Floyd, you asked me why I was against the lottery. Here's why: - Page 4

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 12:26

I don't understand what all this talk is about punishing stupidity. I happen to enjoy the company of a good number of stupid people. In fact just yesterday I was talking to my friend Jim an I said "Jim, you're good people. You're stupid, you're dirt poor but you're good people. Can I have that $20 you owe me, you know, the 20 I gave you last week. Thanks man!" Oh, he's poor too.

Exactly where did we get the idea that stupid people deserve to be punished? Its damned stupid if you ask me, you know there are alot of stupid people out there and it may be you. Sure there are a few funny quotes out there about stupid people, they make me laugh but God Damn these people really exist!

That being said I would argue the fact that lottery profits have as much to do with stupidity as they do with people who have fundamental problems wrapping their brains around the worth of money, not being able to balance that momentary pleasure at the corner store counter of buying your ticket with the real value of the dollar you spend or not even caring. Their are many people who we would classify as smart, even genius who have not been able to understand the value of money. This isn't suprising because its actually a pretty alien idea to a few million years of our evolution.

Still, keep the lottery, more taxes on the rich!

DinoDoc · November 7, 2002, 12:48

From my reading of this thread, there doesn't seem to be anything in the way of arguements against a state run lottery other than point 2 & 3 of John's initial post. Most people seem to be arguing the squishy notion that a lottery is immoral which puts them in the same camp as the "It's against God's law!" people.

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 12:58

not exactly DinoDoc. I would call it unethical.

The "Its against God's Law!" people would call it immoral based on God's Law. The people on this thread, I think, are argueing it to be immoral based on their belief that a government should not be involved in deliberately misleading schemes to procure funds from its citizens, stupid or otherwise. For me this could go up there as a fundamental rule that we should all hold our government to. I'm sure many will disagree with me though.

David Floyd · November 7, 2002, 15:52

Quote:

people on this thread, I think, are argueing it to be immoral based on their belief that a government should not be involved in deliberately misleading schemes to procure funds from its citizens, stupid or otherwise.

Whereas it's OK and much better for the government to use men with guns to enforce an involuntary taxation scheme. Don't see the logic there.

Urban Ranger · November 7, 2002, 23:45

Because you are taxing people who can least afford it with a lottery. Besides, as it was pointed out before, the government is entitled to collect taxes, Libertarian silly thinking notwithstanding.

Skanky Burns · November 7, 2002, 23:50

I much prefer voluntary to involuntary.
I don't have to pay it, and others who want to can. Win - win.

So what that the people who pay are those who can least afford it? They are also the least able to afford buying huge quantities of alcohol and cigarettes, but they manage to do that just fine. (based on my experience working in a bottle-shop)

Besides, who are we to ban people from doing something they enjoy, especially considering that everyone involved gets something good out of it.

Ramo · November 8, 2002, 00:13

Quote:

Pricing has little to do with "fairness", whatever that means, and much to do with what people are willing to pay. What people are willing to pay IS the fair price.

1. I don't think that's necessarily the case.
2. The government is intentionally deceptive about lotteries, so people are willing to play more than they would if the government were truthful.

Quote:

No, stupid comes in when you play with the expectation of winning.

I just explained why it's not stupid to expect to win the lottery. If someone was as wrong by as much as you were in estimating my example lottery, it would be financially lucrative.

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with creating a voluntary system, where the odds are stacked against winning, and using non-coercive, truthful (but not necessarily clear) advertising to get people to play. It's certainly better than an involuntary system backed by coercion.

1. It's not truthful.
2. Randism is not the only valid moral system. Most people consider deception to be bad, and most people consider milking the addicted or ignorant for all they're worth when they clearly have limited means to be bad.
3. What you think it's better than is irrelevent. Just because it might be more moral than something else the government does, doesn't make it moral.

Quote:

They should. It's obvious. Common sense dictates that a lottery with a $10 million jackpot is going to have HORRIBLE odds.

No, "common sense" doesn't dictate that. Most investments have a far greater chance of approaching a return of $10 million than the lottery. Why should the lottery be fundamentally different. Remember, by fudging the math a little, it's a perfectly reasonable result.

Sure the vast majority of people would realize the odds are bad, but I don't see why it isn't within the realm of possibility (i.e. not totally insignificant as it currently is) that if someone regularly buys a lotto ticket he could win the jackpot if you aren't knowledgable in math.

Quote:

But if a person does crack one time, they obviously should expect to be addicted. In that sense, they are choosing addiction, and trading pleasure for a probable shortened lifetime. It was their choice all the way around.

I never said it wasn't their choice. However, people ought not to participate in the death of people because they act foolishly. That isn't how responsible people should behave.

Quote:

Not that they have any way of determining who is an addict.

Which, again, is the point.

Quote:

My INITIAL gut reaction was that the odds were along the lines of 10 million to 1, when I applied my reasoning to it I came up with 1 million to 1. My gut reaction and my reasoning are usually used in conjunction with each other, and either way, the odds are horrible.

But they're both wrong. Other people could reason differently and come up with a number too large instead of small.

Quote:

And if you think crack dealing is immoral, then what about selling fatty foods? Over a long period of time they can kill you.

They can. But they're clearly less harmful than crack, so there's no moral problem IMO. If people sell fatty foods and lie about the fat content, I certainly see that as immoral.

Quote:

People are free to make their own choices. I would think most people who buy lottery tickets would have to know their chances of winning are very small. They also know though that it is possible that they could get lucky and become rich, and in purchasing a ticket they are willing to give away some money for that chance. True it's not very smart, but I see no problem with them wanting to do that. I do have a problem though with government saying "We know better than you that this is a waste of your money, so we are going to take it away"

Why are people continually dragging up this "point." I'm an anarchist. I think gambling should be legalized. I don't think the government should restrict it.

If you want to milk money out of the addicted or ignorant, go right ahead. But I don't want my government to participate in that.

Quote:

Most people seem to be arguing the squishy notion that a lottery is immoral which puts them in the same camp as the "It's against God's law!" people.

The lottery is based on exploiting the overwhelmingly poor addicted and ignorant. I think any reasonable person would see that as immoral. Just like any reasonable person would say murder is immoral.

Urban Ranger · November 8, 2002, 00:20

Skanky,

Being a citizen of a country does involve certain obligations, paying taxes is one of them. You think people will voluntarily pay taxes? How would a government function without money?

As for alcohol and tobacco, they are a different kind of animal. People don't buy lottery just for fun, they want to win (fat chance that).

I am not against having a lottery, even though I am extremely skeptical of "everyone involved gets something good out of it." I am against replacing tax payment with a lottery.

Skanky Burns · November 8, 2002, 02:23

I don't deny that a citizen's responsibility to pay taxes to support the government and the services the government provides. But that doesn't make me want to pay them, and if there is a way to make others pay more (voluntarily) then its a good thing. For me.

I don't think it is possible to replace tax entirely with lottery, and definately not desirable either. So you have my agreement there.

I believe people by lottery tickets for the hope of winning. If they didn't get anything out of it, they would stop buying tickets. They continue to buy tickets, so the conclusion is...

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 06:32

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Whereas it's OK and much better for the government to use men with guns to enforce an involuntary taxation scheme. Don't see the logic there.

Whereas doesn't come into it, the arguement is still the same whatever our current form of taxation. I don't see the logical connection.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 09:08

Lotto aside, voluntary tax is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Would you create a society where you select against those who feel they have a responsibility to that society which they fulfill by paying higher taxes, while those with a strictly individualistic outlook keep all of their money and so profit relative to those who pay? What about those who are simply to absent-minded to pay or just too stupid

, they profit too?

People forget that they are nothing without their neighbours, without their society.

TheStinger · November 8, 2002, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Lotto aside, voluntary tax is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Would you create a society where you select against those who feel they have a responsibility to that society which they fulfill by paying higher taxes, while those with a strictly individualistic outlook keep all of their money and so profit relative to those who pay? What about those who are simply to absent-minded to pay or just too stupid

, they profit too?

People forget that they are nothing without their neighbours, without their society.

I see you haven't read many of DF's posts yet.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 09:12

I don't think so if you direct me to them I will

DinoDoc · November 8, 2002, 10:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
I think any reasonable person would see that as immoral.

1) It really isn't self evident that a lottery in immoral. I've yet to see any arguements that get around the notion that they don't have to buy the ticket.

2) I really thought you above statements like "Any reasonable person should agree with me." in cases like this.

Ramo · November 8, 2002, 16:22

Quote:

It really isn't self evident that a lottery in immoral. I've yet to see any arguements that get around the notion that they don't have to buy the ticket.

1. The lottery is based on deception and misdirection through hinting at supposedly non-nearly-impossible odds and often flat-out lies on the probability of winning.
2. The lottery milks money out of people who really can't afford it.

I thought you were a Christian, not a Randist. Isn't there more to Christian morality than non-initiation of force? Like not financially screwing over people who can't afford it?

Quote:

I really thought you above statements like "Any reasonable person should agree with me." in cases like this.

I really thought I wouldn't have to justify to you that governments using deception and addiction to leech money from the poor isn't exactly the epitome of moral behavior. It's a form of coercion that can be just as base as physical force.