Some Thoughts on Prohibition and the UIGEA

Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason, testified before the House Financial Services Committee last week, on the issue of Internet gambling.

I believe that prohibition is stupid and intrusive, and I am sick to death of the Nanny Staters in government telling adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes, with their own money. I felt this way long before I even had a personal stake in this sort of thing, and even though most of the Libertarians I meet are really ultra-conservative Republicans who don't want to play taxes and want to have a lot of guns, it's one of the areas where I take a classic Libertarian position.

Mr. Balko eloquently makes points that everyone who cares about keeping government out of their house should commit to memory and communicate to their congresscritters:

The Unlawful Internet Gaming Act was passed under rather dubious circumstances. It passed the U.S. Senate on the last day of Congress, late at night, with no floor debate, after being attached to an unrelated port security bill.

My problems with how the bill passed, however, are beside the point. Let’s get down to the crux of this issue, Mr. Chairman: What Americans do in their own homes with their own money on their own time is none of the federal government’s business.

[...]

No one is hurt when two or more consenting adults sit down for a game of poker, be it online or in person. Why any of this should be of concern to the federal government is rather perplexing. I respect the fact that many Americans—and many members of Congress—may have moral objections to gambling, online or otherwise. To them, I’d say, simply, “don’t gamble, then.”

[...]

Yes, it's possible a parent could bet away their family's savings, or their child's education fund in an online poker game. They could also fritter that money away on eBay. Or on booze. Or fancy cars and exotic travel.

These are all personal decisions, of course. And if a free society means anything, it means we should have the freedom to make bad choices, in addition to good ones. The ban on Internet gambling punishes the millions of Americans who were wagering online responsibly due to anecdotal evidence of a few who may do so irresponsibly. It's an affront to personal responsibility, and symptomatic of a Nanny Statist government that treats its citizens like children.

I discovered Mr. Balko's comments at Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, one of my favorite blogs on the 'tubes, where I said, "Yes, but stocks, fast cars, and eBay don't perk up the ears and open the contributing wallets of the Authoritarian Christian Right that the UIGEA was written to please.

 

Idiots."

Comments

[edgore]

I assume that Bill Bennett will be testifying to congress in defense of the right of americans to gamble in the privacy of their own homes any minute...right?

[Zarvok]

As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly agree with your point in this post.

I do take issue with your description of libertarians, though. It's my experience that liberals think of libertarians as gun-toting ultra-conservatives with tiny black hearts, while conservatives think of libertarians as drug-addicted slacker ultra-liberals.

Your perception of libertarianism may be skewed by your idea of "normal" or "correct". Perhaps it's because the positions you disagree with are the ones most likely to come up in conversation or the ones that stand out most when you read something.

Then again, you may just have met only insane libertarians. Lord knows there are enough around...

[nathan]

I have what you would say conservative views, but I completely agree. Our "representatives" are taking away ANY self responsibility. Yes, people's actions may have negative consequences, but let them deal with it! Its none of the governments business!

Sorry, needed to vent a bit.

[Christopher Ambler]

Wil, it's not the Authoritarian Christian Right that wants Internet gambling banned.

It's the land-based casinos, most notably the Native American casinos, who, if Internet gambling is banned, see more people coming to their establishments.

It's that lobby that pushed this ban, more than any other.

There's no "government knows better" going on here, and anyone who thinks that there is is naive, at best.

This is the casino lobby, trying to protect their interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

[gbina]

So, uh...I don't suppose you would be willing to drop off an autographed copy of Just a Geek or Dancing Barefoot at the Sci-Fi museum this weekend would you? I am going to be there 4 days after Gene's induction into the HOF (gnashing of teeth at my horrendous timing). I would pay dearly.... :)

Sorry about the unrelated comment. Feel free to tell me to go to hell if this is major faux-paux (but I had to give it a shot...you only live once right?).

[Wil]

I followed this UIGEA nonsense *very* closely, Christopher, and you are mistaken.

While in Washington State, the land-based casinos effectively bought legislation that made online gaming and even *discussing* online gaming a crime equal to sexual assault, this UIGEA, which was tacked onto an entirely unrelated port security bill, in the middle of the night, after sever unsuccessful attempts to pass it on its own, was done *entirely* as an effort to pander to the Christian Right. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who wrote the bill which eventually became the UIGEA said, shortly after it was successfully passed,

"Religious leaders of all denominations and faiths are seeing gambling problems erode family values. If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their BlackBerries as they wait in line at the movies."

The land-based casinos would love for poker to be taxed and regulated, so they can open up their own, branded, nice and legal online poker rooms. I know this, because I spent five weeks at the Rio last year and I kept my ears open and my mouth shut while I was there.

The UIGA was simple pandering to a group of people -- a statistical minority in our country -- who want to tell every single one of us what we can do in our own homes, and want to apply their very narrow interpretations of what is and isn't "moral" to all of us, whether we subscribe to their mythology and fairy tales or not.

That's wrong, and it pisses me off. The UIGEA was forced onto all of us for those people, not because land-based, domestic casinos wanted it.

[Christopher Ambler]

Ah, my apologies - I was myopic on our state's issue in commenting and completely failed to register that you were talking about the federal ban. Totally my brain-fart.

I'm just waiting for them to make my home game illegal next.

[Jaunty]

As a subscriber to Reason magazine and a libertarian, I see conservatives and ultra-conservatives publicly denouncing libertarian philosophy. There may have been more overlap between them all in the past, but apparently the majority position of the conservative movement today is that opposition to government regulating "bad" behavior would make one, by definition, not a conservative. Perhaps, Wil, the people you referenced are what even the Republicans refer to as just "kooks".

[wandrew]

Big fan of Radley Balko's blog. I first starting reading his columns about Cory Maye (theagitator.com; click 'Cory Maye') who is sitting on death row because he chose to defend himself when police stormed unannounced into his duplex where his baby daughter as sleeping. I love his work, period. Glad to see you quoting it.
I feel the same way about gambling as I do about porn: if you don't want to gamble or look at porn, you're free not to. And as long as others don't interfere with your life with their gambling and porn, you should respect their freedom and leave them alone. One of the best definitions of libertarianism I've ever heard came from, of all people, Jimmy Durante: "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the Hell alone?"

[amber]

There are many flavors of libertarian. Some are basically republicans who don't want to be associated with neocons. Some are the anti-gov't UFO nut in the compound. Some are social darwinists who seem to have some wet dream about everyone horribly starving to death in the gutter while they drive around in thier gold plated limo and lick copies of Atlas Shrugged. Some are the let's have sex with everybody and marry five people and smoke pot all day types who are probably who republicans see as liberals.

Then there are some middle of the road people who see it part of the political spectrum and who realize that paying no taxes at all really doesn't make much sense and view it a philosophy to guide what gov't we do have by, and as a guide to establishing our laws and how and what we regulate.

Almost nobody gets to hear anything out of those people however as they are drown out by all the other ones. Worse still since the vocal ones come from all different directions pretty much nothing ever seems to get done as they manage to offend members of the two big political parties at the same time.

[Myshtuff]

Wow, this is ridiculous. I do not gamble online or offline because I am not old enough, but if I were I would want the choice to participate online or not. Just because a few select people decide to screw over their families and send themselves into poverty does not mean everyone else should get the same treatment as them. I totally agree with you Wil. Let's do something about it! Let's have a sit in!!

[Nojopar]

You know amber, you could probably break down the two major parties similarly. Not all Republicans are right wing nutjobs. Nor are all Democrats left wing tree huggers. Each party has an extremely vocal minority that taints the whole party, especially in the eyes of the opposition. Unfortunately, if you're not in the middle of that party observing from the inside, you'd probably miss that fact completely. Instead, each party gets painted with the most extreme brush. The problem is that our leaders seem to want to look only at THAT canvas (to over use an analogy) when making policy, especially the leaders of the Republicans, at least right now.

[Radley Balko]

Wil,

Thanks for the plug. Been a fan of your blog for some time.

If you like, I'd be happy to send you a comp subscription to reason. Or just add our blog to your RSS feed.

While I do support the Second Amendment, and am not particularly fond of taxes, I think you'll find many libertarians these days have much more in common with the left than we do with the right.

In fact, most of my work is on civil liberties issues, from gambling to the drug war to police misconduct and problems with the criminal justice system.

The general philosophy of libertarianism is, "people should be able to live their lives as they please, so long as they don't harm anyone else."

[amber]

True Nojopar, but both parties are more focused and organized then the libertarians. And of course while people complain about both, the majority of people belong to them and regularly vote with one or the other. The ones in the middle who swing between voting either way or going with an independant, so far have not been captured by the libertarian party in significant numbers.

Despite the fact that the number of swing voters and undecideds is growing, as well as political dissatisfaction, the libertarian party still hasn't managed to be seen as a viable alternative, or to really have a clear message or platform that makes sense to people or appeals to them. Even though you consistantly hear people on either side of the aisle say 'I take a libertarian stance on this issue' or 'I tend to lean towards the libertarian view here', barely any of them would actually consider voting libertarian, because of what a negative view they have of the actual party, which in many ways is deserved. This is really saying something, considering how murky the platforms of the big two are. Not to mention how corrupt they are.

[amber]

Er....not quite sure why my comment is bolded up there. I was not doing any bolding.

[exdeadguy]

Did that work?

[exdeadguy]

or that? (trying to close the tag)

[exdeadguy]

As per the conversation, however, I would say that while I too know quite a few people who are single-issue libertarians, the public face of the Libertarian Party does no favors to building the ranks. It always seems like they end up putting up someone who advocates for revoking the seatbelt law or something. While I am for a less intrusive government, there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to social costs of people's actions. If someone becomes paralyzed or worse from a car accident because they don't wear a seatbelt, then they drain resources from the community (both public services and their work/family/etc.) This is true even if you don't wear one in New Jersey. When a government determines the social cost of an action is greater than the restriction of freedom caused by outlawing it, it becomes illegal.

Or at least that is what would happen if laws were constructed in a logical fashion. A lot of this interest in libertarianism comes from the laws being drafted and enforced in a very inconsistent manner. e.g. It seems unlikely the social cost of marijuana legalization would be greater than alcohol or nicotine. People who look into these things (or, say, internet gambling) realize the inconsistency, and look for a more reasonable position. Since extreme libertarianism means everything is legal, it is the default response for advocating the decriminalization of any pet topic. While it may be a bit lazy, it is an extremely consistent philosophy and so an excellent shorthand. The differences between the political world and observable reality are why people lose faith in their government and NBA officiating.

[exdeadguy]

As per the conversation, however, I would say that while I too know quite a few people who are single-issue libertarians, the public face of the Libertarian Party does no favors to building the ranks. It always seems like they end up putting up someone who advocates for revoking the seatbelt law or something. While I am for a less intrusive government, there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to social costs of people's actions. If someone becomes paralyzed or worse from a car accident because they don't wear a seatbelt, then they drain resources from the community (both public services and their work/family/etc.) This is true even if you don't wear one in New Jersey. When a government determines the social cost of an action is greater than the restriction of freedom caused by outlawing it, it becomes illegal.

Or at least that is what would happen if laws were constructed in a logical fashion. A lot of this interest in libertarianism comes from the laws being drafted and enforced in a very inconsistent manner. e.g. It seems unlikely the social cost of marijuana legalization would be greater than alcohol or nicotine. People who look into these things (or, say, internet gambling) realize the inconsistency, and look for a more reasonable position. Since extreme libertarianism means everything is legal, it is the default response for advocating the decriminalization of any pet topic. While it may be a bit lazy, it is an extremely consistent philosophy and so an excellent shorthand. The differences between the political world and observable reality are why people lose faith in their government and NBA officiating.

[JP]

This is the sort of issue I'm actually torn about - freedom vs. social good. I deeply believe that one group should not be able to impose their belief system onto another is this country. Yet the fact that a society is largely united behind a belief that some action is unacceptable should mean something.

This is why I'd like to see a law rulebook put in place in the legislative branch... a test applied to bills to indicate whether a law fits in with our ideals. Like, for laws banning or restricting an activity, does that activity directly cause

1. physical harm to a person, animal, or property
2. emotional harm to a person or animal
3. an unjust financial harm to an individual or corporation
4. the withholding of a guaranteed freedom?

If the answers are "no", then your law is bullshit and does not get to be voted on.

It would at least change debate in Congress to be about whether a bill fits this rule or that rule; something we could understand, instead of having people standing around telling stories about something their grandchild said, or trying to convince everyone that the US is a Christian English speaking nation. It might even get rid of pork in the process.

[rarr]

I'm amazingly glad to see my two favorite blogs converging like this. I have to say that your characterization of libertarians is slightly outdated, Wil, though there are certainly enough ultraconservative gun nuts that call themselves libertarians to make it confusing. I pretty much see libertarianism as a fusion of the best parts of conservatism and liberalism: freedom of action and freedom of markets. It's just a shame that both major parties have half of it right but have some truly terrible policies that go in the other direction.

[BobApril]

Wil,
Thanks for pointing me to another great blog that I would never have found on my own. The Culture Wars blog appears to have the most polite and informative arguments in the comments section that I've ever seen. Not to mention the interesting and well-written entries. It just hit #2 on my favorite blogs...just after WWdN:IE.

[1BigBank]

It used to be politicians only stole one out of every three dollars.
Nowadays seems like they're intent on stealing two and a half.
It's all about money, and I can't help but to agree with Chris that it's the casinos pushing for this legislation.
Hell, I'm a prime example. Why would I drive an hour, then have to wait in line for a game at a casino? I can get my KK killed in five minutes while I watch a hockey game from my couch.
Throw in your Christian Right wing know it alls and a few greedy politicians and what do you have? You have another way for one set of people to get their hands on your dollar instead of another set of people getting their hands on your dollar.
BTW, been playing online for 3 years for $500, and I'm up $200. Good cheap entertainent is ya asks me!

[amber]

No, I think many of the casinos would love it if online gambling were legalized and they could have thier own sites. There are multiple reasons for this.

First, it is a new area of potential revenue, and they are aware that there is not a 100% overlap between people who go to a casino and play online. Therefor, they would be picking up customers that they weren't going to get another way.

Secondly, casinos ALREADY advertise a lot. It won't cost them that much more to say at the end of thier commercial to say, 'or visit us online at www.ourcasino.com and you can win fabulous cash prizes!'

Thirdly, while this might not be true late at night or in vegas, a serious casino demographic (at least around here) is the elderly. There's buffets, there's lots of flat space to wheel around in a chair or use a walker, but most importantly, gambling is kind of like that generation's video games. Card games, dice, games of chance ARE what they got together to play.

Casinos know that when those people die or can no longer come, they're losing a demographic that has an emotional connection to gambling that younger ones don't. When you think about it, bridge, bingo, cribbage and poker all have that element. And there are so many other card games and dice games that people rarely play anymore. A casino is to them what an arcade that serves pizza and pop would be to a gamer.

Many, like my dad who is the next generation younger, have been programmed to believe that casinos are full of criminals, whores, and general...I don't know...sin! People in the X and Y generations just think of Vegas maybe, they are pretty neutral.

So, building a brand connection between a casino and an online poker room would be a way to get people from thier houses into the casino. They could advertise games that the casino would be hosting on the site, give away a seat at an in-house tournament as a prize, so on and so forth. Then if the guy goes to the casino, maybe his wife will come along and play the slots because that's more interesting to her then when he's just with his buddies, eat at the buffet, look around, go shopping next door, maybe start learning to play some other game she likes.

And that's what they want. They want to figure out how to change and adapt so that they become a place that Gen Xers want to come back to regularly and have fun, not just to blow money at when they are drunk.

[Bronwyn]

Oh, hoorah! A brilliant convergence of my two favorite blogs. I've been hanging out at theagitator.com for as long as it's been around and have had much monkey butler fun over there.

I'll just add my 'ditto' to the libertarian definition given by rarr...

and point out to exdeadguy that the "social cost" he's talking about wouldn't exist in a libertarian society because there would be no wealth redistribution - every citizen would be responsible for taking care of his own and would have the free choice to share his wealth or not as he pleased.

Ergo, if Joe Schmoe chose to ride without a seatbelt, drove off the road and as a result became paraplegic, it would be his own damned fault and he'd have to hope that his family and friends would take care of him, or that a wealthy private donor would do so... and woe betide him if he took someone else out with his recklessness! It would be our choice whether or not to aid the careless, the foolish, the lazy, and the otherwise incapable - instead of being forced to do so at gunpoint.