Nevada has joined a handful of states adopting a “vaccine lottery” to encourage higher vaccination rates. 

The new state-run program will award $5 million in prizes to Nevada residents who get the COVID-19 vaccine—including a $1 million grand prize and several smaller payouts. 

Spending millions of dollars on a lottery to bribe citizens into getting the vaccine doesn’t exactly seem like the most appropriate use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money… But then again, it might not actually be as dumb as it sounds.

From a behavioral-science perspective, the potential for a cash prize (however unlikely) will probably be more effective at increasing vaccination rates than a bunch of public service announcements or a few bus stop propaganda posters. And given that a good chunk of our state economy is built upon a similar concept of promising people a remote chance at winning lump sums of cash, we know such offers can be a powerful behavioral motivator.  

Besides, it’s refreshing to see government take a stab at persuading people rather than bludgeoning them with regulations, mandates and government diktats. After all, the public health establishment has demonstrated a disturbing disposition throughout the pandemic toward the latter. 

Yes, social distancing was a largely good suggestion early on in the crisis, when we still weren’t certain of who was at risk or how contagious this virus actually was. But churchgoers being barred from Easter worship and paddle boarders being arrested for defying stay-at-home orders are perfect examples of the petty tyranny that replaced what should have been reasonable public health suggestions. 

Governors have spent the last 15 months largely believing they can codify virtually any public-health suggestion into an emergency decree, and use the full force of the law to ensure compliance from the public. Some attempt to diverge from such a heavy-handed regulatory framework is a welcomed change of pace—even if it does come with a $5 million price tag and a fairly silly lottery scheme. 

Just a couple months ago, for example, there was serious discussion from public health officials about “vaccine passports”— something that, if mandated by the government, would have effectively been a continuation of regulating people into making “the right” healthcare choices. 

Any form of government-mandated vaccine requirement has a multitude of problems—including privacy concerns and potential civil rights issues stemming from disparate rates of vaccination among different demographics. Like the lockdowns themselves, such heavy-handed government action would have extremely damaging (albeit unintended) consequences for many Americans. 

Nonetheless, the impulse public officials have to regulate, mandate and coerce as a first (and often only) resort seems to be pretty much universal. Government, in modern politics, is increasingly seen as a bludgeon with which those in power can force compliance from those without. 

In Ohio, for example, lawmakers who are rightly skeptical of vaccine passports aren’t merely content with keeping the government from instituting such a scheme — they’re taking it further by making it illegal for private businesses to set their own policies regarding proof of vaccinations. 

To be sure, requiring proof of vaccination for most private sector activities is not really necessary. However, using the government to make such business decisions illegal is the same kind of petty authoritarianism those opposed to vaccine passports routinely decry. If a business wants to narrow its customer base (or workforce) to only those who have been vaccinated... let them. The unvaccinated, after all, are free to take their business elsewhere—just as those who are unnerved by crowds of potentially unvaccinated folks should probably avoid certain public gatherings. 

Simply put, not every “good” idea (such as wearing masks or socially distancing) should be a government mandate. And, likewise, not every “bad” idea (such as private businesses requiring proof of vaccination) should be made illegal. 

And while such freedom will inevitably result in some individuals taking more risk than the “experts” believe is prudent, most Americans are more than willing to change their behavior based on accurate—non-propagandized—information. Let’s not forget, after all, that we were doing precisely that before the governor began shutting down the economy. Casinos were already cancelling shows, other hotels had already closed temporarily, the National Hockey League had already suspended its playoffs (the most profitable stretch of the season) and individuals were already cancelling trips. 

In other words, it is actually possible to persuade people to behave in more responsible ways without resorting to ever-more government mandates and regulations. 

The worst thing that can be said about Nevada’s vax lottery is that it’s not the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. But, hey, that could be said about most government spending. Besides, it is safe to assume that any alternative plan for those dollars would direct most of the money to political insiders, government special interests and other crony endeavors rather than meaningful efforts to restore the livelihoods of Nevadans. At least this scheme directly encourages something that makes any remaining threat of the virus virtually nonexistent.  

More importantly, if creating a vax lottery keeps the petty authoritarian tendencies of our elected officials at bay, it won’t be such a waste of money after all. 

Michael Schaus began his professional career in the financial sector, where he became deeply interested in economic theory and the concept of free markets. Over a decade ago, that interest led him to a career in policy and public commentary—working as a columnist, a political humorist and a radio talk show host. Today, Michael is director of communications for the Nevada Policy Research Institute and lives with his wife and daughter in Las Vegas. Follow him on Twitter at @schausmichael.