My point, re: the casino, is that a lot of people regularly engage in costly behaviors that impact them far greater than the things they're likely going to point to when somebody asks "What's holding you back?"
Boots, dude. And the fact that none of my lottery tickets have hit paydirt.
Of course, it doesn't just stop at gambling. I could go on and on with self-destructive (or, at least, self-limiting) behaviors. And, FTR, I'm pretty libertarian in my outlook. If somebody wants to engage in vices or irresponsible behaviors, I'm generally predisposed to say they should be able to. They just shouldn't be expecting a bailout from their neighbors -- nor should we be extending them one.
I always loved what Ben Franklin said about poverty, behavior, and government subsistence. He wrote this
in 1766! It was directed to England, BTW. But I'd guess the ideas he conveyed would apply to any time, anywhere.
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.
In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.
The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.
