Objectivism and winning the state, or national, lottery

[RobinReborn]

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

[Jules Troy]

I had to laugh at the one guy that was interviewed.

"What would you do if you won?"

"Lots of hookers and cocaine!"

[Peter]

I spent 10 and won 3. Still it was fun. I saw two commenters who advised winners to immediately get bodyguards and a lawyer. The two people who won in Munroe TN said they were scared. The best advise I saw was that you put the money in the bank and wait one month to spend any of your interest so that the principle is never lessened.

Peter

[studiodekadent]

Korben,

You're asking about two interrelated questions; first, the morality of gambling and second, the moral implications of (fiscally) supporting a government program.

With gambling, I think MSK is correct. You're entering into a game of chance where the conditions are specified beforehand. Its a contract. You've earned the result of the contract. If you think "earning by luck" is not really earning, that sounds to me like an acceptance of the Labor Theory of Value... which has been rejected by economists ever since the Marginalist Revolution. Whilst moral value is a rationally-assessable thing, ECONOMIC value is and intersubjective matter.

We're Objectivists. We're not Calvinists or Marxists. We don't think physical toil is the source of wealth nor do we believe it has an intrinsic worth.

As for the issue of supporting a government program, you do have a point there. But in modern societies, governments have a finger in every pie. Consumption or sales taxes make it impossible to get some milk at the grocery store without supporting a government program. Income taxes make it impossible to earn a living without giving money to the government. Yes, entering a lottery is voluntary but so is getting a job.

Where I WILL critique the lottery is in odds of winning. Frankly the lottery is one of the worst forms of gambling (measured in terms of house margin). Casino blackjack is far better in terms of expected loss (trust me, I'm a Platinum member at the MGM casinos in Vegas), but the Lotto has a lot more variance. So a small entry can IN THEORY result in an incredible win. But over the long run, the lottery is far worse gambling.

Honestly, a token entry into occasional lotteries is hardly a sacrifice and does have a slim possibility of changing or at least improving your life. I wouldn't regard occasional lottery entry as a problem morally. I mean, if you can easily afford it and its a big jackpot and you don't have to make any sacrifices to make an entry? Sure, nothing wrong with it.

Gambling is not a sin. Objectivists aren't puritans.

[moralist]

Jules writes:
I had to laugh at the one guy that was interviewed.
"What would you do if you won?"
"Lots of hookers and cocaine!"

Funny and true.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered:

that no man may be smaller than his money."

--Ayn Rand

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wouldn't regard occasional lottery entry as a problem morally. I mean, if you can easily afford it and its a big jackpot and you don't have to make any sacrifices to make an entry? Sure, nothing wrong with it.

Andrew,

I had a friend in Brazil who used to play the lottery at times. And every time he would say something he said George Bernard Shaw said. (Obviously, I paraphrase and I have not confirmed GBS actually said it, but what the hell... )

In terms of value, the lottery is one of the best bargains on earth. For a very small sum of money, you get to believe you are a millionaire for a few days. It would cost a lot more to do that by any other means with a chance in reality of it happening.

On a trader basis, that dream is a good value to some folks. So they don't even have to win to have made a great purchase.

Michael

[moralist]

There's another way... a more Objectivist way.

That's where a person works for a few decades

and becomes a real millionaire for the rest of their life

instead of only in their mind for a few days.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The Powerball frenzy bored me and I forgot to buy a ticket. I used to buy one every now and then for a little fun, but then they added another number and it got too stupid for my rational faculty.

It's more rational to gamble in Vegas? Depends. There is only one way to win in Vegas without cheating--go try that these days--and that is one bet and you're done forever--or one visit on one day which might involve multiple bets on or in one game. There's an exception: poker. But poker is not a house game, is it?

An artificially induced adrenaline flush is not compatible with rational action. I was never crazy about jumping out of airplanes in the army. My brother took up skydiving until he almost killed himself in Europe. Double malfunction. Sold his equipment.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

The Powerball frenzy bored me and I forgot to buy a ticket. I used to buy one every now and then for a little fun, but then they added another number and it got too stupid for my rational faculty.

It's more rational to gamble in Vegas? Depends. There is only one way to win in Vegas without cheating--go try that these days--and that is one bet and you're done forever--or one visit on one day which might involve multiple bets on or in one game. There's an exception: poker. But poker is not a house game, is it?

True, Poker is not a house game. You play against other players, not the casino.

But gambling in Vegas is more rational (in terms of overall expected loss versus possible return). Take the amount you're betting (your total betting volume, i.e. stake * house margin for the game/s you're playing), and that's your expected loss. Balance that against the value of comps (typically you get 40% of what the casino assumes to be your expected loss (basically they estimate higher than the mathematical house edge to take into account very few people play in a statistically perfect fashion) back in room/food discounts so that ALREADY lowers your expected loss by 40%), the pleasure of the entertainment (which includes more than just the game... it includes the social experience and the atmosphere of the casino), etcetera.

After you do that, gambling is pretty cheap entertainment in the long run, presuming you play the right games in a statistically optimal fashion. In the short run there will be variance - big losses and big wins - but statistically speaking, you won't lose much overall. Indeed, if you play good games of blackjack with correct basic strategy, you'll effectively be getting free entertainment (a typical Vegas casino will estimate an expected loss of 0.7% of your total betting volume - 40% of this casino-expected loss works out roughly to the house margin of a good-rules Blackjack game).

An artificially induced adrenaline flush is not compatible with rational action. I was never crazy about jumping out of airplanes in the army. My brother took up skydiving until he almost killed himself in Europe. Double malfunction. Sold his equipment.

There are safer ways to get a thrill than skydiving. Rollercoasters and thrill rides for one. Are these artificially induced ways to get an adrenaline rush "not compatible with rational action"? Horror movies? Video games?

Of course not all gambling is rational - plenty of it isn't and lots of people gamble stupidly. There are better and worse games and casinos to gamble at (frankly, Vegas is getting worse, particularly for lower-level Strip players). But anyway, I don't know how you could allege that doing thrilling stuff somehow is not compatible with rational action.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's another way... a more Objectivist way.

That's where a person works for a few decades

and becomes a real millionaire for the rest of their life

instead of only in their mind for a few days.

Greg,

That's a life, not just entertainment. It's not either-or. One can have a good life and still have a little extra fun once in awhile. It's all good.

btw - My Brazilian friend had a very good life.

Michael

[Selene]

Objectivism is not a Priesthood...

[Jules Troy]

It isn't?

YAY! Bring on the dancing girls!

[Selene]

It isn't?

YAY! Bring on the dancing girls!

Hey, if it was Sharia, it would be dancing boys and goys!

The boy toy goy band...

[Jules Troy]

"Facepalm!"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What does that have to do with the morality of lottery winnings according to Objectivist principles?

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Powerball frenzy bored me and I forgot to buy a ticket. I used to buy one every now and then for a little fun, but then they added another number and it got too stupid for my rational faculty.

It's more rational to gamble in Vegas? Depends. There is only one way to win in Vegas without cheating--go try that these days--and that is one bet and you're done forever--or one visit on one day which might involve multiple bets on or in one game. There's an exception: poker. But poker is not a house game, is it?

True, Poker is not a house game. You play against other players, not the casino.

But gambling in Vegas is more rational (in terms of overall expected loss versus possible return). Take the amount you're betting (your total betting volume, i.e. stake * house margin for the game/s you're playing), and that's your expected loss. Balance that against the value of comps (typically you get 40% of what the casino assumes to be your expected loss (basically they estimate higher than the mathematical house edge to take into account very few people play in a statistically perfect fashion) back in room/food discounts so that ALREADY lowers your expected loss by 40%), the pleasure of the entertainment (which includes more than just the game... it includes the social experience and the atmosphere of the casino), etcetera.

After you do that, gambling is pretty cheap entertainment in the long run, presuming you play the right games in a statistically optimal fashion. In the short run there will be variance - big losses and big wins - but statistically speaking, you won't lose much overall. Indeed, if you play good games of blackjack with correct basic strategy, you'll effectively be getting free entertainment (a typical Vegas casino will estimate an expected loss of 0.7% of your total betting volume - 40% of this casino-expected loss works out roughly to the house margin of a good-rules Blackjack game).

An artificially induced adrenaline flush is not compatible with rational action. I was never crazy about jumping out of airplanes in the army. My brother took up skydiving until he almost killed himself in Europe. Double malfunction. Sold his equipment.

There are safer ways to get a thrill than skydiving. Rollercoasters and thrill rides for one. Are these artificially induced ways to get an adrenaline rush "not compatible with rational action"? Horror movies? Video games?

Of course not all gambling is rational - plenty of it isn't and lots of people gamble stupidly. There are better and worse games and casinos to gamble at (frankly, Vegas is getting worse, particularly for lower-level Strip players). But anyway, I don't know how you could allege that doing thrilling stuff somehow is not compatible with rational action.

Getting on a thrill ride to have some adrenaline fun is not irrational. Trying to think rationally while this is going on doesn't work too well. Your mind is automatically constricting and excluding. In an emergency situation--and maybe in sports--you have pre-programmed yourself.

The danger with "rational" gambling is gambling frenzy. That means going off; some go off big time, trying to get it back. Rational gambling is what Fred Smith did in Vegas to meet his Federal Express payroll. He won. He left.

--Brant

such is the story

[moralist]

Michael writes:

That's a life, not just entertainment. It's not either-or. One can have a good life and still have a little extra fun once in awhile. It's all good.

A fair point, Michael...

...as long as fun doesn't become a substitute for a good life because it's a very poor one.

Greg

[jts]

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

That would put government in the gambling business. Government and business are supposed to be separate. Government could be funded by voluntary donations.

[merjet]

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

That would put government in the gambling business. Government and business are supposed to be separate. Government could be funded by voluntary donations.

Ayn Rand said otherwise. "There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in many European countries, is one such method' (VoS, 116).

[Selene]

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

That would put government in the gambling business. Government and business are supposed to be separate. Government could be funded by voluntary donations.

Ayn Rand said otherwise. "There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in many European countries, is one such method' (VoS, 116).

Anybody remember how WW II was funded?

[Jules Troy]

War bonds.

[jts]

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

That would put government in the gambling business. Government and business are supposed to be separate. Government could be funded by voluntary donations.

Ayn Rand said otherwise. "There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in many European countries, is one such method' (VoS, 116).

Ayn Rand was inconsistent.

[moralist]

Brant writes;

Anybody remember how WW II was funded?

"Temporary" Sales Tax.

Greg

[studiodekadent]

The Powerball frenzy bored me and I forgot to buy a ticket. I used to buy one every now and then for a little fun, but then they added another number and it got too stupid for my rational faculty.

It's more rational to gamble in Vegas? Depends. There is only one way to win in Vegas without cheating--go try that these days--and that is one bet and you're done forever--or one visit on one day which might involve multiple bets on or in one game. There's an exception: poker. But poker is not a house game, is it?

True, Poker is not a house game. You play against other players, not the casino.

But gambling in Vegas is more rational (in terms of overall expected loss versus possible return). Take the amount you're betting (your total betting volume, i.e. stake * house margin for the game/s you're playing), and that's your expected loss. Balance that against the value of comps (typically you get 40% of what the casino assumes to be your expected loss (basically they estimate higher than the mathematical house edge to take into account very few people play in a statistically perfect fashion) back in room/food discounts so that ALREADY lowers your expected loss by 40%), the pleasure of the entertainment (which includes more than just the game... it includes the social experience and the atmosphere of the casino), etcetera.

After you do that, gambling is pretty cheap entertainment in the long run, presuming you play the right games in a statistically optimal fashion. In the short run there will be variance - big losses and big wins - but statistically speaking, you won't lose much overall. Indeed, if you play good games of blackjack with correct basic strategy, you'll effectively be getting free entertainment (a typical Vegas casino will estimate an expected loss of 0.7% of your total betting volume - 40% of this casino-expected loss works out roughly to the house margin of a good-rules Blackjack game).

An artificially induced adrenaline flush is not compatible with rational action. I was never crazy about jumping out of airplanes in the army. My brother took up skydiving until he almost killed himself in Europe. Double malfunction. Sold his equipment.

There are safer ways to get a thrill than skydiving. Rollercoasters and thrill rides for one. Are these artificially induced ways to get an adrenaline rush "not compatible with rational action"? Horror movies? Video games?

Of course not all gambling is rational - plenty of it isn't and lots of people gamble stupidly. There are better and worse games and casinos to gamble at (frankly, Vegas is getting worse, particularly for lower-level Strip players). But anyway, I don't know how you could allege that doing thrilling stuff somehow is not compatible with rational action.

Getting on a thrill ride to have some adrenaline fun is not irrational. Trying to think rationally while this is going on doesn't work too well. Your mind is automatically constricting and excluding. In an emergency situation--and maybe in sports--you have pre-programmed yourself.

The danger with "rational" gambling is gambling frenzy. That means going off; some go off big time, trying to get it back. Rational gambling is what Fred Smith did in Vegas to meet his Federal Express payroll. He won. He left.

--Brant

such is the story

Gambling frenzy is certainly irrational. But you seem to presume that it is inevitable. I can assure you, it is not.

Please remember that I actually do have a blackjack hobby and I'm doing a doctorate in a gambling-related field. Gambling is NOT synonymous with 'problem gambling' or 'gambling addiction' or 'stupid gambling.'

[merjet]

Brant writes;

Anybody remember how WW II was funded?

"Temporary" Sales Tax.

Wrong. Link.