|
|
#21
10-29-2007, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
Exactly.
You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves. 
|
|
#22
10-29-2007, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] When you exclude legitimate business, you get scumbags filling the demand. Have you ever wondered why crack dealers shoot each other, but Bud and Miller delivery agents do not? [/ QUOTE ] Holy False Dichotomy, Batman! Just because ****some**** "legitimate" businesses don't participate, or are prohibited from participating, does not mean that the rest of the businesses participating are all run by scumbags. [/ QUOTE ] Holy words in my mouth, batman! I didn't say all of the rest of them are scumbags. But the more legitimate players are excluded, the more room there is for scumbags.
|
|
#23
10-29-2007, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen this movie before. Prohibition does not equal regulation. [/ QUOTE ] L O L R U SRS???? You can't get any MORE "regulated" than PROHIBITED.
|
|
#24
10-29-2007, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do. [/ QUOTE ] Not only that but most players are losing players anyway. How much extra -EV is going on for the average player at absolute? The average fish isnt probably going to notice the difference. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, I lose $25 a month at the movie theater but if they started selling me tickets for The Kingdom and showing me Saw IV I'd like to think I'm smart enough to realize I'm being defrauded, and to stop going there, if I cared.
|
|
#25
10-29-2007, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves. [/ QUOTE ] So because some people are dumb and lazy everyone should have to pay for them to get what they want?
|
|
#26
10-29-2007, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Right, but "having to shoulder the cost of your preferences" is the single most important driver of society, IMO. Thats the whole point of pvn's "Give everyone a free pony" line. If people arent faced to pay the price of realizing their preferences then there are no limits. The poor will drive the rich into oblivion with their whims.
|
|
#27
10-29-2007, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Exactly. You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Right, but "having to shoulder the cost of your preferences" is the single most important driver of society, IMO. Thats the whole point of pvn's "Give everyone a free pony" line. If people arent faced to pay the price of realizing their preferences then there are no limits. The poor will drive themselves into oblivion with their whims. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#28
10-29-2007, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen this movie before. Prohibition does not equal regulation. [/ QUOTE ] Whatever semantic argument you want to make prohibition is government intervention in a market, and that government intervention distorts the market. ACland, as proposed, would be absent that intervention and thus your proposal that the online gambling industry mimics a free market is false.
|
|
#29
10-29-2007, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen this movie before. Prohibition does not equal regulation. [/ QUOTE ] ORLY? What part of the Constitution would you expect Congressmen to cite if asked where they get the power to prohibit the growth and sale of marijuana? Prohibition is the ultimate execution of the power of regulation.
|
|
#30
10-29-2007, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think this would be true in ACland? [/ QUOTE ] Um, I think you missed something. My position is that AP is operating in ACland. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I'm trying to argue against. It would much easier to sue AP (or individuals within it) in ACland, without state borders and other restrictions (edit: yes, I understand that it would also be easier to sue them if online poker were legal and regulated here). This indicates to me that AP is not operating in an exact ACland, and/or that we can't use every particular of this example.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
