[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There's three things the ACists are claiming here. Let's examine them separately:

- The current situation doesn't represent a free market

A: Why not? There's a huge number of voluntary participants, and a significant free market review and oversight mechanism through blogs, affiliates, forums, and the free press. All of the things that should be acting, are. And to claim that the problems stem from a lack of the most reputable players is silly. Both PokerStars and Party Poker offer secure alternatives with a strong focus on security and game integrity - at least as far as the end consumer is concerned. Many of the current fish would probably play elsewhere if they knew of the scandal. But they don't - and it highlights beautifully the failure of the end consumer review process due to lack of time, lack of resources and understanding, and lack of interest. Transaction costs, smart people.

Another point to add is that no reputable body has sprung up to provide certification to these sites, despite the supposed consumer value of a such a body. The only certifying body is the KGC, which has its hand in the pocket of the very sites it's pretending to be overseeing. We didn't know how much until the scandal broke, because there are no laws for transparency.

So what exactly is missing from the equation? Are the things listed above not strong enough for the market to work? Most of practical AC philosopy requires the assumption that they are.

- The current situation doesn't matter in the scheme of things

A: There's two problems with this position. The first is that ACists often claim that the market will do a better job than government, in everything (cue Borodog). This doesn't appear to be happening here, and it would be nice if that was at least conceded.

The second is that the current situation is harmful for the market overall. When people get blatantly ripped off, and the perpetrators suffer no consequences, it reduces trust and provides incentive for others to follow in their path. This is bad for everyone.

As far as individuals go, you can argue that the stupid are getting their just desserts, but that's a pretty cynical view of the world.

- Legal remedies would exist in a AC world

A: Are you sure? Unless a site agreed beforehand to be overseen by a binding arbitrator, AND that arbitrator (whose motive is purely profit) was impartial, there is little chance of justice in AC land. Who has the power to go in and audit the books of a corrupt company with someone to hide? Absolute no one. And there is absolutely no reason why sham arbitration companies wouldn't exist, why sham regulatory bodies wouldn't exist, or why consumers would know the difference between them. The companies that lack this can just do clever marketing or rely on the innocence/trust/lack of knowledge of their customers, such as AP and the KGC have done here.

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that companies won't be able to bend the rules and cheat their customers significantly more in the absence of a body with the absolute power to regulate, fine, and shut them down. Simple utility should make that obvious. You guys understand utility, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, other ACists might be asserting those things but I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that people whine about a lot of [censored] that they dont really care about because whining is cheaper than acting. Its sort of irrelevant, to me, whether its a completely free market or not. In a 100% free market, people will still "want" ponies and not have them.