Little Rock's Creative Class

[turboturtle]

Wait a minute - let's be clear: My opposition to a lottery has no correlation to maintaining the status quo. Nor is my opinion about lotteries centered on any moral issue (or if it is, it would be judgement upon those responsible for preying upon the less fortunate).

The central point is that lotteries patronize the less educated, less sophisticated, the less fortunate of society. Isn't this the single group of people to whom this would supposedly help? Right. There is NOT a problem with access to higher education in Arkansas. In fact, Arkansas has one of the HIGHEST percentage of college enrollment in the country. The problem is that most do not end up finishing their degree, attributed to a variety of reasons.

I am absolutely for prioritizing education about all other issues in this state (or country). I just think that lotteries are a tacky, unsophisticated way of taxing those who need to be taxed the least. Its low brow. Its sort of embarrassing really. If education needs increased funding, then just pass a legitimate tax where everyone pays. I'm proud that Arkansans have, until now at least, resisted this avenue...

[Aporkalypse]

I wouldn't participate in the lottery and aside from a few dollars spent a year at the racetrack I don't really gamble. That said, if every surrounding state is participating all but those in the center of the state have access to buy lottery tickets and those monies go to support their tax base. Our residents are pouring money into out of state lotteries and it makes little sense. I don't think there is a more noble way to spend money collected in this manner than on need-based college scholarships and grants.

[Architect]

I wouldn't participate in the lottery and aside from a few dollars spent a year at the racetrack I don't really gamble. That said, if every surrounding state is participating all but those in the center of the state have access to buy lottery tickets and those monies go to support their tax base. Our residents are pouring money into out of state lotteries and it makes little sense. I don't think there is a more noble way to spend money collected in this manner than on need-based college scholarships and grants.

[theman]

I don't think collecting money that way is noble. That about sums up my perspective on this.

You are right, this is where we differ:

1 - Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is dishonorable (if not deceitful), and it lacks any sense of integrity.

2 - Inevitability should never trump principle.

Basically, you guys are saying "Well, everyone else is doing it." I was raised with higher standards than this.

[turboturtle]

1 - Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is dishonorable (if not deceitful), and it lacks any sense of integrity.

[Architect]

First, just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong. That's your opinion. I happen to think the lottery is a good idea. You said in an earlier post that it preys on the less educated and less sophisticated. Well many of those people are already traveling to Tunica to the casinos and surrounding states to play the lottery, so why not keep that money in state. They've made their choice already to gamble their money.

Just because you don't believe in the lottery doesn't mean no one elses standards are lower than yours. That statements makes it seems like you are better than anyone else and I know your standards are not any better than mine. How I know that is you don't know me and you don't know what my standards are. If you are forming your opinion of others on this forum from these post, that is short sighted of you.

If you don't believe in the lottery, fine. I don't think any more or less of you because of your opinion, but don't state your standards are better than someone elses because you don't agree on this issue.

[turboturtle]

Correct. I don't know you and my comments are merely my opinion. No more. No less. I disagree with your viewpoint on this (apparently - since this was your first post on this subject), but I wasn't intending to be judgmental in any way. So don't read more into this than it merely being my perspective.

You infer that I stated the lottery is "wrong" in my post, but I believe you are confusing it with me quoting turbobeetle when he stated "I believe people do the right thing for the wrong reason all the time." I believe he was summarizing the common axiom "The end justifies the means."

None-the-less, I believe my post is quite accurate in summarizing the arguments people have been posting in support of the lottery *:

- that the end justifies the means, and...

- everyone else is doing it.

Again, I happen to think that those are very, very poor arguments, if not unprincipled. There are a LOT of people who would agree with this position (though as turbobeetle aptly pointed out, perhaps not as many as I think! ). However, I would be happy to change my perspective on this should someone offer up any legitimate reasons justifying the "means" (I certainly support the "ends"!), and would alter my vote accordingly.

* Note: I wasn't just summarizing prior comments on this board, but these two points seem to be the predominant arguments with the public at-large in favor of any type of lottery.

[theman]

Correct. I don't know you and my comments are merely my opinion. No more. No less. I disagree with your viewpoint on this (apparently - since this was your first post on this subject), but I wasn't intending to be judgmental in any way. So don't read more into this than it merely being my perspective.

You infer that I stated the lottery is "wrong" in my post, but I believe you are confusing it with me quoting turbobeetle when he stated "I believe people do the right thing for the wrong reason all the time." I believe he was summarizing the common axiom "The end justifies the means."

None-the-less, I believe my post is quite accurate in summarizing the arguments people have been posting in support of the lottery *:

- that the end justifies the means, and...

- everyone else is doing it.

Again, I happen to think that those are very, very poor arguments, if not unprincipled. There are a LOT of people who would agree with this position (though as turbobeetle aptly pointed out, perhaps not as many as I think! ). However, I would be happy to change my perspective on this should someone offer up any legitimate reasons justifying the "means" (I certainly support the "ends"!), and would alter my vote accordingly.

* Note: I wasn't just summarizing prior comments on this board, but these two points seem to be the predominant arguments with the public at-large in favor of any type of lottery.

[CentralArkansas]

However, I would be happy to change my perspective on this should someone offer up any legitimate reasons justifying the "means" (I certainly support the "ends"!), and would alter my vote accordingly.

[Architect]

Justifying the means:

No one is forced to participate. It is COMPLETELY voluntary. You may say, well, we all know that poor people will spend more money on it than most. I say, so what? We also know they buy more cheap beer than anyone else, but we don't repeal the tax off of it.

I don't know, but I would bet, that your position is inconsistent with the rest of your beliefs. For example, do you desire to abolish abortion? I don't think anyone would argue, even the most pro-choice person around, that it isn't a terrible means to a preferred end. So, if you are pro-choice (not saying you are, playing with hypotheticals) yet anti-lottery, how would you possibly reconcile that? I could give many more examples, and would bet I could find more positions than you think that are in conflict with each other.

[turboturtle]

Justifying the means:

No one is forced to participate. It is COMPLETELY voluntary. You may say, well, we all know that poor people will spend more money on it than most. I say, so what? We also know they buy more cheap beer than anyone else, but we don't repeal the tax off of it.

I don't know, but I would bet, that your position is inconsistent with the rest of your beliefs. For example, do you desire to abolish abortion? I don't think anyone would argue, even the most pro-choice person around, that it isn't a terrible means to a preferred end. So, if you are pro-choice (not saying you are, playing with hypotheticals) yet anti-lottery, how would you possibly reconcile that? I could give many more examples, and would bet I could find more positions than you think that are in conflict with each other.

[CentralArkansas]

This discussion involves the educational system and (specifically) its funding by a state-wide lottery, not a debate about my ethics, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Architect]

You said you wouldn't vote for the lottery because you thought it was dishonorable way to raise money for education. Specifically, you believed the "end" didn't justify the "means."

[Architect]

No one is forced to participate. It is COMPLETELY voluntary. You may say, well, we all know that poor people will spend more money on it than most. I say, so what? We also know they buy more cheap beer than anyone else, but we don't repeal the tax off of it.

[LRU1967]

I intend to vote for the lottery. My only reservation is uncertainly over the types of games that will be allowed. Specifically I'm strongly against the use of so called scratch-off games. In Houston, outside some convenience stores, the losing tickets litter the ground like cigarette butts in Arkansas. Scratch-offs offer instant gratification and after a losing ticket is discarded a player can quickly buy another. This encourages compulsive gambling.

[astrife]

My take on the lottery controversy:

This is all about autonomy. People in this state need to let other people live their lives. Stop restricting people's choices in life just because you don't agree with those choices.

If a low income individual decides to buy a lottery ticket, it is none of my business or anyone else's business. They are a human being and should be treated as such, including making their own choices and dealing with their consequences.

Stop telling people what they can or cannot do, it's none of your business. Trying to take away a person's autonomy is very unethical.

[Architect]

My take on the lottery controversy:

This is all about autonomy. People in this state need to let other people live their lives. Stop restricting people's choices in life just because you don't agree with those choices.

If a low income individual decides to buy a lottery ticket, it is none of my business or anyone else's business. They are a human being and should be treated as such, including making their own choices and dealing with their consequences.

Stop telling people what they can or cannot do, it's none of your business. Trying to take away a person's autonomy is very unethical.

[ndark]

Your post infers that something or someone's right is being taken away. There is currently no lottery. The question is whether or not you support a PROPOSED lottery, which would have to be enacted. If you feel this is something worthwhile, then exercise your right to vote for it.

But in my opinion, taking advantage of people who are least able to participate in the "game" is unethical (and we all know that's how it works). Its really no different, in my mind, of the unethical approach of credit card companies doling out (trolling actually) extensive credit to those least able to afford it, who are then saddled with extremely high interest rates. The fundamental principle is one group's gain by way of another group's ineptitude.

But I do share your principled concept of not infringing upon people's rights - that's generally how I lean. I just don't view this particular item as quintessential or fundamental issue related to individual rights.

[astrife]

Your post infers that something or someone's right is being taken away. There is currently no lottery. The question is whether or not you support a PROPOSED lottery, which would have to be enacted. If you feel this is something worthwhile, then exercise your right to vote for it.

But in my opinion, taking advantage of people who are least able to participate in the "game" is unethical (and we all know that's how it works). Its really no different, in my mind, of the unethical approach of credit card companies doling out (trolling actually) extensive credit to those least able to afford it, who are then saddled with extremely high interest rates. The fundamental principle is one group's gain by way of another group's ineptitude.

But I do share your principled concept of not infringing upon people's rights - that's generally how I lean. I just don't view this particular item as quintessential or fundamental issue related to individual rights.

[Architect]

So, from your rationale the government should be able to restrict all actions that are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

I whole heartedly disagree. Hopefully this state doesn't regress and decide that alcohol is too dangerous for the public at large. I'm sure low income people have higher rates of alcoholism than other socioeconomic groups.

I plan to cancel your vote out with mine.

[astrife]

Again, you keep making statements as if there is a vote to restrict someone's rights. This is a vote to allow a method to extract money from the people, which is currently not authorized. The voters will decide. But whether it passes or not, my point is that a lottery doesn't, in my opinion, fall into the category of an individual's fundamental right. It would be a privilege, so to speak...if you want to look at it that way. It is essentially gambling, which is in fact regulated by the government.

[LRU1967]

I understand the difference between a fundamental right that is specifically stated in our founding documents, and de facto rights that we in modern society have extracted overtime from the firm hand of a paternal government run by the "moral" masses. These "rights" include things like access to alcohol and pornography.

This is a vote to establish what should have already been allowed in the first place. Maybe thirty years from now the Arkansas masses will stop repressing those individuals who disagree with them and vote to allow other things: gay marriage, marijuana, etc...

You're right though, this is not a vote to restrict someone's rights. This is a vote to continue restricting someone's rights. I could see how having a precedence of restriction might confuse you into thinking that the government is right in their restriction.

[turboturtle]

I agree with you in supporting a lottery in Arkansas. However you appear to believe government has no right, reason or need to prohibit anything. What's your opinion on the "right to keep and bear arms"? Do you think we should have the right to carry fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc How about allowing cocaine and heroin?

Do you believe there should be speed limits on the highways? Where do you draw the line between individual rights and the need for government to regulate dangerous behavior?

[Stormcrow]

I agree with you in supporting a lottery in Arkansas. However you appear to believe government has no right, reason or need to prohibit anything. What's your opinion on the "right to keep and bear arms"? Do you think we should have the right to carry fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc How about allowing cocaine and heroin?

Do you believe there should be speed limits on the highways? Where do you draw the line between individual rights and the need for government to regulate dangerous behavior?

[EJC]

Wait a minute - let's be clear: My opposition to a lottery has no correlation to maintaining the status quo. Nor is my opinion about lotteries centered on any moral issue (or if it is, it would be judgement upon those responsible for preying upon the less fortunate).

The central point is that lotteries patronize the less educated, less sophisticated, the less fortunate of society. Isn't this the single group of people to whom this would supposedly help? Right. There is NOT a problem with access to higher education in Arkansas. In fact, Arkansas has one of the HIGHEST percentage of college enrollment in the country. The problem is that most do not end up finishing their degree, attributed to a variety of reasons.

I am absolutely for prioritizing education about all other issues in this state (or country). I just think that lotteries are a tacky, unsophisticated way of taxing those who need to be taxed the least. Its low brow. Its sort of embarrassing really. If education needs increased funding, then just pass a legitimate tax where everyone pays. I'm proud that Arkansans have, until now at least, resisted this avenue...

This is incredibly impressive...