zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
Sports gambling, like all gambling, ruins lives. It's certainly worth having the discussion about whether people should be able to run a train through their life and the lives of their families via app.

But a much easier argument against sports betting is that it ruins the sports. Players throw. They get good at subtly cheating. The gambling apparatus latches itself to the sport, to the teams and players, the umpires and judges, the sporting organizations. With this much money on the line, it's not a matter of if but when games are thrown, cheated -- the bigger the game, the bigger the incentive. It's even easier now because of the amount of side/parlay betting that is available. It exhausts the spirit of competition.

Sports gambling is diametrically opposed to sport itself.

>>mlsu+wN1
Extending the logic, should we ban the derivatives market? Cryptocurrencies/tokens that only seek to be a speculative asset (and not an actual currency). Venture Capital that seeks to use businesses as speculative assets (trying to artificially inflate the short-term share price of the business rather than its long-term health)?

I'm not putting up a straw man - I'm actually in favour of it. I agree that all forms of gambling ruins lives. We would improve society if we agreed that all gambling is bad.

>>marcus+9P1
> We would improve society if we agreed that all gambling is bad.

As a professional gambler (aka farmer) I understand I am biased, but I have a hard time squaring that society would improve if we all agreed my gambling habit is bad. Especially if that means going as far as a ban. What would people eat? If you think Mother Nature is going to give up her bookie position, you're wrong.

>>random+2Q1
As a farmer, can you tell us about the direct and indirect support you received from your govt to wear the risk of farming? In all highly industrialised countries, there are a huge amount of govt support for farmers.

>>throwa+wj2
Crop insurance is partially subsidized, but I am personally not a buyer. What fun is gambling if you’re going to insure the gamble? But I could theoretically benefit from that, to be sure. The farm property tax rate is lower than the commercial rate, so I guess you could say we're subsidized like residential property owners are. I can't think of anything else that is applicable to my farming operation. My country only really likes dairy and poultry producers, of which I am neither.

Hard to say what indirect support is out there. What is and isn't an indirect subsidy is always debatable. The government brings in temporary workers from foreign countries to work at the coffee shop in town, which perhaps, if you believe such action reduces the price of labour, makes life around agricultural areas more affordable. Would you consider that an indirect subsidy to farmers?

The roads are maintained which helps get our product out. Is that a subsidy to farmers? Or is that a subsidy to those on the receiving end? Or is it really a subsidy to the “city folk” driving on those roads to get to their cottage?

The government recently paid a privately-owned ISP to put in a second fibre line in the rural area alongside where the cooperatively-owned ISP already placed one a decade earlier. That is a clear subsidy, but do you consider that a subsidy to the farmer (We theoretically gained some redundancy, although I doubt anyone is making use of it. Internet service to the farm isn't usually that critical, especially when you also have wireless – both mobile and fixed – service available as a backup. Frankly, it was a complete waste of money), or to the ISP?