Legalize, But Why Regulate?
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Free Markets, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
First, this is excellent news:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is planning to introduce legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker and said he hopes the measure can pass both chambers of Congress this session.
…The FBI shut down three of the largest online poker sites last month as part of the Obama administration’s enforcement of online gambling and piracy statutes.
U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized another 10 online betting sites Monday, including two popular poker sites.
…Barton called the current law unenforceable and argued that online poker itself isn’t illegal, so the government has targeted the deposits made by players instead. An estimated 10 million Americans played poker online until recently, including roughly 50,000 PPA members who depend on it for their livelihood.
This is undoubtedly good news, should legalization pass, compared to the current environment of rampant government thuggery and ill-conceived prohibition.
But why must we legalize and regulate? Why can’t we just legalize? The market has proven perfectly capable of self regulating itself up to this point, with the top sites having worked hard to earn reputations as reliable and honest brokers. Sure there have been some scandals, but they were also dealt with. The market will punish thieves and fraudsters and reward quality service, as it has done up until now even with the legal clouds hanging over the market.
There’s little evidence that heavy handed regulation is needed here. I just don’t understand why poker advocates have gone into negotiations already ceding the big government point. Every time I hear poker advocates talk about legalizing the game, they follow it up with talk of regulating and taxing. I understand you need to make points about revenue to convince certain politicians, but let’s not get carried away on this taxing stuff. I also understand if some concessions need to be made regarding the scope of regulations in order to get enough votes, but why start from the position of regulation? Granted, we don’t know the details of this particular legislation yet, so perhaps it won’t involve too much government. But experience gives me reason not to get my hopes up.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a big improvement in either case. Get it legalized now, and regulate it if the political dynamics require it, and then we can always deregulate later.