[singleshot_]

I think society should protect me (degree in mathematics, non-gambler) from harm caused by betting companies in the form of increased bankruptcy filings for problem gamblers.

I think it’s immoral to allow their bad decisions to raise costs for those of us who do not care who wins the Big Game.

[kelnos]

In reality, though, it will end up being cheaper for society (and therefore cheaper for you) to just protect people from being exploited by others who know who to manipulate the human psyche.

There's a vague parallel with the homelessness problem in my city: I would rather my tax dollars go toward giving people stable housing for free (along with job placement, drug addiction treatment, etc.), because any other use of that money (clearing out tent encampments, jailing addicts, etc.) doesn't actually fix the problem, and ultimately costs more in the long run. (And meanwhile, the city is dirty and I feel less safe walking around in it.)

Sure, giving someone housing for free isn't "fair" to all the people who work hard to pay their rent or mortgage, but sometimes fairness doesn't give us (all of us, not just the people involved) the best outcomes. And it may not be "fair" to limit what businesses are allowed to "sell" to consenting adults, but I am willing to accept that some businesses will not be as profitable if it means society is healthier.

[gaze]

Fairness is the word people use but what I think they’re alluding to is adherence to some natural order of things, and that this itself is the measure of a healthy society. That might be the divine right of kings or it may be the order established by the invisible hand of the market. These arguments never go anywhere because it’s just an axiomatically different moral framework.