PM
A government enforced monopoly is nothing like a free market.
I would vote against anything that gives the PERCEPTION of liberty but lacks the ESSENCE of liberty.
AbolishTheGovt
11-03-2008, 09:35 PM
So it looks like I'll be voting Baldwin for President, Owens for Attorney General, No on every issue, and No on every levy. I researched all the other state-wide office races, but the information on all those candidates was so sparse and vague, I can't in good conscience give a positive vote to any of them because I can't figure out what they believe in or stand for. Does anyone know if there's any good state-wide candidates, other than Robert Owens, running in Ohio (particularly in District 7 for me)? :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.