3 ms·

> Those very entities have agencies which are both "protecting" the public by imposing regulations that prevent them from expenditures with negative expected va

> Those very entities have agencies which are both "protecting" the public by imposing regulations that prevent them from expenditures with negative expected value, and at the same time peddle them. Those two things aren't necessarily in logical contradiction. There will always be demand for gambling and get-rich-quick schemes. Maybe it's better that the state monopolizes and regulates it (and makes it clear that this is not an investment), rather than letting private entrepreneurs take advantage of that same habit in even more effective and unscrupulous ways. The state is not a particularly efficient entity, so perhaps letting it do evil in a bumbling and clumsy manner is the least overall evil.

lr4444lr 9y ago
This is a compelling argument, i.e., that regulated promotion is part of the long game toward protection against toxic behaviors. Probably the most notorious example would be supervised injection sites. The devil in the details is to what extent do you impose costs on the public majority that isn't afflicted with the problem, and accounting for all of the externalities, not just those produced by a commissioned "study". It's one thing to implement a progressive tax to claw back some of the advantages wealthy people reap from regulation. We can read those numbers on a balance sheet. Quite another to actually build the betting parlor or injection site, which invariably lands in the lower to middle class communities. Who's really paying the higher costs here in broad terms of value and quality of life impact?