Addiction Markets

Sounds like a win to me, you can leave more for productive activity to grow and attract more, there less incentive for illegal gambling, and no one is forced to do it.

If there’s a massive burden with addicts, you can still impose that the gambling industry pays more to offset.

The goal of the governement is to facilitate conditions where as many people as possible are happy, safe and healthy. The economy of a state is in service of that goal, not the other way around.

> no one is forced to do it

This logic always bugs me because no one truly lives in a vacuum. People are flawed and generally need help from a community. A small community can't really fight back a well endowed company like gambling companies. The whole(stated) reason android is losing unsigned side loading is because grandmas in SEA are sideloading gambling apps.

It's obvious to me that gambling is generally a vulnerability in the human psyche. For many, it short circuits something in their brain and forms genuine addiction.

It's actually insane to me to use this vulnerability as a tax base to fund roads and schools, because regardless of the funds, your incentives will still be perverse and those incentives will dictate that more people need to be losing their money to out-of-state firms because a small portion of it might fund roads and schools.

The incentives basically state: "A percentage of our population must become sick and addicted to risk and reward in order for society to function". Is this not basically the concept of Omelas?

> no one is forced to do it

Go tell that to joint bank accounts and family court.

> The whole(stated) reason android is losing unsigned side loading is because grandmas in SEA are sideloading gambling apps.

Do you have more details on this? I hadn't heard this angle on the story before.

I'm mildly surprised this is a concern Google has to have.

What does this comment mean?

If spouse-a has gambling addiction and spends all of the family money, then spouse-b was effectively forced to gamble.

I read the Omelas story differently but maybe is the same. It's just a predatory dominance play. Some people get the dopamine hit from dominance, so for them it is a double win- their stuff is funded by others and it is the "weakness" of others (perceived by the dominant) that produces the funding. Having and eating the cake, etc.

Not being forced to open a joint account either…

In all seriousness, all the pushback against paternalism comes from people who still believe in free will.

I'd have to look for it. At the very least, the pilot program is happening there, and I've read on here it's a big scam to have sideloaded gambling apps take people's life savings.