Gambling City Forums

I'm opposed to the granting of monopolistic gambling licences to certain favoured persons and by so doing excluding others. Apart from violating individual rights, it may reduce competition to the extent that the public suffers a reduction in services and an increase in price in the form of worse odds.

The most obvious example is a state lottery. Throughout the world governments frequently decree that gambling is bad for individuals and must be tightly controlled or prohibited to protect gamblers. They often say that unscrupulous casino operators offering unfair odds make money from unsuspecting gamblers.

They then allot to themselves or to a favoured person the exclusive right to conduct a National or Provincial/State lottery. This lottery is promoted with taxpayers' money and the public are exhorted to participate with appeals to their greed, hopes and aspirations. Generally not more than 50% of the pool is made available for winners. Compare this to odds in the house's favour in other gambling games such as Roulette (2.7%) or Blackjack (0%-3%). Competition for the public's money would force lotteries and charities to offer far better odds.

The state argues that the money it keeps (an insidious form of taxation) goes to worthy causes like bureaucrats' salaries and charitable activities such as medical care, education etc. (which should be paid for out of taxes in any event). In the same breath, private charities are often precluded from using gambling to raise money.