|
Legalized gambling runs contrary to the progressive idea of desiring fair wealth distribution. It is a mathematical fact that the sum total of game participants will experience a negative return. This is completely unlike a fair probability situation or an investment where the participant can expect to match or exceed the monetary value of an action based on its risk.
Additionally nothing good is "created" by the industry of gaming. One community's economic gain is a parasitic loss by participants from another. It is a zero sum game that creates nothing, builds nothing but is merely a giant shell game to funnel funds into corporate run casinos. The flow of money in any economy eventually sees the light of day. Instead of paying for a blackjack dealer, a retiree's money would go to pay a health care bill, eliminate personal debt or pay for home improvement or lawn care services. Are not the latter a more desirous use of money than the former?
If our goal is to lessen poverty and seek a more equitable wealth distribution, having legalized gambling runs contrary to stated government desires. It is like funding anti-smoking campaigns while simultaneously providing large tobacco subsides.
If we observe that propensity to gamble is more prevalent in those with less wealth, we can only come to the conclusion that an a strong and deterministic coercive force acts on people in the form of their marginal utility for money and level of risk aversion. Is free will truly a human universal if its manifestations can be altered by the environment? This country which is over 200 years old stands on the back of much older civilizations which in my opinion would be correct in a nanny state prohibition of such activity. Must the toddler break a social taboo himself to vindicate the warnings of the parent?
Gambling has no upside. I have no problems with prostitution or recreational drug. What are your opinions on legalized gambling?
|