Poker scandal
#1
Posted 2011-September-22, 08:56
http://online.wsj.co...1398633386.html
#2
Posted 2011-September-22, 09:18
mike777, on 2011-September-22, 08:56, said:
http://online.wsj.co...1398633386.html
Felix Salmon had a good piece on this
http://blogs.reuters...ull-tilt-ponzi/
Money quote:
Quote
#3
Posted 2011-September-22, 09:25
hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 09:18, said:
So if 'daddy government' doesn't take care of us we're screwed? More power to the government?
Although I agree that if they had taken care it wouldn't have happened, it is also true that if you are doing something illegal you are risking some consequences...
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#4
Posted 2011-September-22, 09:28
And if anyone here has money locked up on Tilt, I'm pulling for you. glglgl
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#5
Posted 2011-September-22, 10:18
Hanoi5, on 2011-September-22, 09:25, said:
Yes... More power to the government. (Or, if you prefer to phrase things differently, less rat feces in our dinners)
#6
Posted 2011-September-22, 10:22
wyman, on 2011-September-22, 09:28, said:
I don't see why... There are any number of examples where legalization and subsequent regulation have significantly improve quality.
Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.
#7
Posted 2011-September-22, 10:55
#8
Posted 2011-September-22, 11:32
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#9
Posted 2011-September-22, 12:18
hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 10:22, said:
Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.
I think this is not the most helpful comparison.
Less helpful comparison: Prohibited black market (A) vs. legalized/regulated market (B)
More helpful comparison: Legalized/regulated market (B) vs. legalized/unregulated market (C )
Arguing that B>A does not mean that B>C. I'm not taking a position, but since I suspect that most here will agree that A is the worst scenario, the debate should be between B and C.
#10
Posted 2011-September-22, 12:43
hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 10:22, said:
Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.
It follows from his point that government should legalize and regulate everything that's both illegal and dangerous, but which would be less dangerous if regulated. Otherwise, he assigns blame to the government for any injury sustained as a result of the dangerous activity/substance/whatever. I assume he also blames the government for any immigrants killed by coyotes or otherwise as a result of human trafficking and any who die escaping from places like Cuba, since if we just had an open immigration policy, they would be better off. I also assume he blames the government if a guy gets an STD from a hooker, since if we legalized prostitution, then the hookers would have to register with the health department and maintain a clean bill of health.
And maybe you think we should have totally open borders and legal prostitution. And that's fine. My point is simply that some things -- not necessarily those, and certainly not poker -- should be illegal, and people who do things that they know are illegal do them at their own risk.
Government taxation and regulation of online poker would certainly be positive effects of "legalization" (note this is in quotes because its current legal status is unclear). But to say that the government is to blame for people being robbed by the owners of an online poker site is just silly in my opinion.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#11
Posted 2011-September-22, 13:34
wyman, on 2011-September-22, 12:43, said:
Saying that something bad could have been prevented by government regulation is not the same as saying that the government is "to blame" for it happening.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#12
Posted 2011-September-22, 13:39
PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:
Quote
Am I missing something? [my emphasis added]
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#13
Posted 2011-September-22, 14:01
PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:
no, but saying gov't is responsible seems to assign at least some blame
#14
Posted 2011-September-22, 14:09
When government forbids an activity (drinking, poker, drugs, whatever), the people who emerge to enable that activity either were already criminals or become criminals.
Yes, in that way government is to blame: for most of the deaths perpetrated by the Mob during prohibition, and for the shady and/or shoddy money deals of FTP.
Absent prohibitions, people emerge who ---acting in their own best interests --- improve the service provided and keep the unsavory types in line; OR people (customers or providers) emerge who demand of government that it regulate the activity.
Prohibition is just not a good idea.
#15
Posted 2011-September-22, 14:41
luke warm, on 2011-September-22, 14:01, said:
I guess that's right, since the government imposes the anti-gambling measures. But most of the blame falls on the people who do not exercise personal responsiblity for what they do.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#16
Posted 2011-September-22, 14:59
PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:
OTOH, saying that something good happened when something was regulated is not the same as saying the government gets credit for it happening.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#17
Posted 2011-September-22, 19:10
aguahombre, on 2011-September-22, 14:09, said:
(...)
Prohibition is just not a good idea.
I think killing people is prohibited. And I think that's a good idea in general. Unfortunately humans cannot agree on what's good or bad, there will always be opinions in favor and against anything.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#18
Posted 2011-September-22, 19:42
Hanoi5, on 2011-September-22, 19:10, said:
Not particularly relevant to my post, or to yours. But is killing people a good idea, or the prohibition of it, in your opinion?
#19
Posted 2011-September-22, 19:56
Killing is prohibited and yet many countries send soldiers to other countries to kill people.
In the end opinions are like asses and everyone should treat their religion like their penises, but we'll continue to discuss all this all over again.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#20
Posted 2011-September-22, 20:25
My post stated the Probibition (U.S. Volstead Act) led to deaths; was not a value judgement about people's pleasures, but rather an opinion about government deciding what those pleasures should be.