A/C in Action: The AP Case

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they did a great job with Vioxx. Amazing efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh - small sample space pvn. One example doesn't make a case, you can do better than this.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its irrelevant whether its true or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely relevant to your "argument" that the European market is not affected by US regulation. If you're willing to admit that this is utterly false, then yes, the simple observation can go back to being irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never argued that. It doesnt matter. If the only two forks in the road lead you off the end of the cliff, put on the brakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If its true, AC can only exist if the entire world is AC

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, of course it's true. It's blatantly true. Even most any anti-ACer would probably agree with me because the point is so obvious.

All this implies is that an AC society in the context of a statist world will not be as prosperous as the same society in the context of an AC world. Since our position is that states create a bad result, and that bad results for one is bad for all, I'm not sure what exactly you think you're proving since this is actually fodder for the AC position.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are (apparently intentionally) missing the point. Even in your proposition that an AC world within a statist world would be more prosperous than the alternative, the European market has failed to provide essential information. Avoid the issue as much as you want, but if you can't even attempt to explain why this isn't a failure even in its limited scope without a claim that this particular market is more irrational than any other market, this thread is over for me, and you're relegated to the Borodog world of intellecutal dishonesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. The thread should have never begun for you because you are just making your side of the argument look worse.

Believe it or not, when you make a logically weak claim, people can argue against it without being "dishonest."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they did a great job with Vioxx. Amazing efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh - small sample space pvn. One example doesn't make a case, you can do better than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fen-Phen.

oh, these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Note that really FDA "approval" isn't a measure to protect citizens, it's much more effective as a measure to protect big pharma. They get protection from small competitors through the erection of artificial barriers to entry, and they get a lot of PR and some legal protection since their drugs are "approved". After all, government says go, it must be good!

[Luxoris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they did a great job with Vioxx. Amazing efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh - small sample space pvn. One example doesn't make a case, you can do better than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fen-Phen.

oh, these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Note that really FDA "approval" isn't a measure to protect citizens, it's much more effective as a measure to protect big pharma. They get protection from small competitors through the erection of artificial barriers to entry, and they get a lot of PR and some legal protection since their drugs are "approved". After all, government says go, it must be good!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fen-Phen is a perfect example of the success of regulation, not its failure. The market was using them in a manner not approved by the FDA, when the problems were revealed, it took the FDA, not the market to ban it.

lol at using wiki as cite for assessing the intent/effectiveness of the FDA. Wiki is somewhat credible when it comes to facts, its not better than a blog when it comes to opinions.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, has statism somehow been vindicated here?


[/ QUOTE ]

This conversation isn't about statism. It's about the markets ability to regulate itself with particular emphasis on how the market regulates itself when operating within an AC framework. Statism has nothing to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet your not "safe" from these bozos.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am, I choose not to play online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
ACist constantly repeat that AC is NOT utopian. It doesn't make murderers, theives, or cheats magically disappear. Neither do states, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well OK. But, apparently states deal with murderers and theives a whole lot better than the market regulating itself does.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is a case of "AC in Action" it's also (and moreso) a case of States in Action

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you aren't focusing on the discussion. You just what to attack your statist strawman.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's worth mentioning that no established poker site had ever been caught cheating its players before the US government interfered with the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Planet Poker had a rigged RNG. They went out of business after it was uncovered.

Dutch Boyd [censored] a bunch of his customers. He hasn't been able to get back into the business in any significant way since.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for providing further evidence of how the market has failed to eliminate the problem of cheats.

BTW, Planet Poker had people playing who managed to crack their algorithm, it wasn't cheating on the sites part. They are still in business, but not to US customers. I made lots of $ in the $5/10 games for a long time after that incident.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Statism always gets a free pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wah [censored] wah.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
This conversation isn't about statism. It's about the markets ability to regulate itself with particular emphasis on how the market regulates itself when operating within an AC framework. Statism has nothing to do with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this particular example is about statism since america has a ban on online poker and yet people still manage to go online to play and get ripped off. Even if this is a market failure there is no government solution to prevent people from being irresponsible with their money.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This conversation isn't about statism. It's about the markets ability to regulate itself with particular emphasis on how the market regulates itself when operating within an AC framework. Statism has nothing to do with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this particular example is about statism since america has a ban on online poker and yet people still manage to go online to play and get ripped off. Even if this is a market failure there is no government solution to prevent people from being irresponsible with their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only relevance that I see to this aspect is to support the notion that without the US directly intervening and regulating the market it is much more "free" (that is, operating within an AC framework). If the US had a regulatory body, like say something similar to the SEC, there would be strong disincentive for a business to behave the way AP has. Without that regulatory agency, those disincentives do not exist in a "free" market situation. That is the only relevance that statism has to this case.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The only relevance that I see to this aspect is to support the notion that without the US directly intervening and regulating the market it is much more "free" (that is, operating within an AC framework). If the US had a regulatory body, like say something similar to the SEC, there would be strong disincentive for a business to behave the way AP has. Without that regulatory agency, those disincentives do not exist in a "free" market situation. That is the only relevance that statism has to this case.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you prevent people from soliciting companies that are outside your juristiction?

Its not like AC works simply on the basis of market forces. There would probably be some form of privatized legal firms.