> Even though some people win the lottery, it’s fairly uncontroversial that most people would be better off if the lottery was simply disallowed, and nobody win

> Even though some people win the lottery, it’s fairly uncontroversial that most people would be better off if the lottery was simply disallowed, and nobody wins. We don’t need a replacement for the lottery, just to remove it. There's a big difference between "disallowed" and "does not exist". The lottery as it stands distributes its poor tax proceeds to the state, often to education. It's heavily regulated, and advertisements contain warnings on the dangers of gambling, and I'd say it's common knowledge that it's a tax on the poor. If it was removed, however, it would leave a vacuum. People are irrational, and the idea that they could get lucky and win is extremely tempting. I don't think you can say with confidence that whatever gambling would take its place would be less harmful than the lottery.