Comments on: The Lottery

By: dWj

dWj — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:51:18 +0000

You know the “justice with empathy” that Obama said he was going to appoint to SCOTUS, the rule of law be damned? Maybe this isn’t about how much money you have, but of your identity as “a poor person” or “a rich person”. If you get rich very suddenly, I can be sympathetic toward you because you’re still “a poor person” (”a person of poverty”? What’s the PC term?) until you get massively rich, while someone who earns their riches invariably does so gradually, and is therefore “quite well off” shortly before becoming massively rich. It takes a year or two of having money before you’re a wealthy person.

By: ba feed » John Goodman on the Lottery, by David Henderson

ba feed » John Goodman on the Lottery, by David Henderson — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:32:14 +0000

[...] added my answer on his blog. I’ve thought of one other. Could it be that many of the statist critics see choice as [...]

By: RAD

RAD — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:21:19 +0000

Hmmmmm….. I think disproportional free market earnings are often viewed as 1) the result of cheating, and/or 2) the result of exploiting/gaming large numbers of people.

I think lottery winnings get a pass because we trust that the lottery system is fair.

By: David N

David N — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:23 +0000

Maybe there is a positive externality. By enabling an easy outlet for people who need to gamble, it lets them spend a few $ and avoid the bigger temptation of going into a casino!
BTW Ben Franklin supported using lotteries to provide funds for public goods, so it is a strong American tradition. Banning them would be un-american (and would swiftly be replaced by numbers rackets by the gangs and mafia).

By: David R. Henderson

David R. Henderson — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:19:18 +0000

Wow, John! Good point. My quick answer is that liberals don’t actually object to luck: they actually object to income earned by people who work hard and smart. My answer surprises me, but I can’t off-hand think of another answer that fits the data as well.

By: The Lottery « The Marginalist:

The Lottery « The Marginalist: — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:10:38 +0000

[...] Goodman asks why Egalitarians aren’t angry at the lottery: Of all the complaints ever made against capitalism – from Karl Marx to the present day [...]

By: Bart

Bart — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:17:00 +0000

Maybe the Left is accepting because it sees everything as a zero-sum game. If anyone gets rich in a business arrangement, it can only be because the masses are being exploited. Therefore a lottery is morally no worse than capitalism, and is in a way preferable because the random winner is more deserving than an evil capitalist trafficker in human misery.

By: Dan S

Dan S — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:18:43 +0000

Are you trying to find out how many HuffPo and Daily Kos readers look at your blog? Just kidding! Liberals, I think, view with pity the strivings of the underclass to make the big time via the lottery. They would argue that because those poor people don’t seem to know how to organize in their own interest there is all the more reason to construct the ultimate welfare state so they will no longer feel the need to buy lottery tickets. As Jeff Foxworthy has commented: “Sophisticated people invest in the stock market; Rednecks play the lottery.”

By: Tom H.

Tom H. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:36:47 +0000

John, I think you are asking a deep psychological question. The answer could be very revealing.

By: John R. Graham

John R. Graham — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:20:47 +0000

I concur. It is another example of the government extracting monopoly profit from sin. However, I think I also support the Lottery, because it is a voluntary tax on stupidity. Other taxes punish industrious, intelligent, and thrifty people, so it is good to have at least one that levels the playing field!