A compromise might be if all the profits went toward perks at the base, better food, etc.
> The ARMP’s earnings go back into each branch’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR). Some of it pays for entertainment on bases, such as golf courses, bowling alleys, and libraries. “Proceeds that are returned to MWR are decided and allocated by the garrison commander at each installation,”
Though it still feels questionable to me.
Its a underhanded forced recruitment tool.
To take a cue from Band of Brothers, "never put yourself in a situation where you can take from these men." https://youtu.be/AyLHIobW0HQ
Morals only apply to enlisted men. And only then if commanded to have them. Officers are given way more leeway and afforded more luxury.
I do honestly believe it is just a misguided attempt to fund Morale, Welfare, and Recreation.
This is uninformed. The US military is in the business of weeding out officers (and enlisted) via up or out policies. If you don’t get promoted within a certain number of years you’re out.
1. The classic, "people will want to gamble, we may as well control the supply". I think this is generally true. In the US, service members can go off base (when allowed) to gamble in a more or less controlled manner. This program provides the possibility of more or less uniform, controlled access across the globe, regardless of host nation.
2. Revenue funds morale, welfare and recreation activities.
I honestly think point 1 is fair enough. The corrosive element is that it's used for aspect 2 (an alternate approach might be to simply to redistribute money back to the soldiers directly... or just let it go to waste). The challenge is that once someone's funding is coupled to gambling revenue, it compromises its ability to pursue task 1 (which is basically a risk mitigation strategy).
Of course, anecdote, but the example they give — sounds like the guy never would have thought to gamble had there not been a slot machine on base. At the same time, he was so easily and thoroughly adsorbed into it, perhaps he was dry kindling — just waiting for any spark to come along.
That being said, without real numbers, it's super slippery to argue anything. One could argue that the on base gambling problem introduces (say) 3x the population into gambling. But then perhaps it decreases the of severe financial distress by 10x on an individual basis. That would be a net win. Then one might say that it lowers to risk of off-base unsavory behavior (getting into fights, owing money to local gangs/organized crimes, etc etc) by 1000x on an individualized basis. Perhaps that further tilts the field.
The funds that the military themselves provide for MWR are very small. Most MWR facilities and activities are funded by what are called non-appropriated funds (NAFs). NAFs are essentially earned through charging fees for services, such as renting equipment like RVs, bounce houses, and other things. MWR funds are also provided from the profits earned by on post golf courses, post exchanges (basically military Walmart), gas stations, etc.
That being said, I do agree that this practice should be ended immediately, as gambling is unhealthy and corrosive to good military order and discipline.
But no one is confused that Big Morale is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes to force people to shop at the exchange.
In fact, in general the military can't really "make money", to the extent they manage to run activities involving cash receipts with military personnel, it becomes a chore to figure out something productive to do with that spending. MWR is a very minor activity on most bases but it is something that can absorb money on servicemembers' behalf so it often ends up in this role.
I really don’t know what the solution is. Used to think I was in favor of legalization of some drugs, not because I’m interested in their use but as a tool to take power away from gangs and reduce crime.
Later visited a state that did… Actually seeing marijuana stores everywhere was very unsettling. Weird seeing fast food stores converted to them. Saw some high hippies crash their vehicle into their friend’s car door while it was opening. Barely even registered for them… Left a bad taste in my mouth…
Bu it does seem reasonable that the fewer service members interacting with dishonest/criminal organizations, the better.
How is this different from any other store?
I'm absolutely sick of seeing billboards promoting the lottery as a sound investment, and not only that but suggesting terrible ways people could waste all their winnings instead of putting it away and being financially responsible. It's sickening.
And yes, I know the argument about state lotteries outcompeting "numbers games" run by organized crime. I don't buy this argument, I don't think we're getting any net gain for society. Having connections to organized crime to participate in their gambling schemes is far less accessible than buying lotto tickets at any gas station in the country. This casual accessibility sucks far more people into gambling addictions.
Think the best argument presented in the piece is just that some non-trivial fraction of soldiers are going to gamble, and its better they do so in a manor controlled by the military then backroom poker games, online, etc.
The foot traffic at these spots is nowhere near what they used to be though.
Not to sound like an authoritarian, but sometimes I don't think freedom and free will is to be trusted to people. Not when they can be exploited. Some people are prone to addictions (like gambling); should they, especially when they represent a country, be allowed to indulge? Or should they follow a program to help them with their issues? Is the addiction the real problem or just a symptom of something deeper?
I wonder if there's programs (in e.g. the military) that deal with this. I also wonder if they're trying stuff like ozempic and the like, which apparently helps with a wider range of impulsive / addictive behaviours.
The thing is, you gotta square that with these guys getting sent into war zones to get shot at.
If we think these young men and women can’t consent to gambling their money, but can consent to gambling their lives, that seems a bit inconsistent to me.
This is why we have government :-)
Do we really have to optimize everything?
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-12-08/...
Our social circles don’t extend far enough to see the people buying lottery tickets.
One of the two great sins of the otherwise competent and progressive Blair/Brown New Labour government in the UK (1997-2010) was that they extensively deregulated and relaxed rules about gambling and simply taxed it.
The worst excess of this -- thankfully now finally heavily regulated -- was the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/a-stup...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/27/high-s...
An excellent pair of articles by the brilliant Victoria Coren-Mitchell, but read the first one especially.
Deregulated gambling almost destroyed British society and created a new class of bankrupt addicts. And the internet and app stores are making it bad even as successive governments try to back away from the stream of revenue.
I personally think the solution is a near total ban on everything except horse and greyhound racing (for now) and state-controlled lotteries, but we are so far away from that now.
California's lottery, converted to a tax and using topline revenue numbers, would be ~$235 annually per resident.
That is, if the machines pay true odds, and the military eats the cost of the machines.
At the time, I didn't know better and just played arcade games all day. Eventually, I started to put together just how much money my dad must have put into those slot machines. Thousands, maybe most of his salary. It certainly explained why we generally had no furniture in our house compared to my friends.
So am I against slot machines on base? No. I have no doubt that if they weren't readily available in a safe/controlled environment, my dad would have still found a way to gamble. If anything, it was a forcing mechanism for him not to go overboard given the limitations of what was offered on site.
I do however wish there were programs that existed to provide offramps for people with addiction, similar to supervised injection sites for drug users. Seems to me that this could be easily funded with the proceeds.
That gives me an idea, maybe the slot machines operated by the government should operate at even odds so the long run expected loss, and winnings, is zero. No house cut. This might make the machines more addictive, but on the other hand once gamblers get accustomed to government machines having even odds maybe the predatory commercial machines would lose their appeal?
I can only assume the situation is similar on military bases.
Simulacra•3h ago
But that also challenges a broader trend in games of chance proliferating. In some places, small businesses are pushing hard to allow them to put them in their businesses because they make money.
Gambling is one of those places where I draw the line about freedom of choice and disposition. It's too easy to lose everything, and get suckered in to lose more. It needs stronger regulation because the House never loses, and people who can't control themselves suffer.
hdgvhicv•3h ago
That’s fine. There should be limits on freedom.
JKCalhoun•3h ago
In most of the cases you mentioned we all wish that people were better people — showed some self-control. (Might as well add fire-arms to your list as well.) And hoping that all people can behave with all out interests in mind, we give people those freedoms (as we do) and then the rest of us are left to endlessly grouse about how fucked up our society is because of those people and their poor choices.
So how do you win?
Some people have concluded that we might, as a society, actually be better off without "Thing X" as one of our freedoms. I'm willing to entertain those arguments.
__s•3h ago
I don't want PornHub ads on billboards & commercials
I was at a bar, coming out of the bathroom I walked into a wall. They stopped serving me alcohol. I went to the liquor store after & they refused to sell me a bottle of jaeger since I wasn't walking straight. The casino won't stop serving you games until you're broke or winning
lupusreal•3h ago
What's completely beyond the pale for me is the government actually promoting it. Unconscionable evil.
doublerabbit•3h ago
That was the UK gambling advertisement reaching out to addicts. There is no fun when you're addict.
busssard•3h ago
butlike•3h ago
grues-dinner•3h ago
That said, the same applies to lots of things: drugs almost literally, but also porn and porn-adjacent services are obvious brain-hacks, but also food, drink and even shopping are frequently structured in such a way to capture business through non-consensual manipulation of the human mind.
None of it is new: people have been losing their shirts, homes, families and lives to most of the above since before money existed, but technology-wielding capital isn't exactly freeing us from it, but instead has optimised it. Sure, it's freedom, but it's freedom of both predator and prey.
butlike•3h ago
__s•3h ago
For the past 6 weeks I have stayed in & meditated, as last time I went out I broke my focus between taking a sip of beer & getting distracted hearing Heart of Glass, & in a moment of weakness someone in the crowd convinced me to buy everyone a round & leave a fat tip. Next time I'll have to try harder to stay focused