Our society contains people who are not quite as capable of exercising the self-control of the staff of Reason magazine.
In the latest issue of National Review magazine (perhaps you’ve heard of it), I argue that the mainstreaming of sports betting has had many costs that proponents and beneficiaries have not properly accounted for.
Legalization in 39 states and Washington, D.C., has put more money into play — leading to more money being lost by more people. Sports themselves, moreover, at the professional and collegiate levels (and perhaps even at lower levels) are becoming tainted by their wanton association with the practice. Coaches and athletes are subject to harassment and dark speculation when they frustrate the bets that are made on their teams.
Reason managing editor Jason Russell quite charitably dissents from my conclusion, from these facts, that the rise of sports betting is a serious problem. His charity is evident in his admission that he doesn’t “think anything in the article is untrue.” He even says that I am “a great writer who gets his facts right.” Well, right back at you, Jason.
What we have, then, is not a dispute of facts but of interpretation, and of values. Jason does not think the irresponsible behavior of some should affect the responsible pleasure of others:
Some people lose too much money on betting. They should not do that. Some people harass athletes on social media over their lost bets. They should not do that. That doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed to place bets in peace.
Jason makes another charitable concession in making his case: that he and I are “friendly in real life.” This sense is (and remains) mutual. Which is one reason why I have no reason to question his own ability to bet responsibly. Indeed, a libertarian society might work well if it consisted solely of the staff of Reason magazine (which is a consistently interesting read, run by many people I consider friends in addition to Jason).
We may live in a society that, on the question of sports gambling, is moving closer to the Reason vision. But it nonetheless contains people who are not quite as capable of exercising the self-control of its staff. That “governments, not just private companies . . . prosper when sports-betting companies succeed in undermining classical virtues such as restraint, moderation, and thrift” puts this question, in my view, into a murkier area, where what William F. Buckley Jr. described as the “wholesome major contentions of libertarian theory” run up against the realities of large-scale human behavior. Thus, I worry that the increased scope of this particular activity, which I maintain is a vice, is likely also to increase the scope of its negative financial and moral externalities. In fact, I think it already has.
Even so, I have not argued for a reversal of sports-betting legalization, though I do suggest that states where it is not yet legal hold firm, or at least consider adopting a legal regime with certain salutary restrictions in place. Whatever my preferences might be, I would be truly stubborn to deny where the tide appears to be going for the moment. Jason rejects the notion that the irresponsible behavior of some justifies reversing legalization, calling this a form of unfair “collective punishment.” But, if I read him correctly, he does not seem entirely averse to some form of sanction on, or safeguard against, certain manifestations of irresponsibility. If so, we can agree on that. Even a libertarian, and especially a sports fan, can agree that there should be some rules to the game.