Comment

Comment by idopmstuff

Lots of people saying things along the lines of "this is bad for society, therefore it should be banned," and kind of making the implicit assumption that the counterargument against "sports gambling is bad" is "sports gambling is good."

I don't think that's it at all - the counterargument to "sports gambling is bad" is "we live in a society that places an incredibly high value on personal freedom, so we should err on the side of allowing people to do what they want, even if it results in some amount of harm, because the inherent value of allowing freedom of choice is high."

That's not to say we can't ever ban things - obviously there is a degree of harm that is high enough that we should sacrifice particular freedoms (e.g. you can't have a nuke). And FWIW I think this one certainly sits close to the line of being worth banning, but the point is that it's not a clear case just because the direct benefits to society of people gambling (which are minimal) outweigh the harms (which are substantial).

I think the most helpful way to consider the tradeoff is by using examples of what we allow in society now. Alcohol's a good one - without question a hugely harmful substance overall, but we allow it. Is gambling more or less harmful than alcohol?

parent idopmstuff 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton