It makes sense that a libertarian would oppose a state lottery, essentially a state monopoly on gambling. But what about gambling in general, like the rise of casinos we are seeing nationwide? Jim Kunstler's strong opposition to casino gambling as a sign of Western decline makes sense as arguing that gambling is a vice, but libertarians don't mind legalizing vices. Lots of things are vices that I am fine with. But certainly libertarians would be opposed to latching onto casinos as a form of economic development as Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts is doing. Tax credits and more importantly a taxpayer funded regulatory system to ensure "honesty" in the industry amount to subsidizing casino gambling. Ironically, the more liberal Daily Kos blog was host to a front page post on casino gambling as well. And they seem as torn as I am:

After all, even those of us without libertarian leanings are still likely to be strongly in favor of individual rights. I know that I wasted twenty dollars at the first Yearly Kos trying to play poker at 3AM when my ability to even discern the numbers on the cards was severely limited. The idea that we should have shunned the tables never occurred to me at the time.

Deviltower's reasons for changing his tune on casinos include devaluing work and hurting the poor. Those are reasonable, but perhaps the best public policy is to decriminalize gambling but not setting up systems to regulate the industry. What will regulation do, after all? Ensure "fairness?" The house always wins, there's no "fairness" in gambling. I think there is a place for gambling in a libertarian society, just as Kunstler says:

There is a rightful place for gambling: on the margins of society -- and the crippling ideas that go hand-in-hand with it belong on the margins, too, like the belief that it's possible to get something for nothing. Real political leadership would take stand on this, even if it was unpopular.