Aside from National Treasury’s proposed 20% national online gambling tax and a host of other measures that would destabilise the legal online gambling market and drive more users to offshore platforms, there are several other concerning proposals that have emerged amidst the gambling policy debate that bring consumer choice into question.
As has been argued elsewhere, consumer choice is a core principle of any free society. It holds that individuals should be free to decide what goods to buy, what services to use, and what activities to partake in, provided they do not harm others. Here, harm refers to direct aggression against life, liberty, or property, and not the broad notion of ‘social harm’, which if used as a basis for restriction, can lead society down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Crucially, allowing individuals to choose does not rest on the assumption that they will always make the best choices for themselves. Rather, it is based on the principle that they are free agents who are responsible for navigating the consequences of their own decisions. The ‘costs’ of this freedom are not the fault of state inaction and can only – and should only – be addressed by families, communities, and social institutions.
Against this backdrop, some of the measures that serial entrepreneur and investor Koshiek Karan has presented in his petition to the legislature on gambling policy should be cause for concern, as they pose a clear threat to consumer choice. Two of these measures warrant examination.
Raising the minimum gambling age
The first calls for an increase in the minimum age for online gambling to 21 to prevent young people between the ages of 15 and 24, who are disproportionately affected by unemployment, from “gambling on their future.”
This is a sweeping and paternalistic position that assumes young adults are incapable of making responsible decisions or gambling wisely with their own income. It fails to account for unemployed young adults over 18 who do not gamble, as well as those who do exercise their freedom to gamble responsibly.
The reality of income-driven gambling is undeniable under the current socio-economic circumstances, but it does not negate the agency of unemployed adults who choose not to gamble, nor of those who choose to gamble and can stop at will.
Online gambling, like almost every other activity, carries a ‘social cost’. But this cost ultimately arises from the voluntary choices that individuals make. If paternalism is to be invoked, then the responsibility for addressing what is perceived as a gambling crisis – and for protecting young adults from themselves – should lie with society at large, and not the state, whose role is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property.
The call to raise the minimum age for online gambling represents an unjustifiable infringement on the consumer choice of young adults.
Removing gambling access from banking applications
The second measure calls for the removal of all gambling options from banking applications, arguing that easy access drives “frictionless” online gambling activity.
This is yet another paternalistic position that assumes all individuals are either incapable of using easy access responsibly or will inevitably use it. It also overlooks those who use it responsibly and those who abstain from it entirely.
Those who use their banking applications as gateways to betting platforms are simply exercising their choice to spend their money on gambling. No one is coercing them into participating, and, importantly, they have the ability, just as others, to refrain from online gambling.
The evolution of online gambling to the extent where users can access platforms seamlessly through banking applications is a sign of innovation and not a problem to be corrected. Many users value the convenience of gambling from their own devices, and removing this access would restrict their ability to make voluntary choices with their money.
Freedom, as Martin van Staden notes, is messy. It allows all sorts of people to make all sorts of decisions that we might not consider wise. But our own freedom to make the right decisions is premised on their freedom to make the wrong ones.
If we do not concede that people are free to make ruinous decisions, then every potential decision we make becomes implicitly and ultimately subject to the approval of the political elite.”
While the calls to raise the minimum age for online gambling or to remove gambling options from banking applications may be motivated by genuine concern, they ultimately rest on the assumption that adults cannot be trusted to manage their own choices. In doing so, they shift responsibility to a state whose proper role is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. For these reasons, these proposals represent a clear threat to consumer choice.
[Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/loukopela/9377882274/in/photolist-fhG6Fq-dXwyiC-8CmurU-a8bPQN-5YUFVq-5JnLwV-9Viu7Q-76XTPQ-6gQy5x-4GYM3o-6pq5bg-dsEtY-5V2eG9-5Js2VJ-85324Y-7kUaTK-du55xD-6pGL87-2n4Acdd-2A2cDU-ExbS5-5Js2Mm-pAsW3m-9Djgg-4NZvFx-4bsF4r-4JgrtA-6SwUG7-5Js2QW-dB9we7-CHABNX-4gkVft-vapZV-8vwrrm-oy2Byo-24A55yE-gXGNSG-4uQwPE-8fhQqT-aC33eN-5Vr2c6-6EVoEP-6xfYFg-4Mu3Kq-fzNfzK-2qkFEVC-5X8HB2-3d2cB8-4dtzHE-6zZ5qa]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend