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

[Ramo]

Its a simper calculation if say 25% goes to expenses and state skim, then a $1.00 ticket is only worth .$75, and each time you buy one, you are losing a quarter.

I imagine most people wouldn't know the 25% figure.

I don't see why people getting hett up about the actual odds involved in the lottery - be they good or bad.

I was refuting the assertion that people who don't know that the lottery is a monumentally crappy investment are stupid.

What you should be looking at is the actual odds in relation to the offered odds.

Agreed. Deception on the part of the state not only punishes ignorance, but it promotes it.

OK, but they are still responsible for their own decisions.

Why should the state take advantage of their "irresponsibility?"

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Not at all. Reduce the numbers a little (as in smaller lotteries) or even change the misestimate to an order of magnitude as you predicted, and the lottery is a perfectly rational investment.

You're argument here could easily be extended to indict coffee makers, Coca-Cola, etc., to say nothing of alcohol. Those people capitalize on addictions to make money. So what?

I don't see it as moral to sell any of these products to addicts.

They aren't doing anything wrong by the act of dealing drugs.

Someone else will come along and want some crack, sure as ****.

Do you at least agree that society would be better if no one thought that way?

What's your point? The only one I can discern is that of percentages being based upon knowing math, and I thought I answered it by bringing up a real life example that poor ignorant people can probably relate better to.

There's no particular reason to think that the trend works the way you describe unless you examine the system closer.

But my answer appears to be right to someone who doesn't know math. Hell, I don't even know why my answer was wrong (nor do I care, so don't explain it to me). This is an example of the most obvious answer being wrong, but if it's the most obvious answer, I fail to see why other ignorant people wouldn't come to the same conclusion.

To one person who doesn't know math. Most people would overestimate the probability. It seems more reasonable to me that the difference would be an order of magnitude less than more (without applying any knowledge).

[Ramo]

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Elaborating on this point, if he misestimated the probablity by an order of magnitude (~1/10,000), if he buys a lottery ticket every day for 19 years, according to him, it's 50% likely that he'd win the lottery, and overall he'd make a huge profit.

[David Floyd]

Why should the state take advantage of their "irresponsibility?"

As a counterargument, should car dealers refuse to sell a car to someone whom they believe is being fiscally irresponsible (credit questions aside, the person is paying cash)? People are responsible for their own financial decisions, and the government least of all should question those decisions.

Not at all. Reduce the numbers a little (as in smaller lotteries) or even change the misestimate to an order of magnitude as you predicted, and the lottery is a perfectly rational investment.

So, reduce the odds to 1/1000, with the guaranteed individual prize being $5000, assuming $1 lottery tickets. Not that this has any basis in reality, but let's just assume.

In this case, it would be very logical to spend $1000 to buy 1000 lottery ticket, and making a net profit of $4000.

But this isn't how things work. If they did, I wouldn't bother going to college because I'd make my money exploiting lotteries.

I don't see it as moral to sell any of these products to addicts.

So now Coca-Cola venders should be "addict testers", and somehow magically identify which users are addicted to caffeine? Or maybe Starbucks should keep a record of its customers, and refuse service to anyone who is in more than 3 times a week? Maybe Budweiser should limit sales to one 6 pack per week per customer?



Of course not. People are responsible for their own decisions, and addicts became addicts as a result of their decision, and remain addicts by their own decision. There is help out there, such as AA or drug therapy. Just because people don't take advantage of it doesn't mean Budweiser, drug dealers, Starbucks, or anyone else should restrict sales of their products.

That's right. I see nothing immoral with the act of selling drugs.

Do you at least agree that society would be better if no one thought that way?

I agree that it is a bad idea to do cocaine, yes.

There's no particular reason to think that the trend works the way you describe unless you examine the system closer.

I suppose one needs to be a psychologist in order to closely examine such issues. I don't claim to be one. However, you seem to be the only person left trying to argue that people don't know the odds are stacked against them when they play the lottery, so I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that theory.

To one person who doesn't know math. Most people would overestimate the probability. It seems more reasonable to me that the difference would be an order of magnitude less than more (without applying any knowledge).

Don't really see how. All one has to do with a six digit number, to reach the number I came up with, is to tack six zeroes onto the end of 1, which corresponds to the six numbers they have to guess. Seems logical.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ignorance should be punished at every opprotunity.

I can't believe I missed this statement until now. Such a wasted opportunity...

[Ramo]

As a counterargument, should car dealers refuse to sell a car to someone whom they believe is being fiscally irresponsible (credit questions aside, the person is paying cash)?

That's an inappropriate analogy. Closer to the point, car dealers shouldn't rip customers off with crappy deals.

People are responsible for their own financial decisions, and the government least of all should question those decisions.

This isn't about government questioning anyone's decisions; it's about government taking advantage of people.

But this isn't how things work. If they did, I wouldn't bother going to college because I'd make my money exploiting lotteries.

Of course most people don't think the odds are stacked in favor of them in lotteries. But I doubt most people who participate in them regularly understand the sheer and utter futility of winning in a lottery. It's one of the worst investments possible. And since the state deliberately lies about this, the lottery is incredibly exploitive.

So now Coca-Cola venders should be "addict testers", and somehow magically identify which users are addicted to caffeine? Or maybe Starbucks should keep a record of its customers, and refuse service to anyone who is in more than 3 times a week? Maybe Budweiser should limit sales to one 6 pack per week per customer?

Not at all. If someone has a serious addiction (granted, I've never heard of anyone who had a serious addiction to coca-cola, but I'm sure it's possible) to a harmful substance, it's totally morally irresponsible to exploit that addiction for your financial gain.

Likewise, if someone had a serious addiction to alcohol, it's morally irresponsible to sell alcohol to the alcoholic.

Of course not. People are responsible for their own decisions, and addicts became addicts as a result of their decision, and remain addicts by their own decision. There is help out there, such as AA or drug therapy. Just because people don't take advantage of it doesn't mean Budweiser, drug dealers, Starbucks, or anyone else should restrict sales of their products.

Sure they should. It isn't practical for them to do so, though.

I agree that it is a bad idea to do cocaine, yes.

If society would be better off without cocaine, how is it morally righteous to contribute to the cocaine industry?

I suppose one needs to be a psychologist in order to closely examine such issues. I don't claim to be one. However, you seem to be the only person left trying to argue that people don't know the odds are stacked against them when they play the lottery, so I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that theory.

That's not what I'm saying. In reference to it possibly being financially responsible, I was addressing the claim of stupidity.

However, there's absolutely no doubt people don't understand quite how much the odds are stacked against them.

Don't really see how. All one has to do with a six digit number, to reach the number I came up with, is to tack six zeroes onto the end of 1, which corresponds to the six numbers they have to guess. Seems logical.

Why tack zeroes ad infinitum? It's not obvious. And my lottery is more comlex than that. And if you were off by one order of magnitude with your algorithm, why is it not possible that you were off by two?

[David Floyd]

Closer to the point, car dealers shouldn't rip customers off with crappy deals.

You're right, they shouldn't commit fraud. But there's nothing wrong with them airing advertisements featuring "dazzling automobiles" and "great deals". It's up to the consumer to decide what is dazzling and what isn't.

Fraud would be if they guaranteed that a car would run fine for at least three years, knowing full well it would break down next week.

This isn't about government questioning anyone's decisions; it's about government taking advantage of people.

It would only be taking advantage of people if these people did not have any way to figure out that lotteries are a bad deal. This is not the case, though.

Of course most people don't think the odds are stacked in favor of them in lotteries.

Not only that, but they know the odds are heavily stacked against them.

But I doubt most people who participate in them regularly understand the sheer and utter futility of winning in a lottery.

If they can't make the connection between horrible odds in one lottery and horrible odds in another, I'm not gonna feel sorry for them.

And since the state deliberately lies about this, the lottery is incredibly exploitive.

In what way does saying, "You could be next!" or "You can't win if you don't play" equate to lying?

Not at all. If someone has a serious addiction (granted, I've never heard of anyone who had a serious addiction to coca-cola, but I'm sure it's possible) to a harmful substance, it's totally morally irresponsible to exploit that addiction for your financial gain.

Likewise, if someone had a serious addiction to alcohol, it's morally irresponsible to sell alcohol to the alcoholic.

My point was that it is not my place to go out of my way to determine if somone has a "serious addiction". My job (well, my potential job) is to sell a good to a customer. I'm not a social worker or a doctor. People are ultimately responsible for themselves - it is up to them to seek help, not their local Starbucks shop or liquor store.

Sure they should. It isn't practical for them to do so, though.

Why should they? You're saying that buying a coffee should be like buying a gun currently is? "OK, that'll be one grande espresso, now just fill out these forms in triplicate, we'll fax them off to our National Addiction Control Center, and we'll get your coffee to you sometime tomorrow."

This isn't their job. Their job is to provide a good and/or service to a paying customer, who seeks out this good or service of their own free will.

If society would be better off without cocaine, how is it morally righteous to contribute to the cocaine industry?

Because it's not immoral to sell a good that someone (or, in this case, a great many someones) want. I may wish cocaine never existed, but since it does exist and isn't going away, I see no problem with someone selling it, either.

However, there's absolutely no doubt people don't understand quite how much the odds are stacked against them.

Two points:
First of all, it is their responsibility and easily within their means to figure out the exact odds.
Secondly, the fact remains that they are STILL buying lottery tickets, KNOWING the odds are strongly against them in some form or fashion.

Why tack zeroes ad infinitum? It's not obvious.

Seems to be obvious to me *shrug*, but I don't think we're gonna get any further in this particular area anyway.

[Ramo]

You're right, they shouldn't commit fraud.

Why not? Given the morality you've expressed in this thread, I don't see why fraud is any worse.

But there's nothing wrong with them airing advertisements featuring "dazzling automobiles" and "great deals". It's up to the consumer to decide what is dazzling and what isn't.

Car dealers shouldn't try to pass a car off for $5000 if it's only worth $1000. It is the customer's responsibility to determine whether the car dealer is being honest, but it's the car dealer's responsibility to be honest.

Fraud would be if they guaranteed that a car would run fine for at least three years, knowing full well it would break down next week.

Doesn't sound morally worse to me than exploiting a crack addiction.

And by that criteria, governments certainly do committ fraud with lotteries by lying about the probabilities. SD gave us an example a while back.

It would only be taking advantage of people if these people did not have any way to figure out that lotteries are a bad deal. This is not the case, though.

Again, it's not a question of realizing whether it's a bad deal; it's realizing whether it's an insanely bad deal which is not obvious.

If they can't make the connection between horrible odds in one lottery and horrible odds in another, I'm not gonna feel sorry for them.

If they don't know the probability of one, why should they know the odds of another?

In what way does saying, "You could be next!" or "You can't win if you don't play" equate to lying?

It's certainly deceptive. Right out lying is saying that the probability is x, when it's much less than x.

My point was that it is not my place to go out of my way to determine if somone has a "serious addiction". My job (well, my potential job) is to sell a good to a customer. I'm not a social worker or a doctor. People are ultimately responsible for themselves - it is up to them to seek help, not their local Starbucks shop or liquor store.

It's the responsible of everyone to be decent people to everyone else. That's how society should work. People shouldn't be total *******s to each other.

Why should they? You're saying that buying a coffee should be like buying a gun currently is? "OK, that'll be one grande espresso, now just fill out these forms in triplicate, we'll fax them off to our National Addiction Control Center, and we'll get your coffee to you sometime tomorrow."

This isn't their job. Their job is to provide a good and/or service to a paying customer, who seeks out this good or service of their own free will.

This is a strawman. Coffee addictions certainly aren't as serious as crack addictions.

Two points:
First of all, it is their responsibility and easily within their means to figure out the exact odds.

1. It's the responisbility of people to be civil to each other.
2. They sometimes find odds from the government. Often, the government is lying.

Secondly, the fact remains that they are STILL buying lottery tickets, KNOWING the odds are strongly against them in some form or fashion.

They usually don't understand the odds are stacked against them as much as they are.

Seems to be obvious to me *shrug*

But you were wrong.

[Shi Huangdi]

" Given the morality you've expressed in this thread, I don't see why fraud is any worse."

Fraud involves dishonesty in your dealings. Lotteries don't neccesarily involve dishonesty.

[David Floyd]

Car dealers shouldn't try to pass a car off for $5000 if it's only worth $1000.

Are you saying car dealers shouldn't try to turn a profit, or shouldn't try to turn an excessive profit?

Does this mean it is wrong for Best Buy to sell Belkin printer cables for $30-40, when they buy them from Belkin for about $4-6, and Belkin manufactures them for far less?

Sorry, I'm not gonna buy that. Prices should be what people are willing to pay - if people are willing to pay $5000 for a $1000 car, so be it.

And by that criteria, governments certainly do committ fraud with lotteries by lying about the probabilities.

Well, I will concede that the government shouldn't lie. That doesn't mean that lotteries are wrong, though.

Again, it's not a question of realizing whether it's a bad deal; it's realizing whether it's an insanely bad deal which is not obvious.

It's stupid to dump money into an insanely bad deal, and it's still stupid to dump money into merely a "bad" deal.

If they don't know the probability of one, why should they know the odds of another?

They know the odds on both are bad.

It's certainly deceptive.

So are beer commercials that show beer drinkers surrounded by 23 hot girls, rolling around together in the sand.

It's the responsible of everyone to be decent people to everyone else. That's how society should work. People shouldn't be total *******s to each other.

OK, but if a person opens a liquor store, for example, the are simply meeting a demand. It is not their place to be a social worker, but rather to sell alcohol. They aren't doctors, either, or psychologists, and probably have no idea what addiction "looks like". They shouldn't be held responsible for any problems that result from alcohol consumption, that's preposterous.

This is a strawman. Coffee addictions certainly aren't as serious as crack addictions.

Fine. Substitute Starbucks for your local liquor store.

Often, the government is lying.

Well, then the government shouldn't lie. But that doesn't mean lotteries are bad in general, just that certain people are bad.

They usually don't understand the odds are stacked against them as much as they are.

Don't feel a bit sorry for them. They knew the odds were bad, they played anyway, and they lost. Boo-****ing-hoo.

But you were wrong.

I could have told you that from the beginning. My answer was based, though, on my initial gut reaction to the question.

[Ramo]

Ummm... he's said there's nothing morally wrong wtih crack dealing.

[Ramo]

Are you saying car dealers shouldn't try to turn a profit, or shouldn't try to turn an excessive profit?

Profit is not necessarily relevant (the car dealers have costs, etc.). The issue is whether the car dealer is lying about the price being fair.

It's stupid to dump money into an insanely bad deal, and it's still stupid to dump money into merely a "bad" deal.

I've knowingly dumped money into situations where it wasn't likely I would come out ahead (gambelling, for instance). I don't think that makes me stupid. It can be fun. The problem is in lotteries, the odds or stacked incredibly out of the gambler's favor, and the government is deceptive about it.

They know the odds on both are bad.

They don't know they're that bad.

So are beer commercials that show beer drinkers surrounded by 23 hot girls, rolling around together in the sand.

Yep.

OK, but if a person opens a liquor store, for example, the are simply meeting a demand. It is not their place to be a social worker, but rather to sell alcohol. They aren't doctors, either, or psychologists, and probably have no idea what addiction "looks like".

Right. That's the point. They don't know, so it isn't practical. With lottery, it comes down to ignorance or addiction.

They shouldn't be held responsible for any problems that result from alcohol consumption, that's preposterous.

However the same does not apply to crack dealing, where addiction is nearly universal and extreme.

Fine. Substitute Starbucks for your local liquor store.

That's impractical, and the same applies to a lesser extent. However, I do think it's morally wrong for the local liquor store clerk to knowlingly sells alcohol to addicts.

Don't feel a bit sorry for them. They knew the odds were bad, they played anyway, and they lost. Boo-****ing-hoo.

They were taken advantage of, it comes simply down to that. And the state certainly shouldn't be involved with that.

I could have told you that from the beginning. My answer was based, though, on my initial gut reaction to the question.

I though it was based on reasoning; you explained it. I don't consider that a gut reaction.

Besides, what you asserted is not obvious since it is not true.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Ummm... he's said there's nothing morally wrong wtih crack dealing."

So long as you are dealing with adults and are honest about the products effects. I'd agree with that. If you're an adult, it's your responsibility to look out for your welfare, not the responsibility of sellers to determine what is good for you or not. That said, must crack dealers today do plenty of illegal things associated with dealing crack(such as killing other dealers), but that would probably go away if it was legalized.

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

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"

[David Floyd]

Profit is not necessarily relevant (the car dealers have costs, etc.). The issue is whether the car dealer is lying about the price being fair.

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.

I've knowingly dumped money into situations where it wasn't likely I would come out ahead (gambelling, for instance). I don't think that makes me stupid. It can be fun.

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

The problem is in lotteries, the odds or stacked incredibly out of the gambler's favor, and the government is deceptive about it.

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.

They don't know they're that bad.

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

However the same does not apply to crack dealing, where addiction is nearly universal and extreme.

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.

However, I do think it's morally wrong for the local liquor store clerk to knowlingly sells alcohol to addicts.

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

They were taken advantage of, it comes simply down to that.

No, it comes down to a bunch of ****ing idiots throwing money away that they can't afford.

though it was based on reasoning; you explained it. I don't consider that a gut reaction.

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.

[Capt Dizle]

when a government of the people by the people fleece the people with gimmicks such as a lottery then something is out of whack somewhere

[Urban Ranger]

I fail to see any entertainment value in a lottery. Watching little balls rolling about is almost as bad as watching cricket.