pull down to refresh
51 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Apr \ parent \ on: The economics of American lotteries econ
Yeah, that's a little bit inaccurate to, since we don't have a right to a particular amount of purchasing power.
I don't want to grant this, because so much of the justification for using state power is that they need to protect us from ourselves, because we're so stupid.
In a free society, people would spend their money stupidly. Some of that would be on things like lotteries. Absent state protectionism, there would be a lot more competition though and the odds would be much better.
We are either free people, in which case our choices are our own, or we aren't and our choices are someone else's.
Everything hinges on this idea of voluntary.
Taxes are compulsory therefore anything we do voluntarily is not a tax.
It is voluntary to buy a lotto ticket.
It is not voluntary to pay a tax on alcohol.
I don't see the difference between a state saying only we offer lotteries and a state saying you must pay tax on alcohol.
The only way I can avoid paying the tax on alcohol by not buying it.
The only way I can avoid the tax on lotto tickets buy not buying them.
I don't need either to survive.
Yet surely you would say sales tax on alcohol is a tax. So why not the lottery?
reply
a state saying only we offer lotteries
If we're thinking of taxation as theft, then this should be clear. Prohibiting people from making voluntary transactions under threat of violence is a different type of crime than theft.
By the way, though, I do think it's not as bad to tax luxury/vice items like alcohol. To me the more avoidable a tax is the less evil it is.
The more we go back and forth on this, though, the less I want to be defending the position I initially staked out. Even if the lottery isn't exactly a tax, the state has no right to be conducting a lottery and is only able to do so because it's violently suppressing competition.
reply