|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 3:45:30 GMT -5
Do you really want the government deciding how people should spend their money? No. That's why they should get out of the lottery/gambling business. No more dishonest ad campaigns from the state that try to influence what people spend their money on. Treat it the same way we treat alcohol or cigarettes. People should be allowed to spend money on it, if they want. But that doesn't mean the state has to provide or promote the service.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 22, 2018 4:43:41 GMT -5
I'm all pro-choice about letting people piss away their lives any way they choose. That doesn't mean I approve of the predation that some are willing to use against the uneducated to line their own pockets.
What we see is one group of people (the state) deliberately targeting another, marginally educated group, (one they hypocritically claim to "serve" and pretend they are "educating" against just such foolishness) to line their own pockets and pay for controlling even more activities in the society they inhabit. Just exactly the same way the Mafia did it for decades. But since it's the state and for supposed "good works," it's somehow no longer morally repugnant.
This whole discussion about gambling would be moot if they'd just invent a new word for it when government does it, like they have with taxation or eminent domain for theft, conscription for enslavement and collateral damage for murder. And since non-state-run gambling is illegal in most states, it fits right in with the whole "if the government does it, it's not illegal" thing that Nixon was so fond of.
People supporting state-run lotteries would probably also support locking up bookies who do exactly the same thing the state is doing here, and can somehow forgive the state for the same predatory practices they would gladly condemn an individual for using.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Oct 22, 2018 5:10:50 GMT -5
We have a state-run lottery here but the advertising, as far as I can see, doesn't appear to target any particular group. But yes, when I see the queues at the Lotto counter at the supermarket, it does look as if it is the poorer segment of society buying tickets. But I can't blame them. We have a 26% unemployment rate here and terrible poverty. For many people, the only chance of ever breaking out of it is to win the lottery. The odds here are 1 in 33.000.000. But, in the face of dire poverty, I think it's the hope, the dream that maybe sustains some people. Also, here you do not need to have all the numbers right. Three numbers plus the 'bonus' number will bring you a small return. Four numbers plus the bonus number will pay more.. and so on.
Our lottery does not benefit only one entity. It donates to many NGO's over a wide field - from people with disabilities to animals in distress. In a country that has been overrun with corruption in all levels of government, the lottery is about the only thing that hasn't been tarnished. Much. My late hubby frequently bought lottery tickets. His view was that, even though winning was a long-shot, at least you were donating to some very worthy causes. Me? I don't like the odds of 1 - 33M. Ha!
But yeah. Lotteries = Live in hope, die in despair.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 22, 2018 8:24:30 GMT -5
I'm all pro-choice about letting people piss away their lives any way they choose. That doesn't mean I approve of the predation that some are willing to use against the uneducated to line their own pockets. Right. I'm not arguing that people--rich, poor, whatever--shouldn't be allowed to play lotteries or otherwise gamble. They should be free to do as they please (within the confines of the law). But the state shouldn't be purposefully helping people make foolish choices, period. It shouldn't be encouraging people to do so. I find it kinda sad, actually, that there's disagreement on this point. And it sure as shit shouldn't be profiting off those people who are making foolish choices, regardless of how it says it is going to use those profits. And the fact of the matter is that these sorts of foolish choices impact some people more significantly than others. It doesn't matter of it's only $20 a week, or even if it's only $1 a week, it's still money being essentially thrown away. And if someone is struggling to get buy, to keep a roof over their head, to feed their family, this matters. Anyone who thinks tossing $20 in the trash every week means nothing is free to send it to me, instead. Hey, I might blow that money on something equally worthless, but at least I'll be able to admit that's what I'm doing.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 22, 2018 8:40:34 GMT -5
Okay so cigarettes are overtly harmful; smoking them can kill you. Faith healing is a scam; believing in it and eschewing medical treatment could kill you. But buying $10 worth of tickets each week is not going to kill you. Or bankrupt you. Or even reduce the quality of your life in any discernible way, as far as I can tell. Well, I think state lotteries are also a scam. Everything about them is a scam, from the advertising and slogans, to the way they're falsely touted as boons for education, so that well-meaning people will get duped into feeling good about them. Did you ever see the John Oliver segment on state lotteries? www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHAHe's spot-on, IMO. Obviously it's understandable to want to support education. And obviously it's understandable to want to win millions of dollars, especially if you're struggling. But the whole thing is set up to be predatory, not to actually help people. And sure, I agree $10 a week might not kill you. But it can absolutely hurt people in discernible ways. $10 a week for someone making $10,000 a year would be about 5 percent of their income, right? If that's just peanuts, why don't we have a 5 percent income tax on people making $10,000 a year? Well, for one thing, I think many would agree that 5 percent can be tough when you're on a low income, much tougher than 20 percent would be for someone making more money. And then, of course, there's the people who spend way more than $10 a week on this stuff, as Oliver noted. Like Opty said, I really don't see it as predatory anymore than if the government put on massive bake sales and a disproportionate number of obese people showed up. There are no victims, only volunteers, imo. I did watch the John Oliver clip, and I do adore him, but I don't always agree with him. Insofar as the lottery is supposed to raise money for education - technically, it does, but I agree that it doesn't necessarily increase the total allocation to education. So, yeah, it's a bit shady on the advertising end. But look, Oliver's youtube clip is available for everyone. And this sort of hype and bullshit happens in the free market all the time and no one thinks the government should restrict private businesses to this extent. Also I agree that it's hypocritical for these states to have laws against gambling. So I *think* I get what you and rob are saying. I just disagree. And also maybe I really like that I have the choice to opt out of this particular government "scam." Heh.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 8:52:57 GMT -5
So I *think* I get what you and rob are saying. I just disagree. And also maybe I really like that I have the choice to opt out of this particular government "scam." Heh. But that would be true of most scams, right? I mean, if the government started raising funds by running some version of the Nigerian prince scam, people could simply "choose" not to fork over any money. But I think it's pretty obvious that would still be a messed up thing to do. So, I guess I don't really see how the fact that people have a choice in the matter has much bearing on whether it should be considered predatory.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 22, 2018 9:08:07 GMT -5
Well, that's why I put scam in quotes. I don't think it rises to the Nigerian Prince level because, even though people should know better there too, that's fraud.
Agree to disagree I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 22, 2018 9:37:02 GMT -5
I kind of agree with all of you. I don't generally buy lottery tickets, but yeah, when the jackpot is up to holy-shit levels, I'll buy a ticket along with everyone else, because $2 is worth spending a day or two fantasizing about what I'd do with a billion dollars. But yes, most people who buy lottery tickets regularly are stupid and bad at math and would be much better off spending that money elsewhere. And while I don't think it should be illegal, I don't think we should be encouraging it, and I definitely don't think the government should be looking at lotteries as a means of revenue. Maybe it's hyperbole to call it a "tax," but it's definitely a means of milking the populace for extra money, and however you spin the "freedom of choice" argument, everyone knows which segment of the populace is contributing most of that money. And the government, by being in the lottery business, is also passively contributing to innumeracy and the normalization of gambling. Compare this to casinos - which I also think are moral and economic hazards, even though I like to go play poker now and then. At least those are private enterprises. But if I had my way, casinos wouldn't exist. I wouldn't make them illegal, I just wish they didn't exist. I think they do more harm than good. (Yes, I'm being hypocritical by spending money at a place I think shouldn't exist. I can only fight so many moral battles, and I just don't feel strongly enough about enabling other people's bad choices.) I remember a news segment years and years ago, when some other lottery was up to really high levels - the local news was covering this dumbass who'd bought 20,000 lottery tickets. $20K worth of lottery tickets. They checked in with him and his family throughout the night, as they went through all their tickets to see if they had a winner. So funny, so lighthearted, isn't this entertaining, this guy who decided to take a shot with $20K at winning a pot worth a hundred million? To no one's surprise, the total value of winning tickets was far less than the $20K he spent. Wonder if he felt stupid afterwards, or if he just shrugged and figured he knew the odds when he did it? It seemed to me at the time that he wasn't particularly bright and really thought he had reasonable odds. Lotteries are terrible, but so is alcohol. I wish alcohol didn't exist. I wish everyone in the world would dump all their alcohol and never drink it again. I think many of society's problems would be dramatically reduced if we collectively went cold sober. I don't care how much anyone loves whiskey or fine wine or hundred-year-old scotch or homecrafted beer. But, I don't judge people who drink, and every now and then I have a drink myself.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 22, 2018 9:50:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I think Amadan has summarized my position. I'll play the lottery from time to time, just for the fantasy of winning biggly, and while I see how it might arguably negatively affect those who need their $$ more than most, I just don't feel strongly about it. I think that's mostly down to the fact that no one is forced to buy them, and the belief that people DO know winning is a massively long shot. I spend my moral outrage on bone-awed journalists and sexual assaulters who are in public office. (And yes, I have a finite amount of moral outrage...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 18:45:24 GMT -5
I think that's mostly down to the fact that no one is forced to buy them, and the belief that people DO know winning is a massively long shot. I'll go out on a limb and guess the guy who bought $20,000 worth of tickets didn't correctly understand his chances. And I just think it's sad as hell that people actually feel comfortable taking that money. That we can help to ruin someone's finances and paper over it by pretending they knew what they were doing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 22, 2018 19:09:07 GMT -5
I agree it's sad, but people spending money they don't have on shit they shouldn't spend it on is always sad. I know there's a difference between the government protecting us from bad choices and the government actively enabling bad choices, but frankly, the difference isn't great enough to convince me that those people won't make equally bad choices regardless of who enables them.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2018 19:35:21 GMT -5
I agree it's sad, but people spending money they don't have on shit they shouldn't spend it on is always sad. I know there's a difference between the government protecting us from bad choices and the government actively enabling bad choices, but frankly, the difference isn't great enough to convince me that those people won't make equally bad choices regardless of who enables them. I agree, if we didn't have state lotteries, someone buying loads of tickets might spend their money on something else equally bad. But we (society)could still credibly say that we care about such people, and we can even offer help. If people are addicted to gambling, we can offer counseling. If people are addicted to drugs, we can treat it like a medical issue and offer treatment. (But to me, it's just descending into absurdity to offer those things while also encouraging the issues that lead people to needing that help in the first place.) Someone might spend their gambling money on drugs or alcohol, or even on non-state gambling, but I couldn't imagine taking lotto money from someone and justifying it by telling myself that that money is pegged for something unwise one way or the other, so hey, it might as well line my own pockets instead of someone else's.
|
|