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
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Planning to vote in New Jersey's June 10 primary? This is what you need to know
The New Jersey primary election is under way. Voters should know their options before heading to the polls. This year's gubernatorial primary will be held June 10, and it is a packed field for the top spot on both sides of the aisle. There are 11 candidates in all — six Democrats and five Republicans. They are vying to represent their respective party in the race for governor this November. There are also contested local primary elections and some contested races for seats in the New Jersey Assembly, the lower house of the Legislature. It's also the first primary to be held without the county line ballot design, so voters will be able to familiarize themselves with the new design with the sample ballots they're set to receive by mail in the coming days. The block ballot design, which is used in all 49 other states, will replace the county line which traditionally gave candidates endorsed by the county party preferred ballot placement, and an edge in their efforts. It was dismantled by a federal judge last year. New Jersey has what's considered a semi-closed primary because all voters have to declare a party affiliation to participate, but unaffiliated voters can do so at the polls. Unaffiliated voters can register while voting in personon Election Day for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. After an unaffiliated voter casts an in-person vote in the Democratic or Republican Party primary election, the voter will be affiliated with that political party going forward. The voter can change affiliation by completing, signing and returning a change of party affiliation form to the municipal clerk or county commissioner of registration. The deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot has passed and early in-person voting has concluded. Election Day for this year's primary will be June 10. Polls are open June 10 from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. That is the deadline to postmark a mail-in ballot for it to be eligible. Mail-in ballots can also be delivered to County Boards of Election and authorized ballot drop boxes by 8 p.m. on June 10. Katie Sobko covers the New Jersey Statehouse. Email: sobko@ This article originally appeared on NJ primary election 2025: How to vote on June 10 date


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Israel attacks Yemeni port city, Houthi rebels say
Late Monday, Israel issued online warnings to Yemenis to evacuate from Ras Isa, Hodeida and al-Salif ports over what it alleged was 'the Houthi regime's use of seaports for its terrorist activities.' Hodeida also is the main entry point for food and other humanitarian aid for millions of Yemenis since the war began when the Houthis seized Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in 2014. The Houthis have been launching persistent missile and drone attacks against commercial and military ships in the region in what the group's leadership has described as an effort to end Israel's offensive in Gaza. Advertisement From November 2023 until January 2025, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1 trillion of goods move through it annually. The Houthis paused attacks in a self-imposed ceasefire until the U.S. launched a broad assault against the rebels in mid-March. Trump paused those attacks just before his trip to the Mideast, saying the rebels had 'capitulated' to American demands. Advertisement Early Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on the social platform X that U.S. Navy ships had traveled through the Red Sea and its Bab el-Mandeb Strait 'multiple times in recent days' without facing Houthi attacks. 'These transits occurred without challenge and demonstrate the success of both Operation ROUGH RIDER and the President's Peace Through Strength agenda,' Hegseth wrote ahead of facing Congress for the first time since sharing sensitive military details of America's military campaign against the Houthis in a Signal chat. Meanwhile, a wider, decadelong war in Yemen between the Houthis and the country's exiled government, backed by a Saudi-led coalition, remains in a stalemate.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Canada commits billions in military spending to meet NATO target
But even if Canada is able to finally hit the 2 percent threshold, that is not likely to be enough to satisfy the United States or other NATO allies. Mark Rutte, NATO's secretary general, speaking in London on Monday, called on the alliance's members to make a 'quantum leap in our collective defense' by committing to significantly higher spending targets. Rutte wants members to commit to spending 5 percent of their gross domestic products on military and defense-related activities. Trump has called for a similar spending target. Advertisement Proposals for increased spending are likely to dominate the NATO summit meeting in The Hague this month, though Rutte has not set a timeline for his increased spending plan. Carney, speaking in Toronto, said that new geopolitical threats, advances in technology, and the fraying of Canada's alliance with the United States demanded an accelerated spending schedule. 'We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans throughout the Cold War and in the decades that followed, as the United States played a dominant role on the world stage,' he said. 'Today, that dominance is a thing of the past.' Advertisement 'It is time for Canada to chart its own path,' he added, 'and to assert itself on the international stage.' While Carney promised to increase spending by billions of Canadian dollars, he did not specify where the funds would come from. Government officials spoke mostly in broad terms about how the money would be used. Canada's economy is heavily dependent on exports to the United States, and Trump's tariffs have targeted key industries, including autos and steel. Some economists have warned that Canada could face a recession if the tariffs persist. Carney also said the country would no longer rely as extensively on American defense contractors to supply its armed forces, underscoring Canada's strained relations with the United States and focus on shifting away from its neighbor. The Canadian government said it would immediately add 9.3 billion Canadian dollars (about $6.8 billion) to its defense budget. That will raise total defense-related spending this year to CA$62.7 billion, slightly higher than the 2 percent NATO target. To get there, the government included CA$2.5 billion in spending related to 'defense and security' for other departments, including the Canadian coast guard, an unarmed civilian agency which is under the department of fisheries. Carney's spending pledge was welcomed by defense analysts. 'This is a long-overdue announcement,' said Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a senior fellow at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. 'This significant commitment is remarkable given how quickly they're going to have to move to make 2 percent by the end of the fiscal year.' But, she added, Carney will have to add further budget increases to fund all of the programs he is promising. Advertisement Carney laid out a long shopping list for the military, including 'new submarines, aircraft, ships, armed vehicles, and artillery.' He also said the military would add drones and sensors to monitor the seafloor in the Arctic, a vast region of the country that is becoming a source of competition among global powers such as Russia and China. But Canadian officials said that this year most of the spending would go toward things like increasing the pay and the benefits of armed forces members to help ease a severe recruitment crisis, and repairing broken equipment. Carney also said that money would be directed toward much-needed improvements, noting that three of the Royal Canadian Navy's four diesel submarines were not seaworthy. 'We will repair and maintain our ships, our aircraft, and infrastructure that for too long we allowed to rust and deteriorate,' the prime minister said. Other spending will focus on artificial intelligence and computer systems, as well as ammunition production within the country. Carney also said that Canada would look to buy more goods domestically or from allies other than the United States to equip its military. 'We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America,' he said. Carney said Monday that details about how the country's military needs would be financed would be revealed when a budget was released in the fall. 'Our fundamental goal in all of this is to protect Canadians,' he told reporters, 'not to satisfy NATO accountants.' This article originally appeared in