Libertarian Purity Test

[David Floyd]

Dave, Isn't it wrong for the state to prevent private individuals from buying or selling private lottery?

Of course. I never claimed otherwise.

But why is it that you think people would be more likely to play a private lottery than one run by the government? Seems to me that one offers a slighter higher guarantee of it NOT being a scam.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Of course. I never claimed otherwise.

But why is it that you think people would be more likely to play a private lottery than one run by the government? Seems to me that one offers a slighter higher guarantee of it NOT being a scam.

Than they could freely choose which ones they want to play. But people are pretty willing to play in casinos which are not state monopolies. Traditionally illegal numbers games have had better odds than state ones.

The state restricts private lotteries becuase they are terrified of that kind of competition.

[TCO]

Dave, cheering for a state lottery because people play it freely is like cheering for the post office because people choose to send letters through it (vice doing without).

[Berzerker]

GP -

Dave, Isn't it wrong for the state to prevent private individuals from buying or selling private lottery?

Who said private lotteries would be illegal?

Berz, There is competition accross state lines (one reason why states get together). If private lotteries were authorized the state lottery would have to be competetive.

And that's a bad thing? Some lotteries have become regional, not because of inter-state competition, but to sweeten the pot. That's another problem with your argument, government lotteries would have the advantage of volume private lotteries would lack. Would you play a lottery worth tens of millions or a private lottery worth a much smaller amount in addition to the motivation/purpose for the government lottery - paying for government. You didn't answer my question: would you play a government lottery designed to raise revenue for government or a private lottery designed to enrich only the party running the lottery?

And wouldn't make much money.

Why not?

People who want to donate money to the government can do that independently of a lottery.

Yup, and those who want to play the lottery can do that.

competition. States prevent independent lotteries for the same reason that they prevent independent letter delivery.

As I said, and which you ignored, our state has a lottery, participates in a regional lottery, and allows legal Indian gambling which is well within reach of millions of people.

Dave, cheering for a state lottery because people play it freely is like cheering for the post office because people choose to send letters through it (vice doing without).

Government has made it illegal to send 1st class mail through anyone but the post office so your analogy is invalid.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

Who said private lotteries would be illegal?

I'm discussing "is" not "would", you hypothetical weenie.

Some lotteries have become regional, not because of inter-state competition, but to sweeten the pot.

Yeah....right. You probably think sin taxes are designed to reduce sin rather than to tax something that people will pay a lot of money for. Learn to read between the lines in a government justification.

That's another problem with your argument, government lotteries would have the advantage of volume private lotteries would lack.

That is an argument for any government-enforced monopoly. Why don't you strain your brain and think?

Would you play a lottery worth tens of millions or a private lottery worth a much smaller amount

What's to prevent private lotteries from acheiving large scale? DUH!!! We have some pretty big companies in this country. If the economic returns are there, than big private lotteries will develop. The only reason for those state lotteries being big is the government-sanctioned monopoly. If the market values scale, that will emerge. If it doesn't, you will have small lotteries. Let the market decide.

in addition to the motivation/purpose for the government lottery - paying for government.

You are really smoking some libertarian weed now. Last I checked people don't elect to send money to the government. Give them a choice of a lower tax product and watch them shift to it. The government lottery is just a privately run, government-enforced monopoly with a big tax.

You didn't answer my question: would you play a government lottery designed to raise revenue for government or a private lottery designed to enrich only the party running the lottery?

Would I prefer to smoke an untaxed cigarrete or a taxed one? Would I prefer to gamble in a casino with low taxes (and competition) or in a government controlled one? Would I prefer to buy my liquer in a Virginia ABC store or in any grocery store in California? Think about it.

Yup, and those who want to play the lottery can do that.

And I guess people who buy cigarettes can feel great about the taxes they are paying too.

As I said, and which you ignored, our state has a lottery, participates in a regional lottery, and allows legal Indian gambling which is well within reach of millions of people.

1. I guess it is "freer" (although you don't beleive in degrees of freeness...but humor me) to have a state lottery than no lottery. Sorta like having US Postal mail versus not being allowed to send letters.

2. The Indian gaming they are not too crazy about and don't have much choice over. Why no non-Indian gaming.

Government has made it illegal to send 1st class mail through anyone but the post office so your analogy is invalid.

It's completely valid. That's exactly the point. Think about it kimosabe.

[TCO]

Berz, read Milton Freidman's Free to Choose. Bow before me as I call you to heel in Libertarian orthodoxy!

[Rex Little]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but I've got to agree with GP about lotteries. A government lottery is only going to make significant money if private competition is prohibited, and doing that is as coercive as taxation is.

[David Floyd]

It seems as if the major objection to a government lottery, from a Libertarian perspective, is that in order to make it effective, one would have to ban private competition.

With this in mind, if a state-run lottery COULD make money, would a Libertarian have a problem with it?

I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't have a problem with it, as playing the lottery is absolutely non-coercive. Further, any reasonable person understands, or should understand, that playing the lottery will most likely waste your money, and because of that, the lottery is not deceptive.

So the key, then, is to find a way for a government lottery to make money, without infringing upon the freedom of people to conduct private lotteries, right?

On that question, I'm open to persuasion. JohnT says I don't know anything about lotteries, and as such I'm not qualified to discuss them. Well, he's half right. I don't know anything about the economics of lotteries, and because of that, I'm not qualified to discuss the practical implementation of a lottery.

So my point is that the concept of a government-run lottery does not bother me, as long as it does not prohibit private competition. Whether such a thing could be profitably implemented is another argument, and a question I couldn't begin to answer.

[Berzerker]

Rex - read the thread then, GP has been refuted.

GP -

I'm discussing "is" not "would", you hypothetical weenie.

Geez, GP, we are discussing a hypothetical - the viability of government lotteries in a free market/libertarian system. You weren't debating "is", you were debating the efficacy of government lotteries when private lotteries are legal too.

Yeah....right.

That's right, got anything to refute my argument or is "yeah.... right" all you got?

You probably think sin taxes are designed to reduce sin rather than to tax something that people will pay a lot of money for.

Maybe you ought to read what I type to understand what I think instead of inventing unrelated strawmen.

Learn to read between the lines in a government justification.

Can you respond to my arguments? Your post up until now is meaningless.

That is an argument for any government-enforced monopoly. Why don't you strain your brain and think?

I explained some of the advantages of a government lottery and not one of those explanations required an enforced monopoly nor have you refuted the advantages I've identified. If you want to get nasty, I'll leave you to debate Floyd.

What's to prevent private lotteries from acheiving large scale? DUH!!!

That's twice now you didn't answer my question.

We have some pretty big companies in this country. If the economic returns are there, than big private lotteries will develop.

And these private lotteries would have to compete with a government lottery which we all knew was designed to fund government services, hence my question you keep avoiding.

The only reason for those state lotteries being big is the government-sanctioned monopoly.

God, this is ridiculous. I've already explained that we have a state lottery, a regional lottery, and legalised gambling within range of millions of people and the government lotteries are raising plenty of revenue inspite of the competition. You also ignored that gambling was legal when lotteries were used to fund the Revolution.

You are really smoking some libertarian weed now.

Quite a rebuttal.

Last I checked people don't elect to send money to the government. Give them a choice of a lower tax product and watch them shift to it.

We wouldn't even need an income tax if government upheld the Constitution.

The government lottery is just a privately run, government-enforced monopoly with a big tax.

And it's voluntary.

Would I prefer to smoke an untaxed cigarrete or a taxed one?

Still avoiding the question, I think that speaks volumes about the validity of your position.

Would I prefer to gamble in a casino with low taxes (and competition) or in a government controlled one? Would I prefer to buy my liquer in a Virginia ABC store or in any grocery store in California? Think about it.

Answer the question instead of avoiding it with your "analogies".

And I guess people who buy cigarettes can feel great about the taxes they are paying too.

Are cig taxes voluntary? No, so why do you keep introducing invalid analogies?

1. I guess it is "freer" (although you don't beleive in degrees of freeness...but humor me) to have a state lottery than no lottery.

???

Sorta like having US Postal mail versus not being allowed to send letters.

Neither is freedom.

2. The Indian gaming they are not too crazy about and don't have much choice over. Why no non-Indian gaming.

Ask the Republicrats. But there is legal non-Indian gaming, just not everywhere.

It's completely valid. That's exactly the point. Think about it kimosabe.

I explained why it's an invalid analogy, telling me it's valid doesn't make it so.

DFloyd -

So the key, then, is to find a way for a government lottery to make money, without infringing upon the freedom of people to conduct private lotteries, right?

Notice how GP has not provided any proof from the time private lotteries were legal to show how they outcompeted government lotteries?

[David Floyd]

Notice how GP has not provided any proof from the time private lotteries were legal to show how they outcompeted government lotteries?

Indeed.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Rex Little
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but I've got to agree with GP about lotteries. A government lottery is only going to make significant money if private competition is prohibited, and doing that is as coercive as taxation is.

Wooooohooo! Bridge partner got my back!

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It seems as if the major objection to a government lottery, from a Libertarian perspective, is that in order to make it effective, one would have to ban private competition.

With this in mind, if a state-run lottery COULD make money, would a Libertarian have a problem with it?

I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't have a problem with it, as playing the lottery is absolutely non-coercive. Further, any reasonable person understands, or should understand, that playing the lottery will most likely waste your money, and because of that, the lottery is not deceptive.

So the key, then, is to find a way for a government lottery to make money, without infringing upon the freedom of people to conduct private lotteries, right?

On that question, I'm open to persuasion. JohnT says I don't know anything about lotteries, and as such I'm not qualified to discuss them. Well, he's half right. I don't know anything about the economics of lotteries, and because of that, I'm not qualified to discuss the practical implementation of a lottery.

So my point is that the concept of a government-run lottery does not bother me, as long as it does not prohibit private competition. Whether such a thing could be profitably implemented is another argument, and a question I couldn't begin to answer.

Floyd, just look at the record of state owned companies any time they have had to compete freely with private enterprise. It is dismal. If you want to argue about a hypothetical competive government-owned company, you are really living in lala land and are arguing about a hypothetical which will never occur. May as well debate wether Eve had a bellybutton. It is just laughable.

[Zero]

The test was horrible I vote the last option on the poll.

I got a 45 btw, but I would'nt know what I would have gotten if I didn't just skim thru part 3

Last part 2 question pissed me off. I spent hours on it contemplating, but due to the nature of the quiz, thats when I said. "Screw this!"

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Indeed.

DAvid,

God, you are rock stupid.

1. Look at the results of government owned industries any time they had to enter free competition. Steel will do for a start.

2. Illegal numbers games give better odds than government-sanctioned ones do.

3. Government has always chosen to allow its own lotteries while pursuing illegal ones. (This makes sense. They are eliminating competion.) Ask yourself why. If they could compete and raise oodles of money out of general altruism, they wouldn't care about the illegal games.

4. There are plenty of independant gambling companies. They would not have a problem creating private lotteries. It would be a no-brainer, Floyd. One of the easiest businesses to start.

5. Do you really think that people will ;preferentially play a government lottery out of altruism? this contradicts all kinds of market experience where people look for lower priced goods, where they avoid taxes, where they don't send in MORE than they need to on their 1040, etc. If you really believe in this altruism, why do you need a lottery? What is to prevent people from just wrting checks to the government? And why don't you see that happening?

Look to FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Freidman (a libertarian-leaning economist) for info on 1 and 2. This is not really anything doubtful, David. It's not like I'm claiming that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor. The dismal record of state-owned enterprises has been well documented, Floyd. Why should a lottery be any differnt from steel? It's just a business Floyd. buying a lottery ticket is as legitimate as buying a ciggarette or some rod iron. There's nothing magical to it. Surely a libertarian should see that. Rex has my back becasue I'm right.

Berz, I'm not going to play that back and forth cut and paste game with you. You haven't responded meaningfully to my basic comment which is that state-owned businesses will not survive unless they exclude competition. Rex, I and most other libertarians agree with this.

[Felch]

83 on the Libertarian test