Gambling and Math
Reader J also notes in a separate issue, re. gambling, "gambling is a tax on those who don't understand math (probability). And to the extent that it is extremely regressive in the distribution of its benefits, it bears governmental involvement." I would argue that gambling actually rewards people who can cross-factor two calculations simultaneously - risk/reward ratios against probability. I can highly recommend this old Slate article from 2001 by Jordan Ellenberg if you want a better sense of the rationality of gambling.
The gist of the argument is that the question isn't your absolute probability of victory, but the relationship between your esteemed value of the dollar spent on the ticket to the potential value of a fortunate outcome. J believes that poor people don't make good judgments in calculating these costs, and thus government should prevent people from gambling (maybe we should just prevent the poor? Then it would become a progressive tax!). I don't disagree with him on the factual premise (poor people tend to make unwise lottery choices), but I think it's foolish to tell someone that I have any knowledge which allows me to better know how to calculate their own subjective estimation values of their own earnings, possessions and opportunities. That's an individual thing - if someone like me buys a lotto ticket because they think it's a passport to speculation they otherwise wouldn't indulge - what specific evil lies in that transaction that the state should suddenly intervene between me and my own desire fulfillment?
Also, re. smoking, J writes:
Thus, there is some negative externality of the companies repeating ad naseum how good (or rather, fun or cool or whatever) smoking is.
To which I can only say that he's clearly bought the lie. Smoking is good for you. God, being a non-smoker sucks! I'm sticking with my resolution but I can't pretend for a single day that being a non-smoker is superior to being a smoker. So, to the extent that the cigarette companies happen to be right I think it's fair to ask, "why does the anti-smoking campaign need to silence the pro-smoking campaign? Is it because on every issue but health, the pro-smoking lobby is right?"
The government has every right to recoup public costs incurred by private choices from the agents responsible for those choices (i.e. sin taxes). It has no business arguing that smoking isn't cool, fun, or makes you feel better. Not only is that argument false, but it is up to invidiuals to calculate for themselves the best courses of actions for the furtherance of their individual sense of happiness. There are a lot of good reasons for banning smoking in public places. The moral betterment of the citizenry is never one of them.
3 Comments:
What's the big lie, exactly? How's smoking good for you? If it is, why are you staying with your resolution?
Smoking is clearly a huge drain on public health and productivity; the government has no moral right to argue against it (morality is besides the point -- is it moral to deface your own body? I don't think it's a valid abstract question); but as a factual basis, it has an obligation to provide people with information about the full effects of it, and since tobacco industry argues *for* this negative externality constantly, and tobacco is extremely addictive, meaning it's not purely a matter of personal choice, it behooves the government to provide motivation for not engaging in a self-destructive activity *that bears costs for society as a whole.* (Though I would say there's a good argument the gov't should promote non-self-destructive behavior at large, though it has no business banning it.) I can't tell if you're being flippant or not. Smoking is good for you? Is this based on your personal enjoyment? I know many people who would disagree, based on personal experiences or based on statistics. While addiction can be controlled, and I would agree most people should experiment with many things, i.e. smoking, it certainly should not be in the present context where the smoking industry *clearly relies on life-long addicts*, and has memos that have been divulged *expressly trying to create life-long addicts* among children.
Though I dislike Hardin's term "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon," I think in terms of providing the best information (after all, "perfect information" is a presumption of an effecient economy), the government should be coercing us to listen to the best information available. Insofar as we mutually agree to it (ay, there's the rub.)
Gambling bonus:
The Slate article talked about specific conditions under which gambling is rational. I'll bet (ha) you that most people don't do that calculation; I would think that makes the limited rationality of gambling irrelevant, if (as articles linked under article point out) players in reality act in such a way as to make the results random. This is the frontpage Slate's Jordan E. linked to; it has arguments pro and con gambling. I would say at a minimum, it's not cut-and-dry. I would say at a maximum, it's not up to the government to tell people what to enjoy, but insofar as they don't understand the costs or probability, it precludes economic efficiency, and insofar as those who can't afford it gamble, it poses a public well-being problem.
"The government has every right to recoup public costs incurred by private choices from the agents responsible for those choices (i.e. sin taxes)."
I think you are being too uncritical to this kind of cost argument. First, it is not clear this is true. To the extent that smoking surpresses eating, there is some benefit to the national obesity problem which may not have taken into account. Further, as smokers die earlier but paid similar social security taxes, they may have saved public enough already. Are we really sure that smokers cost public more? Second, when is this kind of argument not allowed? Should women pay less taxes than men because mojority of the prison population are men? OR pay more social security tax because they live longer than men? Or if you want to argue that smoking is by choice (as opposed to gender), should we start charging every student who is below average in high school tuition on the statistics that people who are not well educated tend to earn less and therefore pay less taxes in their lifetimes? What are the proper additional taxes for couch potatoes? One of the (minor) crimes of the FaLunGong alleged by the Chinese government is that its practice is too easy. Are they right to put those people in jail for that? My point is that if you are too ready to buy those cost justifications, you will be surprised to find how easy it is for the government (or majority) to intervene in your personal life.
Post a Comment
<< Home