4 ms·

The government certainly shouldn't be in the racket. I like the lottery. I can pay a couple dollars for the cheap thrill of scratching off a ticket once in a w

The government certainly shouldn't be in the racket. I like the lottery. I can pay a couple dollars for the cheap thrill of scratching off a ticket once in a while, and on rare occasions, waiting for the Powerball drawing. The entertainment value I get from spending $5-10/month is an easy value proposition for me. Some people spend far more than that, and can afford it far less. That's true of many poor financial decisions that people make in life, from the food they eat, to the electronic services they subscribe to, to the drugs they take. They're personal decisions that are easy to frown upon, but when you're broke, cheap pleasures that are financially stupid are still easy to justify, and I'm not going to judge. What I find revolting is that the government not only encourages this harmful behavior, they monopolize it. It's one of the many examples of government monopoly on vice. They make a moral argument that gambling is bad, use that to make it illegal, and then turn around and profit from it by bribing the public. Gambling is really bad, but we use it to pay for schools! Think of the children! Disgusting.

luckylion 7y ago
> What I find revolting is that the government not only encourages this harmful behavior, they monopolize it. They do so with many things that are far worse if not monopolized. Violence comes to mind. What's better, a) the government taking the money, b) some private company building a pleasure trap and taking all the money, c) outlawing lotto and the mafia taking the money and a lot of lives? "Nobody taking the money, everybody living happily ever after" isn't on the menu for obvious reasons. There's obviously a need for gambling in society. Keeping it under control, reducing it's harm is the right response.
- caymanjim 7y ago
  B. B is better.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Why though? It will lead to much more pain for those who cannot control their spending, will provide little to none (companies as masters in tax evasion) to fund society and otherwise have zero difference to A. It's a net loss compared to A, but "the state isn't involved" makes it good?
    - tracker1 7y ago
      There are already casinos in most major reservations for states that allow gambling (UT reservations hate that no gambling is allowed). For the most part, people need to make responsible decisions for themselves. I tend to drop $4 a drawing for the powerball/megamillions when I notice the jackpot is over $100 million. I know I won't win, but the possibility is worth it for the "what if" thoughts alone. In the end, everyone should decide for themselves. What I don't get is someone who will drop half their paycheck on lotto tickets. I understand the desire, but this same person is probably as likely to go to a reservation casino or possibly turn to alcohol or drugs. You can only do so much without becoming a tyrannical government. Of course, if it were a private company profiting from gambling, at least there's a chance the government would work in an oppositional sense to reign it in.
      - impeachTheIdiot 7y ago
        Companies are designed to make money. A government is suppose to help civilization and benefit the people. Making an addicting game where the people running it (the government) know it is addicting and don’t care is against the idea of government. They are preying on gamblers when they should be helping.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > For the most part, people need to make responsible decisions for themselves. Right, that would be great, but it's obviously not happening. The question is: given that people want $thing, how do we make sure that $thing doesn't destroy them. > Of course, if it were a private company profiting from gambling, at least there's a chance the government would work in an oppositional sense to reign it in. Even if it would, we've seen with prohibition that simply saying "no, you can't" doesn't work. People will gamble. The question is whether they do so in a safe environment with enforced limits, or whether they do in illegal settings with wide-spread fraud, violence and crime. My bank (kind of like a cooperative set up, but a weird construct too complicated for this) does a similar thing. They sell tickets for a lottery for €10 a pop. €6 or €8 of those go directly to your personal savings account, the rest goes into the lottery. It acknowledges that people want to play the lottery and then provides a less harmful way of doing it, which, imho, is the right way to go about this.

luckylion 7y ago

> What I find revolting is that the government not only encourages this harmful behavior, they monopolize it. They do so with many things that are far worse if not monopolized. Violence comes to mind. What's better, a) the government taking the money, b) some private company building a pleasure trap and taking all the money, c) outlawing lotto and the mafia taking the money and a lot of lives? "Nobody taking the money, everybody living happily ever after" isn't on the menu for obvious reasons. There's obviously a need for gambling in society. Keeping it under control, reducing it's harm is the right response.

caymanjim 7y ago
B. B is better.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Why though? It will lead to much more pain for those who cannot control their spending, will provide little to none (companies as masters in tax evasion) to fund society and otherwise have zero difference to A. It's a net loss compared to A, but "the state isn't involved" makes it good?
  - tracker1 7y ago
    There are already casinos in most major reservations for states that allow gambling (UT reservations hate that no gambling is allowed). For the most part, people need to make responsible decisions for themselves. I tend to drop $4 a drawing for the powerball/megamillions when I notice the jackpot is over $100 million. I know I won't win, but the possibility is worth it for the "what if" thoughts alone. In the end, everyone should decide for themselves. What I don't get is someone who will drop half their paycheck on lotto tickets. I understand the desire, but this same person is probably as likely to go to a reservation casino or possibly turn to alcohol or drugs. You can only do so much without becoming a tyrannical government. Of course, if it were a private company profiting from gambling, at least there's a chance the government would work in an oppositional sense to reign it in.
    - impeachTheIdiot 7y ago
      Companies are designed to make money. A government is suppose to help civilization and benefit the people. Making an addicting game where the people running it (the government) know it is addicting and don’t care is against the idea of government. They are preying on gamblers when they should be helping.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > For the most part, people need to make responsible decisions for themselves. Right, that would be great, but it's obviously not happening. The question is: given that people want $thing, how do we make sure that $thing doesn't destroy them. > Of course, if it were a private company profiting from gambling, at least there's a chance the government would work in an oppositional sense to reign it in. Even if it would, we've seen with prohibition that simply saying "no, you can't" doesn't work. People will gamble. The question is whether they do so in a safe environment with enforced limits, or whether they do in illegal settings with wide-spread fraud, violence and crime. My bank (kind of like a cooperative set up, but a weird construct too complicated for this) does a similar thing. They sell tickets for a lottery for €10 a pop. €6 or €8 of those go directly to your personal savings account, the rest goes into the lottery. It acknowledges that people want to play the lottery and then provides a less harmful way of doing it, which, imho, is the right way to go about this.