Will Neteller Pay?

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
Sandycove is one of the few people on here with a clue. I posted within a week of the regulation passing as to what would REALLY happen, and my comments were removed by moderators. Everyone on here is just spreading best case scenarios as if they are the most likely scenario. In the end, this has damaged everyone. Do you really think that this board is not being monitored?

Every idea people bring up on here is just going to give the politicians more fuel for their fire. It just makes everyone look like flagrant abusers of the law who will do anything to bypass the government. This is not what you want to be projecting.

Furthermore, the mere fact you ignore what is going on here is preposterous. Poker sites have created an enormous wealth transfer from Americans to a few rich foreigners, with absolutely no social benefit. And I am saying this as a professed libertarian. This is not a libertarian country though, and blaming the Republicans for this is stupid. No one in Washington likes the idea of online poker, and very few Americans like the idea of internet gambling, especially when it is run by overseas firms outside of US jurisdiction. The only people in Washington who are against this regulation are against it because certain banking institutions whom they receive funding from do not want the expense of compliance. There may be a few outlier politicians who don't think this is in the scope of their power, and are therefore against the bill, but I guarantee you they do not like the idea of Americans giving away money to Anurag Dikshit.

In addition, citing the fact that poker is a game of school is not going to help your cause. For the vast majority of players, it is not a game of skill. People play poker because they like to gamble. A small minority of people play poker because they enjoy the strategy involved, and that makes up most of the people on 2+2. Continuing to purport that 2+2 is a sample of the general population or the poker playing population is a fallacy.

Personally, I am against government regulation of our decisions in life, but there has to be some regulation when you are allowed to gamble electronically, with electronic money, which you may or may not even have. For example, I know of numerous individuals who were able to wire money from there bank account that they didn't even have to play poker online. When something like this is possible, the government unfortunately must be involved.

Finally, if the government decides that it is illegal to operate an online casino in the United States, then I completely agree that they should do everything in their power to prevent overseas companies from targeting our citizens. These companies had a lot of balls to advertise in our country, and now they are paying the price. If guarantee you if they never advertised in the US and never sponsored players to wear their shirts on TV you would still be able to play online poker today. But they were greedy, and wanted to make a quick buck at your expense. Politicians do not like flagrant abuses of our laws, and thus Frist showed them the consequences of rubbing it in our face that they couldn't stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure how you can profess to be a libertarian and reconcile some of your statements in that post; especially what you said in your final 2 paragraphs. I don't think anyone should ever roll over and submit to any laws they feel unjust, and I feel this law to be incredibly unjust, unnecessary, and unenforceable. Ideally, of course.

My concerns as a libertarian do not involve whether or not the money I spend stays within my country, but rather on whether or not my country stops me from spending my money as I see fit. If I want to spend all of my money on cheap trinkets from Taiwan and buy everything made in Mexico and nothing made in the US, who the hell are they, you, or anyone else to tell me thats not allowable?

Anyhow, that aside, the main problem with both your post and Sandycove's post is the central idea in both. It seems that both of the posts hang on the idea that the government's attempt at prohibition will be successful. I laugh at that. Months after UIGEA passed I haven't gone more than a day without playing poker and I really don't see that changing anytime in the near future. Yes, Neteller is gone. Yes, there are fewer sites. Yes, the landscape is different. But is it necessarily any harder right now to play poker online than it was before the law passed? Maybe marginally so, but no more than that. What we have seen, is the industry's willingness and ability to adapt rather quickly to each of these challenges.

However, in the end its all speculation. But one thing is certain and that is that I have seen no signs of the industry rolling over and admitting defeat in any way. In fact, when companies like Full Tilt publicly declare their refusal to leave the market in the face of such adversity, I take that as a clear sign they are more than willing to do what it takes to reach the market.

What I do find rather annoying is how much misinformation does fly around this 2P2 in general. Threads are littered with posts that contain horribly incorrect information (IE Neteller is closing US accounts when they are not, etc etc) when the most that can be offered is speculation. There are very few banking experts here, there are very few legal experts here, and there are very few international finance experts here. I wish people would take that into consideration before making their opinions sound like fact.