5 ms·

What I mean by strict rules is (but not limited to): no profit for the organizer, loss limit for everyone across all bets, etc. But I don't know what set of rul

by tgv 1y ago

What I mean by strict rules is (but not limited to): no profit for the organizer, loss limit for everyone across all bets, etc. But I don't know what set of rules would qualify to make gambling neutral. - Infrastructure is better off paid by taxation. That's much fairer, and more predictable. - I don't see insurance as gambling. It has a chance element, but that's not enough to qualify something as gambling. You buy security against large losses at a moderate price (*), instead of building up large losses for nothing. It's also a step which you hope doesn't pay out (sickness, fire, theft). - Selling through lottery is exploitation. (*) YMMV

dpark 1y ago
> no profit for the organizer You’ve ruled out not just all gambling but all business. The examples the parent comment above you gave are all profit generating for the organizer. Insurance in particular seems to be a clear societal win and is in fact gambling. You make a (relatively) small wager that pays out nothing if you don’t need it or potentially huge if you do.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  Insurance is moral stewardship, and not unearned gain. In fact, refusing insurance when your neighbors are of the same religion is seen as gambling.
  - dpark 1y ago
    You don’t earn a payout for cancer treatment. It is definitely unearned.
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      If you paid into the insurance pool, then how is the pay out unearned? Did you choose to get cancer or fake it?
      - dpark 1y ago
        Paying into insurance does not earn a payout any more than paying into the lottery earns a payout. The payout is determined by random chance.
    - sigwinch 1y ago
      The point goes like this: you and a neighbor start a business. You each make independent choices on health insurance. When he breaks a leg and can’t work for a while, it’s inconvenient but not burdensome for your shared business. But, you chose not to get health insurance. Your melanoma diagnosis looks like $80,000 which you don’t have. Your business partner has a choice: should he liquidate the business, or act in the long term?
      - dpark 1y ago
        I’m not disputing your “moral stewardship” claim. I’m saying that this doesn’t change the unearned nature of the payout. If paying into insurance “earns” the payout, then everyone who pays in and doesn’t take a payout is being stolen from.
- tgv 1y ago
  We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong. > potentially huge if you do. No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.
  - dpark 1y ago
    “I bet you $500 a month I’ll get cancer.” Insurance absolutely has a societal benefit. It is also absolutely gambling.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      If you made this bet, then got cancer, would you say "hooray, I'm rich!"?
      - dpark 1y ago
        No. But not the definition of gambling. Insurance is hedging. Aka hedging your bets.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Appeal to definitions is rarely useful in such discussions. Insurance is not a central member of the category, since people rarely get addicted to filing insurance paperwork, but people very much do get addicted to sports betting.
        dpark 1y ago
        “Is insurance gambling” is a question of definition. You’re trying to argue that it’s not gambling because it’s beneficial. But that’s absurd because you’re trying to define gambling as specifically “bad” in a conversation of whether gambling is bad. You can’t argue circularly and then gripe about clarifying definitions.
kqr 1y ago
> taxation. That's much fairer Extortion is more fair than voluntary contributions? Maybe on arguments from regression but it's not obvious. > You buy security against large losses at a moderate price Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is. Sure, you made an offsetting gamble when buying the house, but I don't see how you can claim a gamble is no longer a gamble when a partially offsetting gamble exists -- that's just two gambles, and indeed prudent risk management when it comes to big gambling.
- DengistKhan 1y ago
  > taxes are extortion Then move to North Korea where there are no taxes. > Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is. yeah the big prize of all your personal belongings being destroyed, being semi-homeless for an indefinite period of time, fighting insurance companies to get the full value of your home and all assets (glhf finding out what's secretly not covered or you can't prove you owned), searching for a new home in an inflated market, lost productivity, dead pets, etc.. What a prize! This is something you'd expect a 12 year old to try to argue. Insurance is not legally classified as gambling for very obvious and practical reasons.

by tgv 1y ago

dpark 1y ago

> no profit for the organizer You’ve ruled out not just all gambling but all business. The examples the parent comment above you gave are all profit generating for the organizer. Insurance in particular seems to be a clear societal win and is in fact gambling. You make a (relatively) small wager that pays out nothing if you don’t need it or potentially huge if you do.

sigwinch 1y ago
Insurance is moral stewardship, and not unearned gain. In fact, refusing insurance when your neighbors are of the same religion is seen as gambling.
- dpark 1y ago
  You don’t earn a payout for cancer treatment. It is definitely unearned.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    If you paid into the insurance pool, then how is the pay out unearned? Did you choose to get cancer or fake it?
    - dpark 1y ago
      Paying into insurance does not earn a payout any more than paying into the lottery earns a payout. The payout is determined by random chance.
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    The point goes like this: you and a neighbor start a business. You each make independent choices on health insurance. When he breaks a leg and can’t work for a while, it’s inconvenient but not burdensome for your shared business. But, you chose not to get health insurance. Your melanoma diagnosis looks like $80,000 which you don’t have. Your business partner has a choice: should he liquidate the business, or act in the long term?
    - dpark 1y ago
      I’m not disputing your “moral stewardship” claim. I’m saying that this doesn’t change the unearned nature of the payout. If paying into insurance “earns” the payout, then everyone who pays in and doesn’t take a payout is being stolen from.
tgv 1y ago
We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong. > potentially huge if you do. No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.
- dpark 1y ago
  “I bet you $500 a month I’ll get cancer.” Insurance absolutely has a societal benefit. It is also absolutely gambling.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    If you made this bet, then got cancer, would you say "hooray, I'm rich!"?
    - dpark 1y ago
      No. But not the definition of gambling. Insurance is hedging. Aka hedging your bets.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Appeal to definitions is rarely useful in such discussions. Insurance is not a central member of the category, since people rarely get addicted to filing insurance paperwork, but people very much do get addicted to sports betting.
        dpark 1y ago
        “Is insurance gambling” is a question of definition. You’re trying to argue that it’s not gambling because it’s beneficial. But that’s absurd because you’re trying to define gambling as specifically “bad” in a conversation of whether gambling is bad. You can’t argue circularly and then gripe about clarifying definitions.

kqr 1y ago

> taxation. That's much fairer Extortion is more fair than voluntary contributions? Maybe on arguments from regression but it's not obvious. > You buy security against large losses at a moderate price Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is. Sure, you made an offsetting gamble when buying the house, but I don't see how you can claim a gamble is no longer a gamble when a partially offsetting gamble exists -- that's just two gambles, and indeed prudent risk management when it comes to big gambling.

DengistKhan 1y ago
> taxes are extortion Then move to North Korea where there are no taxes. > Flood insurance is literally saying "I bet my house is going to be underwater" and winning the big cash price if it is. yeah the big prize of all your personal belongings being destroyed, being semi-homeless for an indefinite period of time, fighting insurance companies to get the full value of your home and all assets (glhf finding out what's secretly not covered or you can't prove you owned), searching for a new home in an inflated market, lost productivity, dead pets, etc.. What a prize! This is something you'd expect a 12 year old to try to argue. Insurance is not legally classified as gambling for very obvious and practical reasons.