Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com