It similarly struck me as strange that many US states decide gambling should be illegal because it's a vice, or because it's taking advantage of people, but then turn around and give themselves a monopoly on offering it. And in some places, like New York, they advertise it very heavily - TV ads, billboards in the subway and on bus stations, quirky upbeat characters and themes ... But still, it's a bad thing and thus illegal for private companies to offer. So weird.

> It similarly struck me as strange that many US states decide gambling should be illegal because it's a vice, or because it's taking advantage of people, but then turn around and give themselves a monopoly on offering it.

That describes a huge portion of what government does. Heck, that's essentially the basic definition of government in political science.

I remember when the Oregon and California Lottery were passed in the early 80s. I was highly controversial, but advocates really pitched the "more funds for schools!!!" angle.

What legislators didn't tell the public is that after the bills passed, the existing education budget would be cannibalized for other expenditures, thereby not actually improving the education situation and in fact, making funding more volatile.

all government lotteries should be banned. they exploit the poor. its really depressing to see how much money some spend on these tickets.

In Georgia less than a third is actually reaching the designated programs, it was by law 35% but terms in there let it fluctuate to payout to instant tickets.

Not sure about other states but MN even has online "virtual" scratch-offs that you can buy. They even have "subscriptions" to this crap. It's disgusting.

Yeah, it's really ugly in MN. The MN leg even plans for gambling proceeds for future funding. They planned for video gambling in bars to pay for their $500MM donation to billionaire Zygi Wilf's sports team, and fell all over themselves when it didn't[1].

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_26579002/vikings-stadi...

Do you really think banning lotteries would stop people from gambling? It certainly doesn't work for alcohol or drugs.

Certainly not. But why should the government have a monopoly on it with ridiculous odds and games?

Because it's better than the old system where people were blatantly ripped off and lent money that if they didn't pay back would result in their legs being broken?

...how is that different than today? Someone can find a loan shark and an illegal craps ring if they want. What you are describing is not happening in Las Vegas today, which has legalized gambling run by private entities.

I dont think the government has ever been in the business of providing uncorrupted resources.

Then get involved.

It's easy to sit back and act like government's all corrupt, hur hur, but guess what--you can talk to your elected officials and try and shape government more to how you think it should work.

If your elected officials don't give you access to them, work to put in office, some who do.

Wow.

Do you even know how much time an elected official spends fund raising? Many members of congress fund raise every day, every day they are walking out of capitol hill and across the street to be glorified phone bank monkeys begging some rich guy for money.

Do you know what gerrymandering is? Have you looked, actually looked at gerrymandered districts? They're like something Escher would draw, they certainly don't reflect communities, geographical constraints, or anything besides the best statistical slicing to ensure the status quo prevails.

I'm all for Ghandi's "be the change you wish to see", but being critical to someone who points out the ills in the world is shooting the messenger.

You recall what platform Obama ran on? Hope and Change, how did that work out? The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption.

> You recall what platform Obama ran on?

Yes, but you don't seem to.

> Hope and Change, how did that work out?

Hope and change was one of the Obama campaign slogans, not a platform. And in major addresses, that slogan was contextualized with Ghandi's "be the change you wish to see". How did it work out -- better than I expected, worse than I'd hoped.

> The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption.

"Getting involved" is not limited to voting. GP didn't say "If your elected officials don't give you access to them, vote for those who say they will." He said "...f your elected officials don't give you access to them, work to put in office, some who do."

That includes voting, but goes far beyond it. Run yourself, or get people to run. To the extent that the electoral system and the perverse incentives and limited selections it offers are a barrier to getting the kind of candidates you want elected (and if you want something different than what the major parties keep putting forward, that's probably a pretty significant barrier) educate yourself about it and work to change it; sure, you may not get buy off from lots of incumbents in office, but if you live in a state with a citizen initiative process, you don't need that support to change electoral procedures at the state level. (Of course, in such a state, you can also work to directly attack problem policies through the same process, which limits the effect that problem politicians have even before they are replaced.)

Hey, that's great. You stay home. I'm going to keep going out and being involved. We'll see who gets more done.

You're only getting "involved" by voting according to the government's definition of "getting involved".

Your parent post just put forward an argument which you did not address:

"You recall what platform Obama ran on? Hope and Change, how did that work out? The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption."

Please address this argument. No need for "we'll see who gets more done" future arguments, this is a present-day argument. What should we do when, after people go out and "get involved" and "get more done" to elect the right representative, they don't follow through on their promises? What should we do?

I didn't just say "vote." I said, "get involved."

In the sense that I'm saying, be a part of the democratic governance process, yes, that is a definition the government would put out there, but I'm not saying, "toe the line and choose between a big mac and a quarter pounder," I'm saying, "work to make the world you want."

I want to live in a country with a democratically-selected government, not one with a government instilled by revolution (and definitely not one without any government at all), so being involved and involving my fellow citizens is my tool of preference.

Repeating the word "involved" in different contexts does not explain anything. I still don't know what you mean by "get involved" besides voting. Can you list a few actions in the real world that exemplify what you mean by "get involved"?

No offense, but the way you put it, it sounds like empty rhetoric.

Paint me a scenario where a bunch of people like you "getting involved" succeed in stopping corruption and keeping politicians from breaking the promises they made to their people.

Actually, that's great, I like that you're asking questions.

I also note in this response and in another you made, that you're zeroing in on corruption and broken promises--which is kind of a shallow way to view politics and citizen involvement in civic life. (It's ok to be shallow about politics, but it will limit your perspective and your ability to do anything about your world.)

What do I mean by get involved? Couple of things I've done in the last few years:

Volunteer on a local political campaign. Don't just show up and ask for a task, talk to everyone you can, get to know them as people, make friends and make connections. You'll quickly discover that you see the same people again and again. Lots of people don't make political involvement a priority for whatever reason, so you'll see the same faces in a variety of contexts (supporting a candidate, supporting a cause, etc).

I say "local" because it's the best place to start. You'll have a lot of chances to talk to and get to know the candidate for office, and it's easy to get involved, depending on what you can bring to the table (skills, connections, etc).

(And it's kind of neat, if they win, and you've made a friend of them, to get to brag to your friends, "I'm going to go have coffee with my pal, State Rep Jones," and then you get to stay in touch with your politician who you helped get into office, and you find out what new pressures they're under to compromise...)

What else?

Go to civic groups, chamber groups, and association meetings, especially when politicians are going to give talks. Walk right up to them, bluster your way into a conversation, and just start talking with them. Everyone you meet, and I do mean everyone, ask them, "is there anyone else I should meet? I'm interested in x and y, and I'd love to talk to anyone who I can help advance these issues."

I've gotten connected with so many people at a variety of local government agencies this way. We sit down for coffee, they tell me what their agency is all about, I tell them what I'm doing and what's important to me, etc.

The best way to keep their attention is to frame whatever you want in terms of how it will benefit them: "Open-sourcing more of your agency's projects would be good for you, because of these benefits.." or "Providing an API to your agency's data would be good for you because it would let people like me build interfaces to make it more accessible to underrepresented groups X and Y.."

Now, if you're scoffing and thinking, "well hur hur so you got some small agency to sponsor open-source and open their data sets, that's not solving real problems," then you're right, my efforts haven't single-handedly gotten the U.S. out of the middle east, nor have they gotten single-payer health care instituted as a national policy.

But do these matter to me, as a fan of free software and open access to data, and everyone else like me? You bet.

And you know what? It doesn't stop here. Every year I get to know more people, and every year more people call me up out of the blue to pick my brain about, what do you think, should we do this? Should this be a policy?

Where's it all going? What's it going to look like for me in 10 years? I dunno, but it's exciting.

If you think it's all pointless, good, fine, stay home. I don't really care what you do--and if that's your attitude, it's better that you stay home and remain uninvolved.

Generally speaking your two choices are democratic process and revolution.

Democratic process despite its flaws has had some moderate successes. Revolution is a much more mixed bag, and while I believe that there may well be a time when it's necessary it's not something to enter into lightly, and almost certainly modern day USA is not remotely in need of a revolution.

Happy to hear of other options, but enough people being negative about the possibility of democratic change (again, despite its flaws), will reduce its possibility, playing into the hands of the status quo and the revolutionaries.

As Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". Unless you actually want violent revolution you should be doing all you can to keep people engaged in the democratic process.

You sound like someone who has never challenged your own opinions. Some of the first US presidents would argue this government is in huge breach of its original contract with its people.

"Some of the first US presidents would argue this government is in huge breach of its original contract with its people."

I've never heard this argument made in a way that wasn't ahistorical, irrelevant, or both.

I also have no interest in revering people who lived centuries ago, as though they had the answers and we just have to follow their golden path--what they got right, great, let's go with it, but what they got wrong, let's ditch without sentimentality.

Governments are for the living--for us, not for some ancestor-worship.

Alright, let me make this argument another way.

This study from Princeton University says in its abstract:

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

In other words, they are arguing the people have little to no impact on the government's policies. I don't want to put words in their mouths but they're essentially showing the government is a bunch of cronies and corporate special interest groups that care not a jot about the people.

Does that merit a revolution or not yet?

> Does that merit a revolution or not yet?

Well, if that's what you're asking for, come right out and say it - it is a position that can be debated on its merits. Moaning about democratic processes without being clear about the alternative you're proposing instead is negative because it comes across as a message of despair which if anything makes the problem you're complaining about worse.

You said the two choices we have are democratic process and revolution.

You then complained that I'm not being clear about the alternative, which is fair.

However, I'd like first to name the options correctly. Do you still stand by the name "democratic process" in the face of the paper linked above and if so, what is your rationale for calling this "democratic" when the paper shows that most people cannot impact the system? Or maybe you have a refutation to the paper that can show that in fact people do impact the government a lot and the paper is wrong.

Because you see, sine qua non to the process of proposing an alternative is understanding why the status quo is flawed. And in my opinion, which is argued with evidence by the paper linked above, the flaw in the current system is that it is not democratic despite its name; it is oligarchical.

next time you drink water or drive on a road, remember this comment.

Wells and driveways.

"Uncorrupted", not "exclusive".

How many people die on government roads every year, and what do you think the reaction would be if a private road system was similarly managed?

"Geez, I already paid for route 284 and Interstate 99. Do I have to pay a separate weekend surcharge for the 1000-feet onramp? I mean, come on!"

OK, not exactly a reaction on people's deaths, but people react to deaths in a more or less similar way whether it's on a government-managed railway or privately operated 747...

The payment system is a completely separate discussion, and not one at all relevant to my point. I disagree with your claim that the reactions are similar. It's my impression that the reactions to the dangers of public road systems is not remotely close to the reactions toward the dangers of private transportation systems, especially when normalized for the scale of the dangers.

In that case, wouldn't you think Oregon shouldn't have a lottery at all?

I'd be OK with that. IF the state needs more money they should raise taxes.

Why does 'government' come into it? Do you really believe that it would be acceptable if a private company was doing the same thing?

Many States deflect criticisms of for profit lotteries by advertising that some of the proceeds go toward schools and other 'public' goods.

It is well known that lotteries pray upon the poor and uneducated, ironic really.

Instead of monopolizing gambling, or giving sweet-heart deals to those close to the government, or trying to outlaw it completely so we can see tragedies like cops shooting people over playing fantasy sports, the state should get out of the way, maybe provide counseling and treatment, and gasp let people do what they want with their property.

It's always about power, and ensuring most people don't have any.

Humans have weaknesses that can be abused. This is clearly the case in gambling. The government must protect in some areas. For example with financial advice, there are countless cases of people giving inappropriate financial advice to the elderly, even getting them to sign away their property while dying in hospitals. Sure it easy to say 'and gasp let people do what they want with their property'. But what about this scenario? Would you be OK if that was your relatives being manipulated on their deathbed to give money to a previous stranger cause it is what they want to do with their property at that moment in their life. Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of the father/mother who gamble away their pay check each month leaving the family destitute?

Above is more extreme but real examples to clarify a point. In my mind saying people can do what they want with their property is overly simplistic and assumes a more perfect world than the reality.

The government is in a much better position to protect people from fraud if it isn't the one perpetrating the fraud in the first place.

>Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of the father/mother who gamble away their pay check each month leaving the family destitute?

However bad it might be to prey on people by trying to trick them into gambling, it's a trillion times better than just taking their money (the other way of raising revenues).

why?

Because in one case you can opt out.

Gambling addicts can't opt-out very easily, and it causes them to pay tax rates frequently higher than 100% of their incomes.

It's easier for addicts to opt out of gambling than me to opt out of taxation, and you can be treated for addiction but not taxation.

Don't know why you're being downvoted, you're right.

> and gasp let people do what they want with their property.

Are you so out of ideas on how to actually defend your positions that you have to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiotic child? Because everyone can do that, and it doesn't get us anywhere. We just go round and round being condescending to each other and nothing really gets said.

It's annoying and stupid. Let's stop this right here.

Paging David Hume. David Hume. Has anyone seen David Hume?

He's out consuming Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

You really want to hyphenate "out-consuming", unless David Hume is now a cannibal :)

That is a delicious thought. If God hadn't meant people to eat other people, he wouldn't have made us of meat. ;)

David Hume bites the invisible hand that feeds him.