What's new
By:

Why doesn't Utah have a Lottery?

colton said:
Plus, in this particular case, we're not just talking about making something legal, we're talking about *changing the nature of government* by either making the government responsible for implementing institutionalized gambling (the lottery) as a means for raising funds, or at the very least making the government responsible for overseeing some external organization which will do that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this changes the nature of government. Government does all kinds of things already, including running corporations (e.g., postal service) and provides all manner of services and products for its citizens. It is already heavily involved in regulating gambling where it exists. I don't see this as a necessarily large step outside government's existing role; in fact, it strikes me as pretty comfortable within its role. State sponsored lotteries are not uncommon either contemporaneously or historically, which by itself indicates that this is in fact a 'traditional,' or at least not a non-traditional,role of government.
 
colton said:
I'm nearly certain we've had this discussion before, and since this is the crux of your argument I don't have time/energy to get into it again. Suffice it to say that no, I don't think that's a solid justification for making something legal. You probably are in favor of legalizing all gambling, all types of drugs, all types of marriages (polygamy, incestuous, homosexual), and so forth, but I'm not. And if you get your way you are imposing your views on me by making me live in such a society just as you are claiming I'm imposing my own views on you. Yes, I know you will claim its different because your view doesn't affect my *behavior*. But it affects my *environment*, so there are some definitely similarities, in my opinion.

Plus, in this particular case, we're not just talking about making something legal, we're talking about *changing the nature of government* by either making the government responsible for implementing institutionalized gambling (the lottery) as a means for raising funds, or at the very least making the government responsible for overseeing some external organization which will do that. And affecting the behavior of my government is practically the same as affecting my behavior, since the government officials are my proxies (as well as yours)--and for all we know I may even decide someday to run for office and become part of the government.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm pretty sure we have never discussed this. You're probably thinking of a conversation you had with someone else.

To answer your points, yes, I'm in favor of legalizing all of that stuff for consenting adults. And you are free to live wherever you want. So if it affects your environment, you're free to move out of that environment.

And that is assuming it actually affects your environment. I'm not exactly sure how it affects your environment. Unless you are just talking about seeing someone in public who is not doing anything wrong.

On your government point- it doesn't change the nature of government. The government is regulating gambling right now. Making it illegal IS regulating it and overseeing it.

It sounds like you're really reaching trying to justify reasons for keeping it illegal, when in reality the real reason is you just want to control the behavior of other adults in this supposedly free society.
 
Salty said:
To answer your points, yes, I'm in favor of legalizing all of that stuff for consenting adults. And you are free to live wherever you want. So if it affects your environment, you're free to move out of that environment.
Click to expand...

So if your behavior affects my environment I have to move?? As soon as your behavior affects my environment you should cease and desist.
 
Scat said:
So if your behavior affects my environment I have to move?? As soon as your behavior affects my environment you should cease and desist.
Click to expand...
If my behavior affects your environment in what way? You mean just seeing me in public?

Yeah, if you don't like seeing me in public then YOU should move, not me.

If my behavior is affecting something inside your house, then you have a point. But if you just don't want to see me in public then that's on you.
 
colton said:
So, since my earlier post asking for people who are in favor of the lottery but otherwise against gambling, or vice versa, not one person has stepped forward. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to the lottery in Utah, but I would be opposed to 'gambling' on the scale of Nevada. (I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to some limited casino type gambling in certain 'zones,' but I might be. Not sure.) Although both are gambling, they have very different types of implications. Turning Utah, or any state, into a gambling state (large-scale casino type gambling) would have a transformational impact on that state, including inviting all the social ills that are associated with large-scale casino type gambling (e.g., crime, prostitution, organized crime, drugs, etc,--I am assuming such are associated with large scale casino type gambling), while also transforming the economy and possibly also the social structure. The lottery has none of these impacts on a large scale and does not affect the nature of the state in any significant way, at least that I can see.

The lottery is to 'gambling' (again, as in large scale casino type gambling) as speeding is to, say, drug violence. Both are gambling,as both are against the law, but on a very different scale and with very different implications.

By way of disclaimer, I don't gamble, whether lottery or Vegas. I don't like paying to play games where the odds are stacked against me.
 
How about allowing casinos on Utah's Native American reservations (was I correctly PC there?)?

I enjoyed San Diego's Indian casinos. They were all a bit out of the major population areas.
 
Gameface said:
How about allowing casinos on Utah's Native American reservations (was I correctly PC there?)?

I enjoyed San Diego's Indian casinos. They were all a bit out of the major population areas.
Click to expand...

Being PC is one of the biggest shams ever created. All this Mexican American, African American, Japanese American... Just crap.

The only time I can see that applying is if you actually have dual citizenship. There is nothing wrong with being from any country and you should be proud of where you are from. Proud of your heritage. However the idiocy of some guy from (pick a random state/city) that is 4th generation American saying he is (pick PC term) is amazing.
 
Stoked said:
Being PC is one of the biggest shams ever created. All this Mexican American, African American, Japanese American... Just crap.

The only time I can see that applying is if you actually have dual citizenship. There is nothing wrong with being from any country and you should be proud of where you are from. Proud of your heritage. However the idiocy of some guy from (pick a random state/city) that is 4th generation American saying he is (pick PC term) is amazing.
Click to expand...

In the case of "Native Americans" I think that term is more accurate and appropriate than "Indian."
 
Gameface said:
In the case of "Native Americans" I think that term is more accurate and appropriate than "Indian."
Click to expand...

Honestly I do not use either (very often). I call them American. If they have an issue with that, which is fine if they do, I call them whatever they want to identify themselves as (Navajo, Piute, Sioux, Crow...). In the case of Native Americans I can see the arguement being made for the term and could accept it.

All the others? Not so much. Unless you actually have dual citizenship of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top