Sports Betting Is a Plague
When do practical policy effects trump cherished principles? The mess that has come with gambling liberalization should force the thoughtful kind of libertarian to consider that question.
Set aside, for the moment, the recent ideological devolution of the Republican Party into national socialism: Traditionally, most of the Americans who called themselves 'libertarians' were in effect conservatives ('Republicans who like weed and porn,' as a Marxist friend of mine used to put it), while American conservatism was thoroughly libertarian, and not only as an economic matter but also in a way deeply rooted in the live-and-let-live sensibility of figures such as Barry Goldwater, with his suspicion of Moral Majority types. ('Mark my word,' Goldwater famously said, 'if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.') Libertarians and conservatives both prioritize freedom; libertarians and conservatives both admit the unwelcome reality of trade-offs; libertarians tend to lean a little more into freedom, and conservatives tend to dwell more on the unpleasanter facts of life.
Here is a sobering write-up of a study published in December by scholars at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management:
At the outset, the researchers observed a sharp increase in sports betting in the states where it was legalized.
'The figure goes from zero in most states to sizable amounts, and it continues to increase for several months as people learn about it,' [Kellogg professor Scott] Baker says. 'Only a year or two after it's been introduced do we see a bit of a plateau, and this is at a pretty high level in terms of money spent and people involved.'
By the end of their sample period, the researchers saw that nearly 8 percent of households were involved in gambling. These bettors spent, on average, $1,100 per year on online bets. While the amount of money people put into legal sports gambling rose, their net investments fell by nearly 14 percent. For every $1 a household spent on betting, it put $2 fewer into investment accounts.
As bad as that sounds, the report in toto is considerably worse. For example, the researchers also found that sports gambling correlated with greater participation in other forms of gambling, especially lotteries, and that this trend is more pronounced 'among households that frequently overdraw their bank accounts,' i.e., poor people and those living on the financial edge.
There is an open question of real relevance to policymakers in this: whether sports gambling is a cause of other reckless economic behavior or is a symptom of more general economic recklessness, especially among those already under economic stress. Economic pressure moves some people in the direction of conservation (cutting spending, saving more, etc.) but moves others in the opposite direction as their anxiety and sense of hopelessness work together to make high-risk activities seem more attractive: Gambling is fundamentally a form of entertainment based on wishful thinking about the likelihood of a big payoff—the economic version of George Orwell's man who 'may take to drink because he feels himself a failure but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.'
The cause/symptom distinction is relevant, but the answer, whatever it is, is not dispositive: Even if increased gambling is only a secondary effect, it remains the case that, other things being equal, people in financial distress probably would be better off if opportunities to increase their distress were less readily available.
A few regular readers will be thinking: 'Wait—this from the guy who supports legalizing heroin?'
The thing about the prohibitionist argument is, it isn't always completely wrong. Alcohol consumption really did go down in the early years of Prohibition—it was a bad policy, but it did not fail on every front. And the benefits to be had from libertarian reform often turn out to be more modest in practice than what had been hoped for. For example: The presence of legal prostitution in some parts of Nevada has done little or nothing to alleviate the problems associated with street-level prostitution in Las Vegas and elsewhere and may have made it worse in some ways, with poorly informed visitors to Sin City believing that prostitution is legal there, which it isn't. Experiments with de facto legalization of some 'hard' drugs, and the more general liberalization of marijuana laws, has not eliminated the black market for drugs and thus defunded the cartels, while drug use generally has increased where drugs are legal. And now gambling legalization has led to more gambling and arguably to more destructive and addictive forms of gambling via app.
You can make a good libertarian case that some of these intractable problems above point to reforms that were insufficiently libertarian: There is not very much legal prostitution in Nevada, and what there is remains relatively difficult to access and much more expensive than illegal prostitution—a couple of high-priced brothels an hour's drive from the Strip were never going to eliminate prostitution on the street of Las Vegas or in casino bars; black markets in marijuana and other drugs endure because prohibition of marijuana and other drugs endures, and this has effects even on legal production as marijuana cultivated for use in the liberal states is diverted to the black market in the prohibition states. ('What's the matter with Kansas?' indeed.) But if your best argument amounts to, 'The ideal hypothetical version of my policy is preferable to the non-ideal real-world version of your policy,' then you haven't made a very good case for your policy.
And clear-eyed libertarian critics might have a few important things to say about legal gambling, too: that lotteries are state monopolies and that the casino industry is a series of regional state-organized cartels, that neither really is an example of free enterprise in action, and that, as with drinking alcohol, only a minority of gamblers develop problem habits.
It is difficult to make a cost-benefit analysis here, because the benefits are almost entirely a matter of taste: Walking through an Atlantic City casino, I myself do not see anything that seems worth preserving—but, then, we have free markets, and more general liberty, precisely because different people have different values, interests, and priorities.
(Given the advertising footprint of the sports-betting industry, you can bet that bro media would push back hard against any attempt at limitation.)
Still, my thoughts linger on that money being diverted from retirement savings to be pissed away on sports gambling. The Kellogg authors offer the possibility that this is only partly a problem with sports gambling per se and that the pathology is made much worse, as so many things are in our time, by its having migrated to the lonely world of the smartphone, where you can make a spur-of-the-moment bet on a sleepless night at 3 a.m., perhaps after a few drinks. They suggest that the situation might be improved by restricting sports gambling to on-premises wagers in gambling parlors. But if you ever have visited any of those ghastly little mini-casinos that have popped up in converted convenience stores and gas stations around the country – or most of the big gambling palaces, for that matter – then you may come to assume that location constraints are unlikely to produce substantial results. Gambling is an ugly business, morally and aesthetically, almost everywhere it exists. Even the world's most famous baccarat enthusiast knows that.
But you know what I'm still thinking about: $2 in vanished retirement savings for every $1 gambled. That's not the kind of return a reformer would hope for.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US evacuates 79 staff and family from embassy in Israel as more Americans ask how to leave
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. evacuated 79 staff and families from the U.S. Embassy in Israel on Friday as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies and growing numbers of private American citizens seek information on how to leave Israel and Iran. An internal State Department memo says the military flight, the second known to have occurred this week, left Tel Aviv for Sofia, Bulgaria, where some or all of the passengers were to get a connecting charter flight to Washington. The document, which was obtained by The Associated Press, also said that more than 6,400 U.S. citizens in Israel had filled out an online form on Friday alone asking for information about when and if the U.S. government would organize evacuation flights. An additional 3,265 people, some of whom may also have competed the form, called an emergency number seeking assistance. The document estimated that between 300 and 500 people per day could need evacuation assistance should the U.S. decide to offer flights or ships to get Americans out, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has said is being considered. There are some 700,000 Americans in Israel, many of them dual nationals, according to estimates, although the exact number at any given time is unclear because U.S. citizens are not required to notify the embassy if they are there or when they might leave. Earlier Friday, before the memo was distributed, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters that more than 25,000 Americans had reached out for information on leaving Israel, the West Bank and Iran. She told reporters that those people had sought 'information and support' and were 'seeking guidance' on departing. She would not give a breakdown of where the queries had come from and would not comment on embassy evacuations. In Iran, the document said that at least 84 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, or Green Card holders, had crossed into neighboring Azerbaijan by land since the conflict began and that an additional 774 had been granted permission to enter as of Friday. Nearly 200 American citizens and Green Card holders are awaiting permission to travel overland from Iran to neighboring Turkmenistan, it said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Where US troops in Mideast are most at risk of Iran strike
The Big Story Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. © Alex Brandon, Associated Press More than 40,000 American service members and civilians — as well as billions of dollars in military equipment — are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within two weeks. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 — known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called bunker buster bomb — to damage Iran's Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Trump: 'Hard' for Israel to stop strikes now President Trump said Friday it would be difficult for Israel to stop strikes on Iran at this point, a week into the intense conflict between the two nations and two weeks out from the president's decision on U.S. involvement. 'I think it's very hard to make that request right now,' he said when pressed about the Iranian foreign minister saying that the U.S. would call on Israel to stop airstrikes if Trump is serious about … Democrat: Trump 2-week Iran deadline 'not a bad thing' Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) tepidly praised President Trump on his handling of the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran, after the president said he would wait two weeks to decide whether to take direct action against Iran. 'The fact that we're not reading about a U.S. attack on Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort,' the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told independent … Israel, Iran trade strikes as Trump weighs US military involvement Israel and Iran traded strikes on Friday as President Trump weighs the possibility of U.S. involvement and European officials seek to revive nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Israel said it hit 60 Iranian aircrafts early Friday morning along with the headquarters of the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which carries out nuclear weapons research, according to the Associated Press. Iranian media said Israel's … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: DHS places new limits on lawmakers visiting ICE facilities The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is placing new limitations on lawmakers seeking to visit detention facilities, releasing guidelines in the wake of visits from Democrats that have turned confrontational. Members of Congress have the legal right to make unannounced visits to U.S. Immigration … On Tap Monday Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: Senate parliamentarian knocks pieces out of Trump's megabill Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that several key pieces of the massive bill to implement President Trump's agenda run afoul of … Read more Supreme Court rules against FDA, EPA 12:30 Report is The Hill's midday newsletter. Subscribe here or using the box below: Close Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you next week! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Mahmoud Khalil released from federal immigration detention
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal immigration detention on Friday following a judge's ruling, the Associated Press reported. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and lead negotiator for the encampment at Columbia University while he was a student, was detained more than three months ago as the first case in a wave of crackdowns against foreign students involved in campus protests. 'My priority now is to get back to my wife and son,' Khalil told reporters after his release. 'Although justice prevailed, it is very long overdue.' As a condition of his release, Khalil must surrender his passport and cannot travel internationally. His movement within the United States will be restricted to New York and Michigan to visit family, Washington to lobby Congress, and New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances. A judge ordered earlier Friday that Khalil should be released, calling it 'highly, highly unusual' that the government still sought to detain him. 'Together, they suggest that there is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner — and, of course, that would be unconstitutional,' the judge, Michael Farbiarz, wrote in his ruling. The Trump administration had argued that Khalil could be deported under a rarely-used law that allows them to do so if they determined his presence in the country would have significant negative consequences for American foreign policy. Khalil has not been charged with a crime. Farbiarz had previously held that the government could not continue to hold Khalil under the determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the judge allowed his detention to continue under a claim by the administration that Khalil had omitted some prior work experience from his green card application. Khalil's release follows the releases of several students apparently detained for pro-Palestine speech, including fellow Columbia alum Mohsen Mahdawi, who was arrested at his citizenship interview, and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, who co-wrote an opinion in her campus newspaper calling for divestment from Israel. Khalil's arrest on March 8 was the first shot from the Trump administration in a dramatic salvo against international student visas. The administration has since declared it will ask student visa applicants to make their social media accounts available for inspection. Also on Friday, a judge indefinitely blocked the government's move to bar Harvard University from being able to enroll international students. The Associated Press contributed to this report. This is a developing story.
