
IT’S Time to Get Rid of the Lottery - paulpauper
https://theoutline.com/post/7737/abolish-state-lotteries
======
caymanjim
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
> 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
B. B is better.

~~~
luckylion
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
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.

~~~
luckylion
> 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
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
> 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.

------
boznz
AKA "the stupid tax" in most English speaking Counties..

