HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

In Israel apparently too:

https://youtu.be/9PK-netuhHA?t=351

In most of the US lottery proceeds go to schools. Not sure about other areas.

Of course, the fallacy here is that dollars in budgets are fungible, and when lotteries are established municipalities often redirect the same number of dollars away from the schools into whatever pork barrel projects they like.

That way you have your cake (technically the lottery money does fund schools) and can eat it too (in reality it funds other stuff under the table).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA&t=650

⬐ listenallyall

> In most of the US lottery proceeds go to schools.

I'm well aware. A government-run school system, however, is NOT a charity. And it's an enormously inefficient way to contribute to a cause -- more than half of the teacher's "donation" is kept by the lottery (distributed as prizes, vendor fees, admin costs)

Nor does much of the money actually impact kids. Most lottery-based education funding in the US is either misleading, or simply replacing (rather than adding to) other funding sources. For example, in New York:

https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/education/how-much-lottery...

“People think the money is going strictly for education, like for books, or schools, or to pay teacher salaries, but it’s not,” DiPietro told 2 On Your Side.

According to DiPietro, the money on occasion has been “pinched off” by the state, to pay for a variety of items, including attorney’s fees for construction projects and even to pave roads near schools.

“They could say there are school busses that are going to drive on this road so the spending would be ‘education based’ when it’s really not, to me that’s a stretch,” he said.

⬐ shaftway

Oh yeah, the creative reallocation of school money is a problem. But this is the society we live in now; a significant part of the population believes that public schooling is a charity.

I think John Oliver put it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

>some states they claim to use lottery proceeding to improve math education

About that, this video is worth watching. No that is 100% true, but good enough to start a conversation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

Ehh... I wouldn't be too sure about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

The reasoning behind why lotteries can be damaging to the socioeconomically disadvantaged is similar to that of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It offers an escape and "hope", as some have put it for the lottery, but there is almost an infinitesimally small chance that something good will come out of it.

The problem with this is not people playing the lottery in general (even if it is objectively throwing away money). I've even bought into the office pool a few times more as "social insurance" than anything else. The problem IS that the lottery takes advantage of those who need that marginal dollar the most under the pretense of funding state education, which, according to John Oliver, doesn't even seem to be true[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

⬐ jessaustin

For hundreds of years, one of the primary motivations of social policy seems to have been depriving the poor and politically-weak of their small pleasures. There are other motivations too, but nearly everything that has been done to and for the disenfranchised can be summarized thus, so it seems a parsimonious explanation.

In some domains, even restricted funds are fungible. Check out John Oliver's video on state lotteries: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

⬐ moron4hire

No, that's not what he said at all. Because of a new restricted fund, they changed the budget for other funding sources. The didn't just decide to spend specific dollars on one cause that had been collected under a guise of a different cause.

⬐ studentrob

I think we are in agreement this is all legal, and are just disagreeing about the meaning of 'restricted'. Your usage is in legal terms, whereas I'm talking about what was advertised.

> The didn't just decide to spend specific dollars on one cause that had been collected under a guise of a different cause.

Actually, in the case of the lottery, there are examples of this. See the part at 12:24 - https://youtu.be/9PK-netuhHA?t=12m24s

Perhaps one can say it was legal and not restricted money. Regardless, it is definitely odd how the state advertises that lottery money goes to education, and meanwhile corporate tax money disappears from the education budget.

The point is not legality, it is ethics.

This is good news and bad news. The funding for schools will be a boon to education in the state, and that's certainly not bad. However, I expect will almost certainly lead to decreased education funding from other revenue sources, and ultimately place education footing on less solid ground for years to come.

It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education, there's no doubt about that. It's very hard to argue with such things, and many other states have opted to dedicate certain "sin taxes" to select public works. For example, earmarking some funds for veterans affairs out of state lottery tickets as my state (Iowa) does, or education as many more states do.

On the surface, this seems like a brilliant way to justify revenue collection for what many citizens would consider unseemly or undignified. It is an effective sales pitch to say to a voter, "You may disagree with marijuana legalization, but it will bring in $50 million dollars to state schools."

The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years. That is, education budgets are likely to reflect this revenue for future years. That's precisely what has happened in so many states where state lottery revenues have been earmarked for education and other noble causes. John Oliver's Last Week Tonight had an excellent take on a similar topic: the "sin tax" of state lottery tickets. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

It is wonderful that marijuana taxes are going to a good cause. It is dangerous to make education funding dependent on a volatile tax source, and the evidence suggests that is exactly what will happen.

⬐ aggie

Are sin taxes really that volatile? I don't have good data, but many people suggest marijuana (as well as alcohol) is counter-cyclical and demand is relatively inelastic.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amid-the-stock-market-volat...

edit: This study suggests alcohol is actually pro-cyclical (in Scandanavia). [pdf] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185...

⬐ AaronFriel

Even a small (4-6%) change in revenue can wipe out inflationary increases in funding for education. Even if they're counter-cyclical, the evidence is that replacing education funding with something more volatile is risky, because it's replacing consistent funding with something that is based on market dynamics.

In the case of marijunaa, it's largely cultural.

⬐ jlarocco

Colorado spent over $7 billion on education in FY2012-2013. The marijuana revenue number in the article is $70 million.

Even if the pot revenue completely disappeared, it'd be less than a 1% change in total education funding.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...

⬐ civilian

If we're looking to avoid volatile revenue streams, we should also avoid income taxes. But that's not really a starter, is it? http://taxfoundation.org/blog/new-sp-report-shows-income-tax...

A better solution would be to have a budget that accounted for potential volatility, and specified where surpluses should go, and where things should be cut from if revenues are down.

⬐ eru

Don't governments have the ability to go into debt for exactly that stabilizing function?

⬐ civilian

Yes, but wouldn't it be way better to make them honestly try to balance budgets, rather than knowing they can always over-run and kick the can down the road?

⬐ YokoZar

State governments generally do not without some creative accounting. Most states have "balanced budget" requirements, although they're allowed to issue bonds - provided said bonds are specifically earmarked for specific programs, and in some cases approved through a separate process like a referendum.

⬐ saryant

Some states also have rainy day funds they can tap into if they have an unexpected revenue shortfall.

⬐ s_dev

In Ireland in 2008 we were warned the only two industries that would remain unaffected by the looming recession were the funeral and cigarette manufacturing industry. The two were absolutely stable the entire time almost every other industry brought in less tax revenue/revenue.

Sin taxes can be some of the most stable sources of income as in the case of cigarettes and this is more evident during times of downturn when everything else is being slashed or falling in value. The problem is you need to wait to judge revenue after other states legalise.

⬐ Sir_Cmpwn

Death is inevitable. Cigarettes are addictive - there's a physiological impetus to continue smoking if you're addicted. Marijuana is significantly less addictive, and it takes very little willpower to stop using it during times of hardship.

⬐ jqm

It's also pretty trivial for smokers to grow a few marijuana plants if disposable income gets low. There goes that tax revenue. Cigarette tobacco on the other hand requires more processing and growing it for personal consumption generally isn't done.

⬐ avn2109

This fact - that weed is not an industrial crop solely amenable to cultivation by industrial agriculture - is one of two major reasons that weed isn't legal and tobacco is.

The other is that grass makes the citizenry less economically productive.

⬐ gregpilling

I use marijuana as a pain killer alternative to opiate based pills. I can not stop using it, I have a chronic pain condition. My consumption exceeds the top 10 of my friends casual use. I don't think marijuana revenue will decline as much as you do.

⬐ Sir_Cmpwn

I would think that your anecdotal evidence wouldn't map to the actual circumstances very well. A strong majority of marijuana users in Colorado are recreational, and they can give it up without any physical consequences like you would face if they had to deal with difficult financial times.

⬐ justinator

According to [0], $326,716,273.59 sales were made for medical marijuana, $246,810,599.03 sales were made for recreational marijuana. Recreational marijuana is also a little less than 30% more expensive. [1]

I guess that means that more pot is being sold with a medicinal marijuana card than recreational. Or, did you have other numbers?

[0] http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/12/26/pot-sales-taxes-statis...

[1] https://www.coloradopotguide.com/colorado-marijuana-blog/201...

⬐ chimeracoder

Medical marijuana is not subject to any special taxes (aside from normal sales tax on all goods, which is 2.9% across the state + any local sales tax). That amounts to less than $10MM, and it dosn't count towards the tax revenues from Amendment 64, which was the constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana.

It's also worth mentioning that because it is relatively easy to access a medical marijuana card in Colorado, heavy recreational users have an incentive to get a medical card.

⬐ Sir_Cmpwn

Nope, I don't have different numbers. I retract my point in the face of this evidence.

⬐ jlarocco

The line between medical and recreational is (or at least was) very fuzzy, though.

Before recreational was legal there were a lot of more or less healthy people getting licenses for silly symptoms, like nausea or difficulty sleeping. There was a very low burden or proof and it was pretty well known that a lot of people were making up problems just to get the license.

I don't know of anybody actually doing it, but it's entirely possible that a lot of the not-so-serious medicinal users are now just keeping the license for price discounts and better availability. It'll be interesting to see those numbers in a few years as the licenses need to be renewed.

⬐ digi_owl

In particular as smoking seems to tie in directly with the stress response. Stress any smoker, and the first thing they want to do is to light one up. And what is more stressful than being "downsized"...

⬐ s_dev

For clarification I wasn't referring to the funeral industry as a "Sin Tax" -- I just included it because it was a quoted industry so we can agree to discard it. My point is "Sin Taxes" in the case of tobacco are extremely stable even if predictably dwindling. Tobacco is universally and legally available. Marijuana isn't as addictive but luxury goods/Sin Taxes have a whole different set of economic laws applying to them that makes them stable and both MJ and tobacco are luxury goods.

⬐ taurath

Video games are one of the best investments during bad times as well.

⬐ xacaxulu

I probably would have killed myself if it wasn't for pot and video games when I was younger.

⬐ drumdance

> it takes very little willpower to stop using it during times of hardship.

...and yet that's often a great time to smoke a blunt. Fewer side effects than alcohol.

⬐ onedev

Should we start a HN smokers club?

⬐ jlarocco

I don't see what your concern has to do with marijuana taxes. Education funding is always in jeopardy, and has been for decades. Marijuana taxes are another source of funding, but nothing else has really changed.

Marijuana taxes are not the sole source of education funding, and they're not even close to being the biggest funding source. Politicians will have to budget funding for education just like they always have.

Edit: FWIW, I looked it up, and we (Colorado) spent $4.2 billion on K-12 education and another 2.8 billion on higher education in 2013. The marijuana tax revenue number mentioned in the article is only $70 million, which is less than 1% of the total education budget.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...

⬐ domdip

Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.

⬐ netfire

Couldn't Colorado just use the additional tax income for more long-term projects (building new schools or upgrading existing ones, for example) or products that could enhance education in schools (more computers, tablets, textbooks, etc), that wouldn't require an ongoing commitment of funds every year?

⬐ thaumasiotes

> It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education

> The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years

That's not a problem. It makes earmarking the tax revenue even more of a brilliant PR move, since you get the PR without misallocating your revenue.

⬐ peter303

The silliest tax earmark was for anti-pot education, especially aimed at under 18. Seeing users and magazine ads everywhere saying it is good for adults, but how could you say its bad for teens then?

⬐ code_sterling

Science. It impedes brain development in youth.

⬐ douche

This can be read in a hilarious way...

Maybe that's the rationale for arresting the 14 year-old clockmaker

⬐ civilian

I suspect it's still inconclusive. Ya know. Science.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to...

⬐ rudolf0

Almost all psychoactive drugs can negatively affect brains that are still developing.

⬐ rhelmer

Well one argument is that teen brains are not done developing, and something that has a negligible effect on an adult might not be so for teenagers... even if there are no harmful long-term effects it might interfere with schoolwork or other things that teenagers are responsible for. I have read these arguments but I don't know what the available evidence points to, this seems like the kind of thing I'd want this sort of education to cover.

Alcohol and tobacco are most definitely harmful for everybody, and it's certainly possible to argue that choosing to use a potentially harmful substance is not something minors are prepared to make a reasoned judgement about.

More generally, I think that showing teenagers that people who buy ads in magazines don't necessarily have their best interests at heart is a good thing!

⬐ goldfeld

The irony seems lost on them that something similar happens within your body with constant drug use. Let's hope the sin tax scenario remains open to future reversibility as the body does.

⬐ fpgaminer

Sure, but we didn't earmarking marijuana taxes for education so that we could improve education. Any informed voter would know that. We did it so that we could get uninformed/uneducated voters to pass the legislation. Now, I don't mean "uninformed/uneducated voters" in a negative way. Most voters, even intelligent ones, are classed as uninformed/uneducated when it comes to most topics. Because really, who has time during their day to research all of these measures? And funding education sounds good. So a little "end justifies the means" was used here to make moves towards ending the war on drugs.

I want to re-iterate, using marijuana taxes for education had nothing to do with improving education. Those who have studied the educational system in the U.S. know that funding is not the primary issue. The system itself is sick, and not from malnutrition. It is misguided, is mis-incentivized, and in many ways corrupt (mostly due to incompetence).

For example, in the past few years when schools have gotten additional funding, they have tended to spend it on technology. They buy iPads for students and teachers, smartboards, and online learning management services (Blackboard, Google Classroom, etc).

None of those things have had a meaningful impact on the quality of education. The schools continue to underpay teachers, promote hostile work environments, continue to promote overpriced, poor quality textbooks, don't feed their poor students, force teachers to buy their own supplies, make students sick by not running AC, accept donations from their teachers and parents, and the list goes on.

What I'm getting at is that additional funding for education is not, and will not ever be about improving the quality of education. If voters want to improve education they need to focus their attention on fixing the system itself first. Funding should only ever be increased in tandem with efforts to root out bad actors and steer our sinking ship of education away from the rocky harbor it's currently in.

Blindly increasing educational spending is the same as blindly donating food and money to the proverbial "Africa". In a similar manner, the corrupt governments where that money and food goes steal those resources to continue to fund their wars and terror. We need a Bill & Melinda Gates for education, not more fund raising.

⬐ jimbokun

Aren't Bill and Melinda Gates already the Bill and Melinda Gates of education?

"Our United States Division works to improve U.S. high school and postsecondary education and support vulnerable children and families in Washington State."

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do

⬐ qq66

The Gates Foundation is by far the biggest philanthropic organization in U.S. education, even though the primary focus of the Gates Foundation is global public health.

⬐ rancur

> The schools continue to underpay teachers

they always build brand new multi million dollar schools with fantastic football fields

⬐ jschwartzi

In my state, these kinds of expenditures are funded through district bonds which are a one-shot property tax increase for a set period of time, whereas teacher salaries and other yearly expenditures are funded through levies which have to be periodically increased to keep pace. Additionally, whenever we pass referenda to bump the base pay for educators, the state legislature is very very quick to turn them into unfunded mandates. It's not an issue with the districts or the voters, it's fundamentally a problem with the legislature and how they earmark funding.

⬐ rancur

interesting....

⬐ pa5tabear

I think you're very wrong about educational funding. There's a high correlation between a schools relative wealth and its relative academic success in each state (mainly tied to property taxes). Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, and yes there's lots of room for systematic improvement. But more money could absolutely make a difference at the underperforming schools.

⬐ TrevorJ

I'm really curious if this is true, or if there's some correlation =/= causation stuff at play.

⬐ ams6110

Your hunch is correct. Wealthy areas have a demographic that supports education. When kids have stable homes, with parents who care about them and their education, schools do well.

When kids move three or four times a year, never know if they are going to eat dinner that night, get beaten or ignored at home, have parents on drugs or in and out of jail, it doesn't matter how much money you pour into the schools.

⬐ paulryanrogers

So if the parents are 'on' pot does that mean we've come full circle?

⬐ robotresearcher

In states where pot is legalized, parents that smoke it will probably not be in jail.

⬐ afarrell

That sounds like an argument for public boarding schools, which is an idea I totally have never contemplated.

⬐ rayiner

There is in fact very little correlation between school spending per student and performance: http://www.npri.org/publications/analysis-shows-little-to-no....

⬐ gregpilling

I am in Arizona, one of the least funded states in terms of education. Your statement " accept donations from their teachers and parents," is slightly off here. In Arizona they DEMAND money. My free public school education came with a 'recommended' $1500 per year, per kid. They do accept payments however.

It is not mandatory, your kid is not expelled if you don't pay. But the school does very clearly say "this charter school has better teachers, because we pay bonuses out of the donation money". So I make payments, because the other choices would be private school (more $$), regular public school (less education), or homeschool (no.).

It is not 'accept donations' . Require, or demand. Personally, I make payments.

⬐ diyorgasms

A charter school is not a public school. It exists outside of this system you are talking about, and has a whole host of other problems. But it is disingenuous to bring a charter school into this discussion, because they are not the same thing as publicly funded public schools.

John Oliver had a segment on the lottery [1]. It may be difficult to wean states off lottery income in the short-term. A ban - or severe limitations - on their advertising would be a good, realistic first step.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

I don't have the information on traffic fees, but there's strong evidence that lottery fees are supposed to go to charity but get put in general state funds instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

Lotteries are generally a corrupt enterprise to begin with, so the moral scales probably lean toward the side of the MIT students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

⬐ hydrogen18

My thoughts exactly. Lotteries are primarily a tax on people who can't do math. So if those who can do math make money with it, the more the merrier. In fact, they'd be doing a public service if they bankrupted the lottery in question.

There used to be a sign on I-10 as you approached the Biloxi, Mississippi area. It was for a casino and said something like "Our slots have 98% payout!". I have no doubt as to the veracity of such a statement, because 2% of the money that flows through slot machines is more than enough to turn a profit from them.

⬐ loopdoend

There are locals casinos in Vegas that have video poker machines which pay out more than 100% with perfect play strategy, the problem is that the stakes are so low, say 25 cents, that it would take way too long to make any real money.

These lotteries are obviously a different story since you can buy as many tickets as you want.

⬐ hydrogen18

Those sound like a 'loss leader' marketing strategy. Whoever operates the machines may lose money consistently, but they bring customers in who otherwise might not be there.

Re: state lotteries and education, I think John Oliver's segment is at least worth watching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

I was actually thinking outside of slots. A lot of gambling practices are still illegal like sports betting in most of America. Such illegal gambling often leads to some sort of organized crime around providing loans and the actual gambling service itself. But I was also thinking of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and the current drug prohibition. The black markets that these events created are not that dissimilar from the one around gambling and the core cause is the same.

I do think that eliminating the profit incentive is something that could work. The profit from gambling is cited as a redeeming quality, however, as a reason for legalized gambling to exist. The overwhelming idea, at least in the US, is that if people are going to have a vice (or fun, depending on your perspective), their activities should be taxed so that others (corporations and the government mainly) can profit from them. Perhaps if the money actually went to fund schools and other things that benefit society, I could get behind this viewpoint, but regardless of the claims of governments that have legal gambling, it doesn't. This John Oliver segment about it is pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=789&v=9PK-netuhHA

⬐ wpietri

I think that the moralistic desire to control citizens (as we see with alcohol and drugs) is a pretty different thing, with pretty different effects, than we see with harm reduction strategies (as with cigarettes).

I definitely agree with you that the society-benefit line is mostly a sham. With cigarette and alcohol taxes, the general goal is to discourage consumption. But many US states actively promote gambling, so I think it's a very different thing.

John Oliver has a great segment on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

The practices of the Oregon lottery seem wrong to me. Government should be in the business of helping people and providing uncorrupted resources and facts, not marketing dreams and hope to people while taking their money hand over fist. John Oliver just did a good segment about this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

⬐ runjake

I remember when the Oregon and California Lottery were passed in the early 80s. I was highly controversial, but advocates really pitched the "more funds for schools!!!" angle.

What legislators didn't tell the public is that after the bills passed, the existing education budget would be cannibalized for other expenditures, thereby not actually improving the education situation and in fact, making funding more volatile.

⬐ Shivetya

all government lotteries should be banned. they exploit the poor. its really depressing to see how much money some spend on these tickets.

In Georgia less than a third is actually reaching the designated programs, it was by law 35% but terms in there let it fluctuate to payout to instant tickets.

⬐ refurb

Do you really think banning lotteries would stop people from gambling? It certainly doesn't work for alcohol or drugs.

⬐ icelancer

Certainly not. But why should the government have a monopoly on it with ridiculous odds and games?

⬐ refurb

Because it's better than the old system where people were blatantly ripped off and lent money that if they didn't pay back would result in their legs being broken?

⬐ icelancer

...how is that different than today? Someone can find a loan shark and an illegal craps ring if they want. What you are describing is not happening in Las Vegas today, which has legalized gambling run by private entities.

⬐ zf00002

Not sure about other states but MN even has online "virtual" scratch-offs that you can buy. They even have "subscriptions" to this crap. It's disgusting.

⬐ coldpie

Yeah, it's really ugly in MN. The MN leg even plans for gambling proceeds for future funding. They planned for video gambling in bars to pay for their $500MM donation to billionaire Zygi Wilf's sports team, and fell all over themselves when it didn't[1].

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_26579002/vikings-stadi...

⬐ vonklaus

I dont think the government has ever been in the business of providing uncorrupted resources.

⬐ felixgallo

next time you drink water or drive on a road, remember this comment.

⬐ automatthew

Wells and driveways.

⬐ mintplant

"Uncorrupted", not "exclusive".

⬐ baddox

How many people die on government roads every year, and what do you think the reaction would be if a private road system was similarly managed?

⬐ yongjik

"Geez, I already paid for route 284 and Interstate 99. Do I have to pay a separate weekend surcharge for the 1000-feet onramp? I mean, come on!"

OK, not exactly a reaction on people's deaths, but people react to deaths in a more or less similar way whether it's on a government-managed railway or privately operated 747...

⬐ baddox

The payment system is a completely separate discussion, and not one at all relevant to my point. I disagree with your claim that the reactions are similar. It's my impression that the reactions to the dangers of public road systems is not remotely close to the reactions toward the dangers of private transportation systems, especially when normalized for the scale of the dangers.

⬐ shit_parade

Water usage in the US is incredibly irresponsible, not really priced by usage(farmers get enormous subsidies), and largely done by favoritism and grandfathered laws. The UN has aggressively called out US biofuel production as irresponsible and even disastrous.

Fracking continues to poison the water tables and ogallala aquifer is sucked dry. Why don't you actually try reading, or educating yourself instead of knee-jerk defending the government with whatever at hand response you've learned as a child and repeated verbatim. Fucking idiot.

⬐ Frondo

Then get involved.

It's easy to sit back and act like government's all corrupt, hur hur, but guess what--you can talk to your elected officials and try and shape government more to how you think it should work.

If your elected officials don't give you access to them, work to put in office, some who do.

⬐ shit_parade

Wow.

Do you even know how much time an elected official spends fund raising? Many members of congress fund raise every day, every day they are walking out of capitol hill and across the street to be glorified phone bank monkeys begging some rich guy for money.

Do you know what gerrymandering is? Have you looked, actually looked at gerrymandered districts? They're like something Escher would draw, they certainly don't reflect communities, geographical constraints, or anything besides the best statistical slicing to ensure the status quo prevails.

I'm all for Ghandi's "be the change you wish to see", but being critical to someone who points out the ills in the world is shooting the messenger.

You recall what platform Obama ran on? Hope and Change, how did that work out? The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption.

⬐ Frondo

Hey, that's great. You stay home. I'm going to keep going out and being involved. We'll see who gets more done.

⬐ innguest

You're only getting "involved" by voting according to the government's definition of "getting involved".

Your parent post just put forward an argument which you did not address:

"You recall what platform Obama ran on? Hope and Change, how did that work out? The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption."

Please address this argument. No need for "we'll see who gets more done" future arguments, this is a present-day argument. What should we do when, after people go out and "get involved" and "get more done" to elect the right representative, they don't follow through on their promises? What should we do?

⬐ Frondo

I didn't just say "vote." I said, "get involved."

In the sense that I'm saying, be a part of the democratic governance process, yes, that is a definition the government would put out there, but I'm not saying, "toe the line and choose between a big mac and a quarter pounder," I'm saying, "work to make the world you want."

I want to live in a country with a democratically-selected government, not one with a government instilled by revolution (and definitely not one without any government at all), so being involved and involving my fellow citizens is my tool of preference.

⬐ innguest

Repeating the word "involved" in different contexts does not explain anything. I still don't know what you mean by "get involved" besides voting. Can you list a few actions in the real world that exemplify what you mean by "get involved"?

No offense, but the way you put it, it sounds like empty rhetoric.

Paint me a scenario where a bunch of people like you "getting involved" succeed in stopping corruption and keeping politicians from breaking the promises they made to their people.

⬐ Frondo

Actually, that's great, I like that you're asking questions.

I also note in this response and in another you made, that you're zeroing in on corruption and broken promises--which is kind of a shallow way to view politics and citizen involvement in civic life. (It's ok to be shallow about politics, but it will limit your perspective and your ability to do anything about your world.)

What do I mean by get involved? Couple of things I've done in the last few years:

Volunteer on a local political campaign. Don't just show up and ask for a task, talk to everyone you can, get to know them as people, make friends and make connections. You'll quickly discover that you see the same people again and again. Lots of people don't make political involvement a priority for whatever reason, so you'll see the same faces in a variety of contexts (supporting a candidate, supporting a cause, etc).

I say "local" because it's the best place to start. You'll have a lot of chances to talk to and get to know the candidate for office, and it's easy to get involved, depending on what you can bring to the table (skills, connections, etc).

(And it's kind of neat, if they win, and you've made a friend of them, to get to brag to your friends, "I'm going to go have coffee with my pal, State Rep Jones," and then you get to stay in touch with your politician who you helped get into office, and you find out what new pressures they're under to compromise...)

What else?

Go to civic groups, chamber groups, and association meetings, especially when politicians are going to give talks. Walk right up to them, bluster your way into a conversation, and just start talking with them. Everyone you meet, and I do mean everyone, ask them, "is there anyone else I should meet? I'm interested in x and y, and I'd love to talk to anyone who I can help advance these issues."

I've gotten connected with so many people at a variety of local government agencies this way. We sit down for coffee, they tell me what their agency is all about, I tell them what I'm doing and what's important to me, etc.

The best way to keep their attention is to frame whatever you want in terms of how it will benefit them: "Open-sourcing more of your agency's projects would be good for you, because of these benefits.." or "Providing an API to your agency's data would be good for you because it would let people like me build interfaces to make it more accessible to underrepresented groups X and Y.."

Now, if you're scoffing and thinking, "well hur hur so you got some small agency to sponsor open-source and open their data sets, that's not solving real problems," then you're right, my efforts haven't single-handedly gotten the U.S. out of the middle east, nor have they gotten single-payer health care instituted as a national policy.

But do these matter to me, as a fan of free software and open access to data, and everyone else like me? You bet.

And you know what? It doesn't stop here. Every year I get to know more people, and every year more people call me up out of the blue to pick my brain about, what do you think, should we do this? Should this be a policy?

Where's it all going? What's it going to look like for me in 10 years? I dunno, but it's exciting.

If you think it's all pointless, good, fine, stay home. I don't really care what you do--and if that's your attitude, it's better that you stay home and remain uninvolved.

⬐ kybernetikos

Generally speaking your two choices are democratic process and revolution.

Democratic process despite its flaws has had some moderate successes. Revolution is a much more mixed bag, and while I believe that there may well be a time when it's necessary it's not something to enter into lightly, and almost certainly modern day USA is not remotely in need of a revolution.

Happy to hear of other options, but enough people being negative about the possibility of democratic change (again, despite its flaws), will reduce its possibility, playing into the hands of the status quo and the revolutionaries.

As Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". Unless you actually want violent revolution you should be doing all you can to keep people engaged in the democratic process.

⬐ innguest

You sound like someone who has never challenged your own opinions. Some of the first US presidents would argue this government is in huge breach of its original contract with its people.

⬐ Frondo

"Some of the first US presidents would argue this government is in huge breach of its original contract with its people."

I've never heard this argument made in a way that wasn't ahistorical, irrelevant, or both.

I also have no interest in revering people who lived centuries ago, as though they had the answers and we just have to follow their golden path--what they got right, great, let's go with it, but what they got wrong, let's ditch without sentimentality.

Governments are for the living--for us, not for some ancestor-worship.

⬐ innguest

Alright, let me make this argument another way.

This study from Princeton University says in its abstract:

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

In other words, they are arguing the people have little to no impact on the government's policies. I don't want to put words in their mouths but they're essentially showing the government is a bunch of cronies and corporate special interest groups that care not a jot about the people.

Does that merit a revolution or not yet?

⬐ kybernetikos

> Does that merit a revolution or not yet?

Well, if that's what you're asking for, come right out and say it - it is a position that can be debated on its merits. Moaning about democratic processes without being clear about the alternative you're proposing instead is negative because it comes across as a message of despair which if anything makes the problem you're complaining about worse.

⬐ innguest

You said the two choices we have are democratic process and revolution.

You then complained that I'm not being clear about the alternative, which is fair.

However, I'd like first to name the options correctly. Do you still stand by the name "democratic process" in the face of the paper linked above and if so, what is your rationale for calling this "democratic" when the paper shows that most people cannot impact the system? Or maybe you have a refutation to the paper that can show that in fact people do impact the government a lot and the paper is wrong.

Because you see, sine qua non to the process of proposing an alternative is understanding why the status quo is flawed. And in my opinion, which is argued with evidence by the paper linked above, the flaw in the current system is that it is not democratic despite its name; it is oligarchical.

⬐ dragonwriter

> You recall what platform Obama ran on?

Yes, but you don't seem to.

> Hope and Change, how did that work out?

Hope and change was one of the Obama campaign slogans, not a platform. And in major addresses, that slogan was contextualized with Ghandi's "be the change you wish to see". How did it work out -- better than I expected, worse than I'd hoped.

> The political process in America is broken and voting will not solve the problem of corruption.

"Getting involved" is not limited to voting. GP didn't say "If your elected officials don't give you access to them, vote for those who say they will." He said "...f your elected officials don't give you access to them, work to put in office, some who do."

That includes voting, but goes far beyond it. Run yourself, or get people to run. To the extent that the electoral system and the perverse incentives and limited selections it offers are a barrier to getting the kind of candidates you want elected (and if you want something different than what the major parties keep putting forward, that's probably a pretty significant barrier) educate yourself about it and work to change it; sure, you may not get buy off from lots of incumbents in office, but if you live in a state with a citizen initiative process, you don't need that support to change electoral procedures at the state level. (Of course, in such a state, you can also work to directly attack problem policies through the same process, which limits the effect that problem politicians have even before they are replaced.)

⬐ zwily

In that case, wouldn't you think Oregon shouldn't have a lottery at all?

⬐ eli

I'd be OK with that. IF the state needs more money they should raise taxes.

⬐ joosters

Why does 'government' come into it? Do you really believe that it would be acceptable if a private company was doing the same thing?

⬐ shit_parade

Many States deflect criticisms of for profit lotteries by advertising that some of the proceeds go toward schools and other 'public' goods.

It is well known that lotteries pray upon the poor and uneducated, ironic really.

Instead of monopolizing gambling, or giving sweet-heart deals to those close to the government, or trying to outlaw it completely so we can see tragedies like cops shooting people over playing fantasy sports, the state should get out of the way, maybe provide counseling and treatment, and gasp let people do what they want with their property.

It's always about power, and ensuring most people don't have any.

⬐ None

None

⬐ cbd1984

> and gasp let people do what they want with their property.

Are you so out of ideas on how to actually defend your positions that you have to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiotic child? Because everyone can do that, and it doesn't get us anywhere. We just go round and round being condescending to each other and nothing really gets said.

It's annoying and stupid. Let's stop this right here.

⬐ Gustomaximus

Humans have weaknesses that can be abused. This is clearly the case in gambling. The government must protect in some areas. For example with financial advice, there are countless cases of people giving inappropriate financial advice to the elderly, even getting them to sign away their property while dying in hospitals. Sure it easy to say 'and gasp let people do what they want with their property'. But what about this scenario? Would you be OK if that was your relatives being manipulated on their deathbed to give money to a previous stranger cause it is what they want to do with their property at that moment in their life. Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of the father/mother who gamble away their pay check each month leaving the family destitute?

Above is more extreme but real examples to clarify a point. In my mind saying people can do what they want with their property is overly simplistic and assumes a more perfect world than the reality.

⬐ SilasX

>Or, back to gambling, is it fair on the children of the father/mother who gamble away their pay check each month leaving the family destitute?

However bad it might be to prey on people by trying to trick them into gambling, it's a trillion times better than just taking their money (the other way of raising revenues).

⬐ umanwizard

why?

⬐ SilasX

Because in one case you can opt out.

⬐ ceejayoz

Gambling addicts can't opt-out very easily, and it causes them to pay tax rates frequently higher than 100% of their incomes.

⬐ SilasX

It's easier for addicts to opt out of gambling than me to opt out of taxation, and you can be treated for addiction but not taxation.

⬐ Domenic_S

Don't know why you're being downvoted, you're right.

⬐ bmmayer1

The government is in a much better position to protect people from fraud if it isn't the one perpetrating the fraud in the first place.

⬐ automatthew

Paging David Hume. David Hume. Has anyone seen David Hume?

⬐ DonHopkins

He's out consuming Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

⬐ jff

You really want to hyphenate "out-consuming", unless David Hume is now a cannibal :)

⬐ DonHopkins

That is a delicious thought. If God hadn't meant people to eat other people, he wouldn't have made us of meat. ;)

David Hume bites the invisible hand that feeds him.

⬐ ploxiln

It similarly struck me as strange that many US states decide gambling should be illegal because it's a vice, or because it's taking advantage of people, but then turn around and give themselves a monopoly on offering it. And in some places, like New York, they advertise it very heavily - TV ads, billboards in the subway and on bus stations, quirky upbeat characters and themes ... But still, it's a bad thing and thus illegal for private companies to offer. So weird.

⬐ baddox

> It similarly struck me as strange that many US states decide gambling should be illegal because it's a vice, or because it's taking advantage of people, but then turn around and give themselves a monopoly on offering it.

That describes a huge portion of what government does. Heck, that's essentially the basic definition of government in political science.

> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.

What do you think about state organized lotteries then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA