Paul,
That article reminds me of the questions I raised (for my own consideration) during North Carolina’s 2005 lottery debate.
The first question about the lottery is moral: Should the state endorse gambling?
If you answer “no,” the issue is settled. If you answer “yes,” “I don’t care,” or “the government should set up no restriction,” then you can pursue the answers to other questions.
Among them: if North Carolina permits a lottery, who should be able to run it? Should we have created another state bureaucracy with state workers drawing state salaries, benefits, and (eventually) retirement pay?
Might it have made more sense for North Carolina to grant a private company the right to operate the lottery? Might it have made even more sense for North Carolina to allow competing private lotteries?
For example, the state could draft rules and restrictions (including advertising limits), tax profits, but otherwise open the door to any private company that thinks it can make money from a lottery.
One advantage I see from the private options — compared to the public option — is that the government would feel no compulsion (no pun intended) to prop up a lottery if its proceeds fall short of projections. If a private lottery business fails, we could chalk up a victory for sensible North Carolinians, rather than worrying about state workers losing their jobs and state education programs losing an expected funding source.
Of course, all of this debate is meaningless if you answered “no” to the first question.
