Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think that is a perfectly fair view but my concern is that this system is essentially taxing people who seem to have some kind of genetic make up. Also, this is true for certain kinds of food but the level of harm with gambling/psuedo-gambling is far higher. I don't like the conclusion any more than you do...but I don't see the alternative. The precise point is that these transactions aren't voluntary or anywhere close to it. Overloading charities is quite pointless (it isn't related to welfare either, poor people generally do not have the resources to really get in deep).

You have been downvoted because people think your PoV is illogical. It is also worth remembering that certain countries have tried to regulate this kind of stuff, and it hasn't worked at all. So I think the only option is to ban or permit and actually ensure that people who aren't making a voluntary transaction are getting help (to be clear, every country that I am aware of that tried to take half measures hasn't done the latter, the UK is a good example where gambling companies are actually taxed profits to fund gambling addiction...most of this money has disappeared into other parts of the govt health system).




> most of this money has disappeared into other parts of the govt health system

This is why I advocate for private charity and not gov solutions. Gov introduces moral hazard every time and is less efficient. If people who ended up in serious trouble due to gambling got help with strings attached, which would likely be the case, I believe the societal outcome would be greater than outright banning anything where one party is not happy with the outcome, when both knowingly entered a voluntary transaction with perfect information.

Consumers should be considered rational.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: