San Diego in an AC world

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
If noone stops playing there then they obviously dont care about being scammed. They're going to lose their money anyway and don't give a toss who it goes to. You might not like their choice but you can't impose your preferences on them. All you can legitimately do is inform people and choose for yourself whether to avoid them or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will reply to this further atrocity of a reasoned post by copy/pasting what I said to the guy who tried this reasoning in Legislation:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute is not "getting away" with snything if the "informed market" has appropriately discounted the risk of cheating and decided to play there anyway.

You are free to exercise your choice NOT to play there, if you want the POLICE to ban everyone else, how are you better than Focis on Family ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know how to even approach the depth of ignorance/nihilism/whatever that this question implies.

Let's review: we uncovered uncontrovertible proof of a site co-owner/his friend rigging the site to benefit himself. The site's response to this was to stonewall - no surprise since the co-owner was running the show at the time. The market looked at this and yawned, meaning that nothing was going to stop this guy from coming back to run a slightly smarter ripoff six months later. Hell, there still isn't, since one of them is only suspended *now*.

Your response to this is "well, if they're dumb enough to play there, who are you to stop them?" Every poker player with three brain cells to rub together that cares about the perceived integrity of the game as a whole and its future growth should be smart enough to laugh out loud at this. Do you not get at all how bad this looks and how much something like this hurts the entire industry? Do you think this indifference makes future investigative efforts more or less likely to work? Am I gonna waste any more of my time doing the legwork on FTP when they go rogue if nobody cares? How about the new fish - are they more likely to sign up to *any* site when they hear games are obviously rigged and no one did anything about it?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD A SITE WAS RIGGED AND SOMEONE HELPED SOMEONE ELSE STEAL A MILLION DOLLARS AND THEY WILL BE BACK BEHIND THE HELM OF A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A YEAR. And the market, made up of thousands of people who can make a few hundred extra bucks in expected value by crossing a virtual picket line, keeps playing at AP, thereby reaffirming each other's horrible decisions in a positive feedback loop. Mind you, that expected value is contingent upon the game remaining unrigged when a certain executive gets unsuspended - our first public hint of that happening will be around the Tenth of Never - and upon that executive not getting any better at poker in that timeframe. But, you know, who am I to go against a tidal wave of lemmings, each of whom is securely thinking they'll get out at the first sign of trouble before the others leap over the cliff? How dare I interfere with them just because that stampede is going to directly affect the likelihood of the next 10 crooked execs getting away with it and make me unable to say "the games are honest" with a straight face? FREE MARKET FOREVER.

Hell, I keep editing to add more to this paragraph and it's still not sufficiently thorough.

I cannot stress this point enough: If a new player asks me "how secure is online poker?" and my answer has to be "well, it's secure except for this one site whose executive could see the hole cards, but don't worry - he got suspended and he learned his lesson", that person will not be playing online. I might also reply that the free market has proven that it doesn't care; I might add that the chances of that guy doing it so brazenly that we can catch him again are minimal; and I might finish with the reminder that the government has crooks, too.

I might do all that, but if that's going to be the long term answer, I'd still rather just find another line of work, because it's going to be a lot easier than making this guy see why the free market dictated an acceptable percentage of hole card cams in his poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about you tell us why we shouldn't force you to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish all statists were as honest as adanthar. He doesn't care what you think. He knows better, and he's all for forcing you to comply with him. I can at least respect the honesty of the nakedly violent statist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not quite. If you guys wanted to buy some land in Canada, Somalia, Outer Mongolia or a giant spaceship and have your fun somewhere else, I obviously wouldn't care. But you're trying to transform my *particular* society into something I don't like, and, of course, I'm going to oppose that. It might go against your philosophy, but since my beliefs are that your philosophy will kill us all very quickly, I don't particularly care about that part, either.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Link or Source please, else, blablub...


[/ QUOTE ]

Of the Original Contract, David Hume, 1748.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, ok, I know this passage. But it's not related to my point. It's also not been written in regard to modern democracies, constitutions and the such...

But all this doesn't even matter cause my point isn't related to the social contract theory in any way or form.

My question is why hasn't the political market provided a "better" social system than the ones that are present. Why hasn't goverment been overthrown anywhere ever to establish an AC system, if it's that efficient and that humane?

This is what I was asking and this isn't related to Hume on original social contracts at all.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're trying to transform my *particular* society into something I don't like

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not entitled to me, my labor, my resources. Therefore, depriving you of them is not any damage to you. "Your" society is built upon ill-gotten gains. You may prefer to have my stuff, and you may "oppose" not getting it, but in this case, it's YOU who is the yapping seagull you so despise.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is why hasn't the political market provided a "better" social system than the ones that are present.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Political market" is an oxymoron. The market provides multiple options all at once while the political realm forces everyone to accept a single option.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not entitled to me, my labor, my resources. Therefore, depriving you of them is not any damage to you. "Your" society is built upon ill-gotten gains. You may prefer to have my stuff, and you may "oppose" not getting it, but in this case, it's YOU who is the yapping seagull you so despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I am going to say to that is to please - by all means - keep educating people about the wonders of AC-land by telling them how they are robbing you at gunpoint to pay for the San Diego fire engines, and see how those conversations turn out.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question is why hasn't the political market provided a "better" social system than the ones that are present.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Political market" is an oxymoron. The market provides multiple options all at once while the political realm forces everyone to accept a single option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. As someone pointed out, the last vestiges of "political market" in the United States were destroyed by Lincoln 140 years ago.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not entitled to me, my labor, my resources. Therefore, depriving you of them is not any damage to you. "Your" society is built upon ill-gotten gains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you haven't you also benefited from those "ill-gotten gains"? I missed the ACist movement to return Native American lands to their rightful heirs, who in some cases were violently removed or harassed off of it by the American federal government, various state governments, local militias, private speculators who hired mercenaries, etc. I don't doubt yours or some of your ACist brethren likely own property or will own property which was once forcefully and unwillingly taken from someone else. Are you going to give it back, since it was so clearly "ill-gotten"? Because depriving you of said "ill-gotten" land it isn't depriving you of anything you can rightfully claim is yours in the first place -- it's no damage to you -- you said so yourself.

If you don't intend on sorting any of that out, then surely you concede the status quo counts for something, no?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not entitled to me, my labor, my resources. Therefore, depriving you of them is not any damage to you. "Your" society is built upon ill-gotten gains. You may prefer to have my stuff, and you may "oppose" not getting it, but in this case, it's YOU who is the yapping seagull you so despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I am going to say to that is to please - by all means - keep educating people about the wonders of AC-land by telling them how they are robbing you at gunpoint to pay for the San Diego fire engines, and see how those conversations turn out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because I speak to all normal people the same way I talk to deliberately obtuse, openly aggressive sociopaths on intarweb message boards.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Your" society is built upon ill-gotten gains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you haven't you also benefited from those "ill-gotten gains"? I missed the ACist movement to return Native American lands to their rightful heirs, who in some cases were violently removed or harassed off of it by the American federal government, various state governments, local militias, private speculators who hired mercenaries, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone out there has a damages claim, and can find a responsible party to hold accountable, I'm all for letting them pursue their claims.