The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law that prohibited most states from allowing betting on sporting events was a double-edged sword. While it struck down a right-violating law, it will do nothing to prevent states from violating individual rights. According to CNN,
The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting the federal government from controlling state policy, unconstitutionally forcing states to prohibit sports betting under their own laws.
In other words, the ruling didn’t come out in favor of individual rights. Instead, it supported “states’ rights.”
How an individual spends his money is nobody’s business but his. If he wants to spend his money betting on the ponies, dogs, in casinos, or on sporting events, he has a moral right to do so. It’s his money to do with as he chooses. Gambling is a choice, and individuals have a moral right to live as they choose, so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.
Prohibitions on gambling, as well well as other voluntary actions, are improper and immoral. They force individuals to act, not as they choose, but as government officials decree. More importantly, government should not be passing laws that allow individuals to engage in voluntary, not rights-violating activities. That merely grants permission, and free individuals do not need permission.
The notion of “states’ rights” holds that states may properly pass whatever laws the citizens demand. If the citizens want laws that violate individual, according to the advocates of “states’ rights,” this is acceptable. But the purpose of government, at every level, is the protection of individual rights. If a local government passes laws that violate rights, such as imposing tree regulations or outlawing short-term rentals, it is property for the state to intervene and strike down such laws. It is equally appropriate for the federal government to strike down state laws that violate rights.
Rather than ruling that states can legalize sports betting, the Court should have ruled that no government, federal, state, or local, can ban the practice.