Government and gambling

[Machjo]

When we consider that the rich usually don't buy lottery tickets, and that it's mainly the poor who are buying them, mainly out of desperation and the faint hope of winning on the backs of other poor ticket-buyers, is it morally acceptable for the government to be exploiting them in this manner?

While I'm aware of a debate concerning individual responsibility in gambling in the private sector, here we're not talking about the freedom to gamble or the right of a company to open up a casino. We're talking about the government itself engaging in gambling as a crown corporation, when the purpose of government is to look out for the interests of the people, especially the most vulnerable. Again, while we can debate the merits and demerits of gambling, or of our responsibility to help the poor, I'd hope we could at least agree that the government should at least not exploit the poor in this manner.

[Michael Hardner]

When we consider that the rich usually don't buy lottery tickets, and that it's mainly the poor who are buying them, mainly out of desperation and the faint hope of winning on the backs of other poor ticket-buyers, is it morally acceptable for the government to be exploiting them in this manner?

While I'm aware of a debate concerning individual responsibility in gambling in the private sector, here we're not talking about the freedom to gamble or the right of a company to open up a casino. We're talking about the government itself engaging in gambling as a crown corporation, when the purpose of government is to look out for the interests of the people, especially the most vulnerable. Again, while we can debate the merits and demerits of gambling, or of our responsibility to help the poor, I'd hope we could at least agree that the government should at least not exploit the poor in this manner.

It's a conflict of interest, clearly. On the one hand, the government tells people that they need to be protected from certain predatory enterprises - such as illegal gaming - and then they run these games. At the very least, they need to design a system that prevents problem gamblers from losing everything they have.

[ZenOps]

I have no problem with 6/49 gambling.

It gives poor people hope. Sure its 1 in 10 million+ hope, but its still hope.

A few dollars (as long as its not overdone) should be left up to the person to decide what they want to do with it. If someone wants to spend $100,000 and climb a mountain knowing that there is a 50/50 chance of freezing to death on the way up - let them do it - its their money.

The only questionable part is when we have to bail people out (like rescueing aforementioned psycho mountain climbers, or more than likely addicted gamblers)

But as the US people say "pursuit of happiness" its not "the achievement of happiness" is whats important. Of which the lotto definitely fills a void.

[Machjo]

It's a conflict of interest, clearly. On the one hand, the government tells people that they need to be protected from certain predatory enterprises - such as illegal gaming - and then they run these games. At the very least, they need to design a system that prevents problem gamblers from losing everything they have.

The government should not even appear to be hurting or exploiting anyone, let alone actually do it.

On that ground, just as tobacco crown corporations ought to be banned, same should apply to any government-run alcohol industry or gambling industry. I know some debate whether lotteries are 'gambling'. Some consider it 'like gambling' but on a smaller scale. Others say it's 'gambling lite'. No matter how we look at it, the government should not be engaged in anything that even looks like gambling. Essentially, lotteries are gambling by definition. Small-scale gambling, granted, but the harm is the same as extreme gambling, just on a smaller scale. And again, it's the most vulnerable members of society and not the rich who are likely to buy these tickets.

Both socialists and capitalists should be able to agree with this at least. Socialists shold oppose it because it's exploitation of the most vulnerable memebrs of the community. And capitalists should oppose it just because we should aim at smaller government. And social conservatives should oppose it for obvious reasons. We'd think quite a few groups should be able to agree on this.

[eyeball]

It's a conflict of interest, clearly. On the one hand, the government tells people that they need to be protected from certain predatory enterprises - such as illegal gaming - and then they run these games. At the very least, they need to design a system that prevents problem gamblers from losing everything they have.

This also applies to the government's enterprise in booze and tobacco vis a vis its prohibition of other addictive substances. The government is just a de facto gang that's protecting its turf from competition these days.

[Machjo]

I have no problem with 6/49 gambling.

It gives poor people hope. Sure its 1 in 10 million+ hope, but its still hope.

You're chances of losing outweigh your chances of winning. It's a false hope and exploitative of the poor.

A few dollars (as long as its not overdone) should be left up to the person to decide what they want to do with it. If someone wants to spend $100,000 and climb a mountain knowing that there is a 50/50 chance of freezing to death on the way up - let them do it - its their money.

But it's not the government selling the climber his climbing equipment either. I think you missed the point that it's the government itself that is engaging in this activity, and not just some private company. I think it's reasonable for us to expect higher standards of the government seeing that it represents all of us.

The only questionable part is when we have to bail people out (like rescueing aforementioned psycho mountain climbers, or more than likely addicted gamblers)

Certainly I could agree with requiring climbers to buy compulsory climbing insurance that would cover search and rescue costs or, if we can't control this (after all, with or without insurance, a person could decide to just go out and what could governemnt do about it except after the fact?), then introduce a tax on climbing equipment that would go towards search and rescue services.

The same could apply to private gambling. While we can debate whether it ought to be legal, we can certainly agree at least that a gambling tax should be introduced to cover the social costs of gambling addictions, minor or extreme, caused by this industry, such as through gambling addiction rehabilitation centres, etc.

But for the government itself to engage in such an exploitative industry? Just like alcohol. It might as well open up a tobacco company while it's at it.

But as the US people say "pursuit of happiness" its not "the achievement of happiness" is whats important. Of which the lotto definitely fills a void.

yes, that void is government revenue, and the government certainly fills it well. At the very least, we'd expect the government to privatize any industry relating to gambling or alcohol, etc.

[Machjo]

This also applies to the government's enterprise in booze and tobacco vis a vis its prohibition of other addictive substances. The government is just a de facto gang that's protecting its turf from competition these days.

Agreed. Whatever we believe concerning the legalization of nicotine, alcoholic, and gambling products, at the very least the government itself should not be engaging in it. If it's to exist, it ought to remain in the private sector. the government has no business selling anything that is harmful to the population in any way shape or form.

[ZenOps]

It does have some real benifit too.

If you believe that 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typerwriters will eventually write the greatest novel ever than thats a different story... But most people do believe that elevating one person (finanacially) above the rest whether through luck or sheer ability is something attainable and desireable - SPARTAA!

If you don't let people have the chance to think that they will someday become a supermodel or a sports star, then there *will be* no supermodels or sports stars.

Why would anyone go to a bar if they didn't think they had a chance of getting lucky?

Belief in change is what keeps the world turning. If religion wasn't around to make religious people think that they would be swallowed up by the devil tomorrow, how much would actually get done?

[Machjo]

It does have some real benifit too.

If you believe that 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typerwriters will eventually write the greatest novel ever than thats a different story... But most people do believe that elevating one person (finanacially) above the rest whether through luck or sheer ability is something attainable and desireable - SPARTAA!

If you don't let people have the chance to think that they will someday become a supermodel or a sports star, then there *will be* no supermodels or sports stars.

Why would anyone go to a bar if they didn't think they had a chance of getting lucky?

Belief in change is what keeps the world turning. If religion wasn't around to make religious people think that they would be swallowed up by the devil tomorrow, how much would actually get done?

So if the government disengaged from gambling, the world would stop turning?

[ToadBrother]

But as the US people say "pursuit of happiness" its not "the achievement of happiness" is whats important. Of which the lotto definitely fills a void.

Lotteries are taxes on the arithmetically challenged. Period. They certainly do allow people to do carry on fairy tale lala land notions, while the government rakes in vast profits. Governments will not let go of gambling, because it represents a bona-fide rarity, a revenue stream that not only is unaffected by economic downturns, but often see growth during such downturns.

[Machjo]

Lotteries are taxes on the arithmetically challenged. Period. They certainly do allow people to do carry on fairy tale lala land notions, while the government rakes in vast profits. Governments will not let go of gambling, because it represents a bona-fide rarity, a revenue stream that not only is unaffected by economic downturns, but often see growth during such downturns.

There's no doubt that from the point of view of short-term benefits for those of us who don't buy lottery tickets, it certainly provides government with more revenue that can be used to pay off debt and provide services etc. without the need for tax increases.

From an ethical standpoint though, it's a whole other story. I'm sure we could lower taxes considerable if the government got into the sale of various drugs, narcotics, etc. The ready supply of addicts would be a great source of governmetn revenue. But is that really the path we'd like to take?

I'm certainly not saying lotteries are as bad as narcotics, but the idea in this context is the same except on a more moderate scale. The extremity aside, the comparison is a valid one. Do we want government revenue at all costs, or do we want government to show some kind of moral integrity?

[ToadBrother]

I'm certainly not saying lotteries are as bad as narcotics, but the idea in this context is the same except on a more moderate scale. The extremity aside, the comparison is a valid one. Do we want government revenue at all costs, or do we want government to show some kind of moral integrity?

I think morality is irrelevant. I see no reason why gambling or heroin should be illegal or controlled. I think they should be fully legalized, tax the crap out of the profits, just like they do with alcohol. I want the government passing laws, not enforcing moral decrees.

[Machjo]

I think morality is irrelevant. I see no reason why gambling or heroin should be illegal or controlled. I think they should be fully legalized, tax the crap out of the profits, just like they do with alcohol. I want the government passing laws, not enforcing moral decrees.

Considering that the very existance of government is based, at least in part, on moral grounds (the belief in the need for a society to organize itself for its welfare, protection, betterment, etc.), if you believe morality is irrelevant, then I take it you're an anarchist too.

[ZenOps]

Hey, hope is hope.

Are you going to be the one stopping a family from spending ridiculous amounts of money to fly in a religious spiritual healer for a "laying of the hands" session on a serious condition patient just because you don't find any value to it?

I see gambling as no different, if anything - its morally wrong to take gambling away from the poor.

Edited December 16, 2009 by ZenOps

[Alta4ever]

Hey, hope is hope.

Are you going to be the one stopping a family from spending ridiculous amounts of money to fly in a religious spiritual healer for a "laying of the hands" session on a serious condition patient just because you don't find any value to it?

I see gambling as no different, if anything - its morally wrong to take gambling away from the poor.

Don't the middle class buy lotto tickets? What is this talk of the "poor". People of all classes gamble it is not single class issue.

Get over it.

[ZenOps]

Were all poor, its just a matter of relativety.

Tiger Woods might be middle class (1 billion net worth or so) The Queen is probably one of the few who has control over trillions.

However, the poorest of the poor are usually the ones that need the lotto the most - Just like the sickest of the sick are usually the ones that are the ones that need "spritual hope" the most.