The problem is choice

Please, as I was saying she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at an unconscious level. . . As you adequately put, the problem is choice. -- The Architect, The Matrix Reloaded

I got a "Vote Yes on Issue 3" mailer today. This comes on the heels of a barrage of vaguely-worded commercials featuring some FOP guy who assures me I can trust him. I can see why the Yes on 3 issue ad campaign is supposed to be one of the most expensive in state history.

I can't say I really lean either way. But Issue 3 serves as a reminder that when it comes to money-making schemes, nobody does it quite like a cash-strapped state or locality. Cities will lease their parking meters, states will lease their toll roads to foreign companies, set up state lotteries, sell government buildings, or, as with Issue 3, roll out the red carpet for casinos to set up shop. Many of these schemes can end up being highly regressive, with the costs falling on people lower down the economic ladder (rich people don't play the lotto quite as much as the less well-off).

I suppose this is palatable to some people, in part, because of the emphasis we as a culture put not on fatalism but on free will and personal responsibility. Some of our schemes might take money away from those who can least afford to part with it but it's their fault for making that choice. This is far less tyrannical than, for example, a tax that falls more heavily on the upper economic strata.

The same sort of logic is often applied to the health reform debate. I've seen people outraged that the government will mandate them to get something that they already have. I've heard people argue that poverty alleviation and the provision of health care is the duty of good Christians but it must be done freely through acts of personal charity: government involvement through progressive taxation isn't appropriate (despite the fact, apparently, that these are social problems). For some people, the key is their ability to choose--willingly submit--to help.

We can raise money on the backs of folks who have little, as long as they are given a choice--even if they are only aware of the choice at an unconscious level--to spend their money on cigarettes, lotto tickets, casinos, whatever. But we can't coerce money from those who can afford to part with it. The problem is choice.