CDZ Lotteries: Social Principia

[Abishai100]

This is a mock debate about the social value of lotteries in capitalist/democratic America.

A lottery is a state-sponsored monetary prize that taxpaying citizens can win through a raffle or chance-distribution vendor.

Many consider lotteries like political 'tithes,' encouraging the flow of commerce and instilling in citizens the notion that taxes are cycled through society and benefit both the individual taxpayer and the collective citizenry (since taxes can contribute to state infrastructure).

This mock debate concerns the practicality of lotteries. Do they motivate labor? Do they actually instill optimism about taxes and capitalism? Do they create the problems of gambling? Do they feel like 'tithes' or laziness?

The 'characters' in this debate are inspired from folk mythology so as to create an environment of 'intellectual candor.'

The judge for this mock debate is the (fictional) American tycoon Kingpin (Marvel Comics).

The delegates (or competitors) of this debate are Shiva (the Hindu god of meditation and destruction), a representative of federalism and capitalism, and Pennywise (the demonic clown from the iconic Stephen King horror novel It), a representative of anarchism and absurdism.

The purpose of this mock debate is stir thoughts about the bureaucratic value of lottery systems in capitalism-gauged societies (especially America).



====

JUDGE: Thank you two gentleman for agreeing to attend this debate. I assume you are ready for your questions, answers and position presentations?

SHIVA: Yes, I am ready, and I'm happy to be here.

PENNYWISE: Likewise.

JUDGE: Very well, then. The first question in this debate about the social value of lotteries in the United States concerns immigration. Do you feel that lotteries encourage labor optimism in capitalism-gauged America? Shiva, you go first for all rounds, and Pennywise goes second.

SHIVA: Thank you. Yes, I believe lotteries in the United States do encourage labor optimism among recently migrated immigrants and those considering immigrating to the USA. I contend that if a taxpaying citizen is offered the chance to win a monetary prize, then he/she will begin to feel that lotteries are like state or federally-mandated pseudo-tithes which encourage profit-sharing thinking.

PENNYWISE: Thank you. No, I believe lotteries in the United States serve to remind immigrants that capitalism caters to all kinds of profiteerism-gauged instincts. This is why many lottery players feel they have become addicted to these games, in some lackadaisical praise of the 'American Dream.' The hype surrounding lotteries in the United States should be replaced with more verbal and pronounced advertisements about socialized healthcare initiatives which will make immigrants feel that there are all kinds of social security nets for those who fall through the cracks of the competition-gauged so-called 'American Dream.' While I do not explicitly support nihilism, I do believe that lotteries dissuade more healthy talk about capitalism criticism.

JUDGE: Thank you. Pennywise is the winner of this first round. The next round involves consumerism. Do you feel that lotteries encourage liberal consumer spending?

SHIVA: Yes, I do believe lotteries in the United States encourage consumer spending. When taxpayers are told they may win cash prizes, they feel more engaged in consumerism and the general flow of assets through a capitalism-gauged pyramid. I contend that one reason that middle class taxpayers play the lottery is that they feel better about the shared competitiveness agreements in a capitalism-gauged government. Lotteries make citizens feel more involved in the capitalism process, encouraging more active consumer habits.

PENNYWISE: No, I do not believe lotteries encourage consumer spending. Sure, they are good for cycling money through society and therefore can be construed as 'pseudo-tithes,' but in general, they cater to the social belief that gambling is a normalized feature of a capitalism-gauged politics.

JUDGE: Thank you. Shiva is the winner of this second round. The final round involves taxation. Do you feel that lotteries encourage voter confidence about political administration of taxation?

SHIVA: Yes, I do believe lotteries encourage voter confidence about taxation. When taxpayers have something to play with (in their hands) from the federal coffer, they feel they are more involved with the flow of assets between government and citizenry.

PENNYWISE: No, I do not believe lotteries encourage voter confidence about taxation. They are simply games (like sports on TV) which can make taxpayers feel like the government is consumer-centric but charity-poor.

JUDGE: Thank you. Shiva is the winner of this third round. The final round involves cross-examination. Each delegate will get one chance to ask a question about the other delegate's responses.

SHIVA: Thank you. Pennywise, you stated that lotteries can make taxpayers feel like consumerism offers little room for charities. How then would you explain the American demand for democratically-beneficial Native-American casinos such as the Mohegan Sun?

PENNYWISE: Casinos such as the Mohegan Sun are still representative of gambling promotion.

PENNYWISE: Shiva, you stated that lotteries encourage consumer spending. How then would you explain the fact that the American middle class is targeted by lotteries? Rich people don't care about playing the lottery, so how is consumer spending being inspired for all of society?

SHIVA: The middle class best represents upward mobility in a capitalist society, so the fact that lotteries appeal to the middle class is good news for consumerism cycles.

JUDGE: This concludes the final round. Thank you, Shiva and Pennywise, for all your responses and questions. The winner is Shiva.


====



Lottery

Lotteries in the United States


THE JUDGE (Kingpin)




THE DELEGATES (Shiva and Pennywise):

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think of a lottery as anything other than a more complex form of roulette. To that end it's just gambling. I think the pros and cons are much the same regardless of who sponsors the gaming opportunity. I certainly don't believe that immigration and the availability of a lottery have anything causal to do with one another.

I think the question of gambling's social merit and lack thereof has already been addressed. Additionally, researchers have concluded that for some folks, gambling provides the outlet consistent with "activity theory" and thus is a good thing, at least for some folks.

What is the "bureaucratic value of lottery systems?" Do you truly mean there's some bureaucratic benefit -- presumably a larger or smaller bureaucracy, depending on your POV, or perhaps some sort of improvement to governmental decision making and administration -- accruing to states by their administering lotteries? Do you not mean budgetary value?

Some thoughts on the remarks in the debate you transcribed:

• "[H]e/she will begin to feel that lotteries are like state or federally-mandated pseudo-tithes which encourage profit-sharing thinking."
  
  Folks may see it that way, but if they do, they are just kidding themselves. I think for that debater's point to have any merit, Shiva would need to show that a helluva lot of folks do feel that way.

• "Do you feel that lotteries encourage liberal consumer spending?"
  
  I think lotteries encourage consumer spending only insofar as lottery tickets are sold in retail establishments that sell things other than lottery tickets, and lottery consumers often enough buy "stuff" other than just a lottery ticket. That's part of why all the "impulse purchase" goods are near the lottery ticket point of sale.

• " When taxpayers have something to play with (in their hands) from the federal coffer..."
  
  ??? When did the federal government start sponsoring a lottery? When did lottery proceeds ever come from state or federal coffers? Shiva clearly doesn't understand the difference between "funding/financing" and "administration/operation." S/he opened with that faulty premise and hopped onto it again later. I think Shiva is just talking out of his/her ass because she wants to believe something, so s/he's making up whatever comes to mind to support it, regardless of whether the premise(s) actually "hold(s) water." Maybe Shiva was coopted into the mock debate and doesn't really understand the subject matter...That happens sometimes.

 

[jwoodie]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

 

[jwoodie]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

So is buying a TV. But you still pay taxes on it. (50% on lottery tickets)

 

[320 Years of History]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

So is buying a TV. But you still pay taxes on it. (50% on lottery tickets)

Are you really going to argue for or against buying a lottery ticket because its price includes an excise/"sin" tax? By that line of argument, one shouldn't buy a damn thing other than perhaps groceries. Moreover, whereas a lottery ticket purchase is necessary for one and only one thing -- winning the lottery -- the other non-"sin" things one purchases and that are taxed (property or sales) one buys serve one beyond the prima facie purpose, even those that are indulgences but not "sin assuagements" of the purchase.

According to TaxFoundation.org, "In Fiscal Year 2003, 31 cents of every dollar spent on lottery tickets was kept by state governments." Now the only reason we call that a "tax" is because it is a source of revenue for a government. If, say, the Bellagio kept 31¢ of every dollar wagered there, would you call that a tax? I doubt it. So why call it a tax and mean it as such merely because the organization offering the gambling opportunity is a government?

 

[Holos]

I think this is actually a pretty serious topic for debate and your mock version of presentation is actually taking away the candor you claim is being graced.

As I began to read your introduction I felt grateful you were addressing this element of our economies and thought we would all be able to learn something and improve our society. However, as you included fictitious characters and opened no space for actual people to express their opinions I found myself gravely disappointed and distressed.

Why have you not been able to present your thoughts as your own? Why could you not briefly and concisely propose your thoughts by welcoming other singular thinkers to judge our mutual developing comprehension initiated by you? I feel no interest in engaging in a masked debate.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think this is actually a pretty serious topic for debate and your mock version of presentation is actually taking away the candor you claim is being graced.

As I began to read your introduction I felt grateful you were addressing this element of our economies and thought we would all be able to learn something and improve our society. However, as you included fictitious characters and opened no space for actual people to express their opinions I found myself gravely disappointed and distressed.

Why have you not been able to present your thoughts as your own? Why could you not briefly and concisely propose your thoughts by welcoming other singular thinkers to judge our mutual developing comprehension initiated by you? I feel no interest in engaging in a masked debate.

I agree. Also, I do not believe that CDZ is the right place for a fictitious debate that declares its own winner.

 

[Abishai100]

Reprimanding Dream-Traders


Well, there are a lot of comments here, so I'll try to address as much as I can.

1. The 'masked debate' on the CDZ with a 'declared-winner' is meant to encourage people to bring their own personal perspective to an otherwise seemingly purely bureaucratic issue (I mean, do we actually take a serious look at the lottery system when creating dialogue about the history of taxation in the USA?).

2. I don't think it's that relevant whether or not the Hindu deity Shiva is correct about assumptions about exactly how the prize money for the lottery is collected; the purpose in referencing a 'folk authority' avatar for this discussion is to liberally create topics for discussion (i.e., the one Shiva casts with his [albeit implied] suggestion that collected monies require social contract re-evaluation). Remember folks that this topic can become very controversial (politically) --- i.e., "Immigrants watch news about ethnic minority lottery prize winners in the USA and fantasize about the American Dream."

3. I wanted to address the implication/comment about collected monies as being pseudo-equated to a "sin" tax. In order for us to talk this seriously about capitalism, we really need to establish the boundaries/contours of 'mercantile etiquette,' no?

4. Finally, since people are upset about the fictitious avatars used, I thought I'd add an addendum (no voting/winner in this extension debate mentioned) in which the Shiva-Pennywise delegation talk about the ethics evaluation of the fictional Shakespearean character Shylock (the profiteer Jew from the contract-controversy play The Merchant of Venice):


====

SHIVA: Shylock clearly represents Shakespeare's message that culture clash can create profiteerism betrayals.

PENNYWISE: What does that have to do with the lottery system in the USA?

SHIVA: America is multi-cultural, and a literary character such as Shylock provides dialogue/fodder about contract seriousness.

PENNYWISE: Agreed. However, Shylock also represents taxation paranoia.

====

 

[Abishai100]

Here's a nice info link from mentalfloss.com:

Where Does the Powerball Money Go?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

Not when it exploits gambling addictions. There's always an element of choice in addiction, but there is also an element of compulsion. When the government is sanctioning an addictive behavior, it becomes harder to fight.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

Not when it exploits gambling addictions. There's always an element of choice in addiction, but there is also an element of compulsion. When the government is sanctioning an addictive behavior, it becomes harder to fight.

I understand your inferences re: addiction, but I don't see one's gambling addiction as being sufficient to raise state operated gambling to the level of its meeting the definition of a tax because addition or not, the cost of a lottery is not a levy imposed and required by the government and for which there are criminal and/or civil penalties for failing to pay for it. I wager that nobody has ever received a "nasty-gram" (or worse) for failing to buy or pay for a lottery ticket.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

Not when it exploits gambling addictions. There's always an element of choice in addiction, but there is also an element of compulsion. When the government is sanctioning an addictive behavior, it becomes harder to fight.

I understand your inferences re: addiction, but I don't see one's gambling addiction as being sufficient to raise state operated gambling to the level of its meeting the definition of a tax because addition or not, the cost of a lottery is not a levy imposed and required by the government and for which there are criminal and/or civil penalties for failing to pay for it. I wager that nobody has ever received a "nasty-gram" (or worse) for failing to buy or pay for a lottery ticket.

I was not directly addressing the notion of lotteries as a "hidden tax" in my reply. I was just addressing one of the OP's points about the social principles involved in running a lottery, most of which I've never heard expressed.

"Do they motivate labor? Do they actually instill optimism about taxes and capitalism? Do they create the problems of gambling? Do they feel like 'tithes' or laziness?"

Motivate labor? Huh? That's a strange argument to make. Create optimism? Again, huh? There's no way to justify calling a lottery a tithe.

A lottery is gambling, however, and state-sanction gambling is difficult to separate from the issue of gambling addiction. One can argue, I suppose, that they feed into the "get rich quick" mentality of some, though I don't think lotteries are either the cause of the human tendency to look for shortcuts, or a terribly great magnifier of such behaviors. They are, however, a means by which government raises revenues, and it can be argued that the government is exploiting human weakness to raise this revenue. I don't think it's valid to describe it as a tax, but I don't think it's entirely true to describe it as 100% free of coercion.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lotteries are just another form of taxation foisted on the ignorant masses.

They are not at all taxes. Paying taxes are not voluntary expenditures we make; buying lottery tickets is 100% voluntary.

Not when it exploits gambling addictions. There's always an element of choice in addiction, but there is also an element of compulsion. When the government is sanctioning an addictive behavior, it becomes harder to fight.

I understand your inferences re: addiction, but I don't see one's gambling addiction as being sufficient to raise state operated gambling to the level of its meeting the definition of a tax because addition or not, the cost of a lottery is not a levy imposed and required by the government and for which there are criminal and/or civil penalties for failing to pay for it. I wager that nobody has ever received a "nasty-gram" (or worse) for failing to buy or pay for a lottery ticket.

I was not directly addressing the notion of lotteries as a "hidden tax" in my reply. I was just addressing one of the OP's points about the social principles involved in running a lottery, most of which I've never heard expressed.

"Do they motivate labor? Do they actually instill optimism about taxes and capitalism? Do they create the problems of gambling? Do they feel like 'tithes' or laziness?"

Motivate labor? Huh? That's a strange argument to make. Create optimism? Again, huh? There's no way to justify calling a lottery a tithe.

A lottery is gambling, however, and state-sanction gambling is difficult to separate from the issue of gambling addiction. One can argue, I suppose, that they feed into the "get rich quick" mentality of some, though I don't think lotteries are either the cause of the human tendency to look for shortcuts, or a terribly great magnifier of such behaviors. They are, however, a means by which government raises revenues, and it can be argued that the government is exploiting human weakness to raise this revenue. I don't think it's valid to describe it as a tax, but I don't think it's entirely true to describe it as 100% free of coercion.

My mistake. I thought you were addressing the "tax proposition," mainly because that's what I replied to with my "tax" comment and you replied to specifically that comment of mine. I understand now. TY for the clarification.

Bold:
I agree with all that.

Indeed, my incredulity goes a bit farther with regard to some of the "arguments" others have offered. To me they seem like strange assertions to make and downright ludicrous arguments (or attempted arguments) to make in support of them. Some I've seen inspire nothing in my mind other than "WTF?"