They should have known better. Government cannot and should not protect people from themselves.
“An entrepreneur who would like to set up a private lottery is prohibited by the state monopoly. The lottery advertising injects wrong values (of the kind "Live the American dream! Buy a ticket today!"), and such countercultural propaganda comes with the state's imprimatur. These are the same reasons that exist to protest any evil government function, not just the lottery, and by any citizen, not just a taxpayer, of course.
And I believe if a private entrepreneur who wants to sell lottery tickets to idiots who would buy them should be allowed to do so. Just as I believe psychics and tarot card readers should be allowed to do business as well.
“Second, if I avail myself of the public school system as a parent of a school child, I become a beneficiary of the scam. If I withdraw my child, or have none in the public school system in the first place, but pay taxes to support the schools, I become a partner in the scam.
Tax-collecting is an involuntary, coercive measure to generate revenue to maintain functions of government. You’re only a ‘partner in the scam’ if you voluntarily participate.
“…if I avail myself of the public school system as a parent of a school child, I become a beneficiary of the scam.
“…How, exactly am I to retroactively decide not to have children so as not to have my sixth-grader subjected to the proceeds of something I might consider immoral (not saying I do)? … but what about the hundreds or thousands of parents with such beliefs who have children already in the schools?”
Since I grow tired of explaining the same thing in different ways to both of you, I’ll simply refer you to my earlier response: “The expenses of educating children should be prepared for, allocated, and ready to be dispensed by every American BEFORE THE DECIDE TO HAVE CHILDREN. If they cannot afford such provisions, then they have no leg to stand on if they have moral disputes with the funding of public schools that they willingly participate in by having kids they cannot afford.”
“The value you place on your entertainment does not and should not exceed the burden placed on families who must now take on the expense of removing their children from the public schools. That is Mr. Hood's point. Clear?”
I’m clear on his point, but as I said before, I disagree. Shouldn’t individuals be able to decide for themselves what his or her needs are? Shouldn’t individuals determine for themselves the value they place on items they desire? Or should we leave that to Mr. Hood?
You can scream at the top of your lungs about your views on parental preparedness before having children, but you haven't once responded to the real point of that part of Mr. Hood's article and what I have pointed out to you about seven different ways: What about parents who already have children in the schools and are forced now to take on extra expense to remove them? Were they supposed to be clairvoyant ten or twelve years ago and know that the government would start funding the schools with the proceeds of their gambling monopoly? Don't be ridiculous.
Your arguments have no merit and are simply self-indulgent. Have a great day.
Tax-collecting is an involuntary, coercive measure to generate revenue to maintain functions of government. You’re only a ‘partner in the scam’ if you voluntarily participate.
That is true on some level. If we did not have a participatory form of government, but rather a coercive system where the citizen's conscience is wholly ignored, taxes collected and spent without any consultation with the taxpayer, then, of course, the taxpayer is also wholly absolved of any moral responsibility whatsoever. In some areas of government it is true. For example, military matters are decided in considerable secrecy by the military and top political leadership, and the citizens are largely absolved from guilt if the US military enterprise commits wrongful acts.
But issues like state lotteries and funding of public education are supposed to be up for discussion and a democratic process of amendment. The lottery can be voted out of existence, and the public schools can be emptied. It is then valid to pose the question thus: what if the taxation for public schools were liberalized, for examples, through vouchers. Does it then become a moral duty, and not a mere option, to withdraw from the public schools if lottery is used to pay for them? The answer is, yes it does.
If you construe my position as a condemnation of today's taxpayers to hell, then my position appears to be wrong. But if you interpret my position correctly, as a public policy argument against state lotteries, then you see that it is a reasonable position.