It's arguable that those who live with high risk (no safety net) need to therefore be less irresponsible.
I'd argue revolution in these environment happen less due to the irresponsible poor, but rather the irresponsible bureaucrats whose corruption allows them this behaviour.
> Someone who spends $10 on a lottery ticket..
I don't think measures of "irresponsible" are independent of consequences. If the consequences are low, is it no longer (personally) irresponsible since that take into account the results. On the contrary, the most irresponsible acts are those that are small or easy, but of great consequences - such as agreeing to a high-interest loan.
AFAIC someone wasting money they can afford to waste is not irresponsible, they are just wasteful.
I'd argue revolution in these environment happen less due to the irresponsible poor, but rather the irresponsible bureaucrats whose corruption allows them this behaviour.
> Someone who spends $10 on a lottery ticket..
I don't think measures of "irresponsible" are independent of consequences. If the consequences are low, is it no longer (personally) irresponsible since that take into account the results. On the contrary, the most irresponsible acts are those that are small or easy, but of great consequences - such as agreeing to a high-interest loan.
AFAIC someone wasting money they can afford to waste is not irresponsible, they are just wasteful.