Hacker News Reader

Comment by exolymph | Hacker News Reader

This issue boils down to the proper function of government: ensure people's freedom to act as they wish (barring negative impact on others), or enforce the "healthiest" behavior?

Yes, buying lottery tickets for any reason other than entertainment is irrational. But does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? People are choosing to spend their money like this.

Personally, I prefer a government that lets people do stupid things -- e.g. buying a lottery ticket with the expectation of winning -- to a government that paternalistically enforces middle-class norms.

View on HN

except that I’m not sure that the counter-argument to "act-as-you-wish" is "enforcing healthy behavior."

The nail in the coffin of the tobacco industry wasn’t “cigarettes are unhealthy,” it was that the tobacco industry was actively deceiving the public and obfuscating scientific research over multiple generations.

(When the sugar industry follows step (this seems inevitable), it will because they failed to police themselves with candid acknowledgement that soda should be a treat and not a dietary staple. Perhaps the Bloomberg soda ban was a bad idea and heavy-handed mommy gov't etc, but if the soda companies had an iota of sense they would have pre-empted the whole mess.)

So getting back to lottery… let’s agree that it is okay for people to act as they wish, but is it acceptable for lottery to misrepresent the astronomically low chances of even breaking even? Is it acceptable for lottery to specifically market toward people who can least afford it?

There's a reason the New York State lottery motto is "Hey, you never know."

You could enforce monthly purchase limits based on income, you could require an accurate demonstration of statistics on every ticket, you could raise taxes and double ticket prices, all sorts of things that would get the primary market - people who buy tickets and really can't afford it - to buy less, but...

Hey, you never know.

Regardless of how you feel about the function of government, the government itself shouldn't be party to running a lottery. Tax private lotteries, outlaw them, don't tax them, whatever, but the government stepping in and running lotteries is a massive overstep.

Exactly what I came to say. I'm not a gambler, but the idea of making gambling illegal seems insane to me in "the land of the free".

Spend some more time around casinos. Watch your opinion change as you realize what depressing things it says about our society that we let people weep on the pavement because they've lost their house on a literal crapshoot.

Spending a good bit of my formative years in Biloxi seriously changed my attitude around all of this.

It's good to hear that from someone else.

The degree to which the casino industry in Biloxi is celebrated as a heroic engine of economic development and generosity depresses me. The Coast was no utopia before the casinos. And sure, yeah, the casinos employ a bunch of people and some tax money goes to local schools.

But seeing people - often poor people - gamble away their lives, seeing how much prostitution came into play, seeing how many hard drugs come in through them...I don't think the price was worth it.

But all you'll see in the local paper, and hear from most locals, is laudatory: casinos are the savior. We need more of them!

Think about the tax revenue!

Lol...

> what depressing things it says about our society that we let people weep on the pavement because they've lost their house on a literal crapshoot.

The freedom allowing people to make those types of decisions trumps that argument.

Where would you draw the line and determine what we should "let" people do with their own possessions?

So you would not let a person gamble their house on a crap shoot? How about their car? Their watch? $5?

I think we could make a distinction between allowing people to make those types of decisions and actively enabling and encouraging those types of decisions.

If you want to gamble your house away in a private bet, go for it, but the local government shouldn't move heaven and earth to get a casino built to enable thousands and thousands of people to make those decisions in the name of tax revenue.

Similarly, I don't think you would be taking away people's freedom in any meaningful way if, say, you limited lottery transactions to say, $20.

I think you're tilting at windmills here. The type of people who think gambling should be legal and is entirely a personal decision are the type that would agree with you.

Only take it a step further. The state shouldn't move heaven and earth to get anything privately owned built. That it's a casino only makes something inherently bad even worse.

As a Christian, I disagree with the lifestyles many lead, and I have seen those lifestyles lead to much suffering. But just because I think I know better doesn't mean I want to push my views on them. God gave us free will; I advocate free will. Timshel.

I've spent a lot of time around casinos, and I've never seen any legitimate reason to restrict gambling. The government certainly has a role in making sure the games are as advertised, but you can't have liberty without allowing people to screw up.

> "Personally, I prefer a government that lets people do stupid things"

What an ignorant statement to make. Are you okay with people making "stupid decisions" like smoking in public places ?

Are you okay with people making "stupid decisions" like driving drunk ?

Are you okay with people making "stupid decisions" like shooting up a school ?

Society works when we look out for each other - and not let people do whatever they think is "right".

I think his caveat of "barring negative impact on others" pretty much covers these cases.

> "barring negative impact on others"

You think taking what little money poor people have from them via allowing them to spend it on lottery does not have social consequences ?

Ummm what happens when you apply your argument to allowing them to spend it on alcohol or cigarettes or a car or a thousand other things? This is a flawed argument my friend. No one group has a right to enforce their social, moral, economic or other ideology on another group based on what the enforcing group thinks is "right". That's a slippery slope with extra grease on it.

I guess it's hard for some people to relate to a large portion of any future savings being 'invested' in lottery tickets ("the money just goes towards your college education either way!") and spent on cigarettes -- not that hard at all when it's been your reality.

Well then the government should create laws allowing it to dictate what you can spend your money on if you make less than $X per year. You know, to prevent social consequences.

In your line of reasoning, should we perhaps also introduce mandatory drug testing for people with low income, and prohibit them from buying alcohol and cigarettes? Surely, these purchases have more social consequences than lottery tickets.

This concept of "social consequences" is essentially a flipped framing of a situation to incorporate an implicit utility function of whomever is using the term.

If a person or group of people does not act in a way that benefits you, they still have not harmed you. It simply means they have not chosen to conform to your expectations.

Different methods of governing can basically all boil down to a simple balance scale:

On one side you have the rights of the individual and on the other side you have the rights of the community.

Some people tend to lean the scale toward individual rights and others toward community rights.

Smaller government tends to handle the balance by staying out of the way until it's necessary that they step in. Bigger government tends to handle the balance by marking clear (or blurry) lines and moving them when necessary.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Well put.

*her, but thank you. (I know it's a little thing, but it bothers me that people automatically assume anyone on Hacker News is a man.)

One could make the argument that there's a difference between letting people do stupid things that only indirectly and only in certain contexts hurt others (ex spending the rent money on lottery tickets) and letting people do stupid things that by definition hurt others (shooting up a school, smoking in public and populated places) or have a significant liklihood of harming others (driving drunk).

Of course this is always an awkward line to walk, and the definition of stupid is entirely subjective. Most things that make people happy aren't totally "rational".

> Are you okay with people making "stupid decisions" like smoking in public places?

Yes, because mature adults recognise that smoking in public places is no more offensive than poor bathing hygiene, and less harmful than woodsmoke.

> Society works when we look out for each other - and not let people do whatever they think is "right".

What is right? The majority? That's just a synonym for might.

All examples you give have a high likelihood of hurting other people.

How does buying a lottery ticket hurt others?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com