5 ms·

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.
    - caymanjim 7y ago
      You keep saying it's somehow safer with the government involved. The government doesn't limit how many lottery tickets you buy. They don't even have the legal right or means to limit how many lottery tickets you buy. There are no precautions in place. There is no tracking or reporting of individual behavior. There are no restriction whatsoever. The government advertises their vice, blocks the free market from taking part, and reaps enormous profits for their coffers. There is nothing moral, right, or safe about this whatsoever.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > You keep saying it's somehow safer with the government involved. It's certainly not less safe. In lots of places, there are precautions: spending limits, programs to combat gambling addiction etc.

B. B is better.

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.
  - caymanjim 7y ago
    You keep saying it's somehow safer with the government involved. The government doesn't limit how many lottery tickets you buy. They don't even have the legal right or means to limit how many lottery tickets you buy. There are no precautions in place. There is no tracking or reporting of individual behavior. There are no restriction whatsoever. The government advertises their vice, blocks the free market from taking part, and reaps enormous profits for their coffers. There is nothing moral, right, or safe about this whatsoever.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > You keep saying it's somehow safer with the government involved. It's certainly not less safe. In lots of places, there are precautions: spending limits, programs to combat gambling addiction etc.