General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

have a big test and interview wednesday, might not have time to respond til then. will reply as soon as I can.

Megaupload Shutdown Targets Pirates ... And Legitimate Files (users)

Short interesting article.
Also, looks like some of the execs of Megaupload are facing up to 50 years in prison. This begs the question why more regulation like SOPA is needed.

Interesting case. We are watching history. The good ol' days of the internet. Precedence is being made for international law.

This begs the question why more regulation like SOPA is needed.

ding ding ding

What a marvellous thread and rigorous debate, please architects of SOPA realise that without the free internet these kinds of discussions will no longer exist.

Oh wait, they know that already.. and that's why they're doing it. Fuck you guys.

have a big test and interview wednesday, might not have time to respond til then. will reply as soon as I can.

Cool. While I'm waiting, I forgot to address this part:

To say that business' goals are opposed to society's is utterly absurd.

A business's goal is to produce the cheapest possible* product to sell at the highest price possible*. Society's goal is to have the highest quality product possible* at the lowest price possible*.
There is a constant battle between business trying to get the most out of the least and society demanding the most for the least.


* key word. What is possible is where the complexity comes in.

Steppin what exactly are you advocating?

I hear you on the fact that business is not and will never be a benevolent being. But government?

Government is a poor vehicle overall, while necessary in moderation, its powers should be limited right..?

Or what?

genuinely interested and keep the debate going

What's funny is we have a perfect example of regulated vs unregulated systems with online poker. PokerStars and FullTilt became the dominant forces in an unregulated market because they offered the best software, security, etc. On one hand - the lack of government regulation (taxes and such) allowed them to, in essence, offer lower rake for the consumer (or at least an overall lower *cost*). However, April 15th showed us all what an unregulated market could become.

Pre-Black Friday the consumer might say, "Heck yes I prefer no taxes and the free market. PokerStars has the best customer service and FT has the best software. That's why those 2 rose to the top."

Post-Black Friday that same consumer might say, "Wait, what? FT stole my money and I have no recourse? Where's the accountability!? We need someone to do something about this!" (i.e. regulation)

I'm guessing AGTJ prefers the "Wild West" days of online poker and SR prefers the regulated style of France, Italy, and hopefully the U.S. in the near future. Obviously the parallels aren't perfect, but I'm interested to hear what each of you think in regards to online poker. Ya know, considering this is a poker forum and all

Personally, I enjoyed the free market nature pre-Black Friday because of the obvious benefits that come with it, but I never fully trusted the companies. That's why I always kept the least amount of $ possible on those sites. I'm glad I never made it to high stakes because I don't know if I'd ever feel comfortable having that large of a bankroll on a site in an unregulated market. Hearing how much $ Wilt has lost (Eurolinx, FT, etc.) due to the unregulated nature of the market instilled very little confidence in me. For those reasons, I prefer regulation of the online poker world and the consumer confidence that comes with it. Sure, the cost of that regulation will be less efficient markets, but I'll take less efficient > completely lawless.

Don't have time to get into back and forth with razor again til tomorrow : ), but Techmo - it wasn't a free market. The UIGEA was in place (ahh, market barriers!). This discouraged/prevented a lot of companies from entering the market (and made Party leave the market). The consumer didn't have much choice, which is why UB was able to still get business despite all the shady stuff that went down there. Also, the government's restrictions on transactions led to Full Tilt crediting players accounts like $60M or w/e without actually receiving the money. Sure, the Full Tilt owners are still scum, but everyone would have been able to get their money if it wasn't for the government messing everything up.

Regulated and taxed online poker is going to be money straight out of the players' pockets as there will be less competition due to government licensing (ahh, market barriers!), taxation (tax incidence will go to us through higher rake), and regulation (costs will go to us as well).

I'm guessing AGTJ prefers the "Wild West" days of online poker

I'd prefer the Party days (pre UIGEA).

Steppin what exactly are you advocating?

I hear you on the fact that business is not and will never be a benevolent being. But government?

Government is a poor vehicle overall, while necessary in moderation, its powers should be limited right..?

Or what?

genuinely interested and keep the debate going

Business has to be benevolent- at least in a real free market.

This is the key to capitalism- it harnesses inherent human greed and self interest and forces even the greediest, seediest, grimiest thug to help people via services or products if they want to run a business.

Personally I don't see too many grimy/seedy or even greedy business owners and I work with a lot of them but business has to be benevolent or the market will wreck them. This assumes an actual free market- banks for instance have special circumstances and aren't necessarily a true free market.

Steppin what exactly are you advocating?

I hear you on the fact that business is not and will never be a benevolent being. But government?

Government is a poor vehicle overall, while necessary in moderation, its powers should be limited right..?

What I'm saying is that anarcho-capitalism is no better than utter state control. Extremes on either end are not operable.

As Tuneman07 says, business must be benevolent if there are no rules. That simply is not possible with human beings. Someone will do something that isn't benevolent as long as they can make money off it and there is no authority to tell them different. The UB superuser was inevitable. Inevitable. Someone will go there. Even in a regulated market there's example after example of unscrupulous behavior in American business.

There is a vast area in between totalitarianism and anarchy. It is in this area that debate is fruitful. The scale and role of government as it operates in society is absolutely a valid concern.


Me personally, I posit that government is necessary, and operates occasionally in the interest of the public. The concept was born out of need.
People critical of government have plenty of legitimate complaints about it. Certainly in our (American) current society, government is mainly a tool with which corporate interests exert their will upon the public. But one cannot (or rather should not) ignore its vital functions, appropriate functions, or that it sometimes operates in the interests of its people. If the people can, they should maintain their control over it. That has not happened here, but it's the way our government formed, not the fact that government is, that is the cause of people loss of control.

I personally believe in a limited government. And an efficient one. I don't want lobbyists writing bills, or hysteria driving regulations (like in nuke plant construction after 3mile island). I don't want a party taking their ball and going home. I want government to do what is necessary to protect its citizens whether it's from the King of England or the CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you picked a random topic, I would undoubtedly agree that government is doing something wrong. I don't want to throw it all away though, just the wrong parts.
I will go a bit further, and understand why someone else does not. I also want government to guarantee access to certain things I believe to be vital to all if access is not already available. I can understand those against universal health care and I'm fine with debating its form, but as a theoretical goal I think it is good and appropriate that a government ensure everyone equal access to life saving treatment. I think government sponsored is the cheapest way, but if government can structure regulations that will create the same end result, then that is a government success.
You mentioned above about how SOPA impacts access to the internet. I think lacking access to the internet in this day and age is crippling. If government can provide a financial incentive to companies to run cable to every corner of the country, that is a success for government and business. If government can assure that access is available to all that's good. Note that I did not say government should be the ISP. Only that if they can influence the conditions that allow universal access, then yay. What's wrong with that?
A public education system is good for all of us. What SOPA represents is bad for all of us.

At the same time, there are myriad ways in which government has a presence where it should not. Because competing interests influence rulemaking, there's a massive overreach, obstructionist rules, and improper manipulation by goverment everywhere. And not just federal government. State governments are just smaller scale, not any better. Right now our government is a battlefield and a weapon and it's used against us.

We need to have government that works for us, whether that's by getting out of our way or setting basic rules. I think enforceable rules are necessary. It may only be fantasy, but we should strive for it.

lol and the Enron people went to jail. Idk where the hell you got the idea that I think that a free market is utopian and that ppl will never be dishonest or corrupt lol. That was never my point. My point was that government regulations don't help but only hurt, prior retraint is wrong, and government mandates makes things worse. And in case you weren't aware, government regulators are people too who are just as (and usually more) susceptible to corruption.

Also see Sneakers' post.



a) greed and corruption is the most rampant in the government. Big Brother isn't going to take care of you sweetie

b) Lol, if a business fills the market with bogus consumer products, they won't sell, and a competitor will fill the market with consumer-satisfying products and make a killing.



a) math's application in a lot of areas of economics is one thing, but disregarding logic is like saying "I suggest you go watch some poker videos where the instructor's reasoning for every play is that he 'felt like doing it'" Fwiw a lot of the Austrians have been very critical of a lot of the mathematics used to in economics, and put a lot of emphasis on "praxeology."

b) Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises



Don't have time to read/respond to steppin razor's post now, will get to it later

1) And please explain to me how those Enron executives would've gone to jail without a central authority enforcing legal mandantes.

2) If a company fills a market with bogus consumer products, they will sell and they will cause irreperable damage to the health and confidence of the market. Mortgage derivatives were a bogus consumer product sold by financial institutions for years with a AAA rating that nearly caused a catastrophic, world wide collapse in the financial sector and has caused a 10 year + global economic recession and the likely collapse of the European Union at a minimum. It's not as simple as saying bogus products wont sell and those products will inevitably be replaced by good products, the interim of that process is potentially devestating.

3) Greed and corruption is not the most rampant in government, it's just more evident in government than in corporations because the greedy and corrupt are forced to answer to their constituents as opposed to in corporations where the greedy and corrupt are only forced to answer to their stock holders.

4) I'm not telling you to disregard logic, I'm saying that economics treats markets and consumers as rational actors when in reality markets and consumers are inherently irrational. If you fail to take into consideration the human element in socio-economics and the need to regulate over confidence, fear, greed and corruption under the assumption a free market and rational actors will balance itself out then you're relying too much on economic theory and not enough on history to rationalize your position.

I dislike government as much as the next guy, but its roll in the market is absolutely critical because it regulates irrational behavior etc.

Edit: Also take care of your diminuitive language, people are being nice enough to point out the flaws in your 2p2 socio anarcho capitalist college idealism respectfully, you can do the same.

Edit: Also take care of your diminuitive language, people are being nice enough to point out the flaws in your 2p2 socio anarcho capitalist college idealism respectfully, you can do the same.

From your first post - "All of the "free market" bull shit you learned in college" - yeah very respectful. I sarcastically called you sweetie to add emphasis to a point in a debate on an internet forum, get over it. I'm being nice enough to point out the flaws in your beloved nanny-state government. And anyway, you were the one who started the condescension with the quoted statement above. Further, you have 73 posts, you're a lot more likely to have come from 2p2 than I. I have about 25 posts on 2p2.


Will respond to the rest of your post and get back to the real debate tmrw guys.

I don't think a static range is the answer. But I think that a good protection against fraud and lobbyism is vital. I would also expect that good free education and good free medical care is a part of the best solution in most countries . If there is a large percentage of poor people in a country it is more important than in a rich country.

FWIW: A rich country in my definition does not have a large percentage of poor people.

As Tuneman07 says, business must be benevolent if there are no rules. That simply is not possible with human beings. Someone will do something that isn't benevolent as long as they can make money off it and there is no authority to tell them different. The UB superuser was inevitable. Inevitable. Someone will go there. Even in a regulated market there's example after example of unscrupulous behavior in American business.

There wasn't much of a free market with UB, there technically was, but it was undergound/"grey market". In a free market system UB is done forever if what happened there happened in the true free market. They would be shut down (for breaking the law) or at the very least they would suffer tremendous monetary loss from lost business.

Obviously laws will be broken, but we have laws (with UB that would be fraud). This strikes at the heart of what we want to be as a society. We cannot ever stop bad things from happening, but do we want to eliminate freedoms to try and pretend we are stopping something bad from happening?


Simple example- I have to drink beer out of a plastic bottle at the Bears game because some idiot might chuck a glass bottle onto the field/smash it over a security guards head. I have never done that or anything even remotely close to that, yet I still have to drink out of the stupid plastic bottle.

1) And please explain to me how those Enron executives would've gone to jail without a central authority enforcing legal mandantes.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that there be zero government. Rather, that there are simple decency rules/laws that handle clear fraud and crimes of this sort.

Enron was busted by a so-called "whistle blower" employee (granted this is debated) -- but not by any further stringent regulations or moral/ethics police. For that reason Arthur Anderson (one of the Big Five) lost its customers and dissolved. This is proof that consumer decisions work. Arthur Anderson was the accounting firm that essentially was certifying their finances/accounting for the public and govt.

So in a nutshell, laws that were currently already on the book were enforced, No other regulation was needed. With that said, I kind of agree with the SOX section that protects "whistleblowers". However, I do believe that was handle by laws on the book already.

Same deal as far as I can tell with SOPA, illegal immigration, hate crimes, and/or any other fraud and crimes.
Plain clear rules....not more beauracracy.

One of the things we see in Congress -- is that many of the members believe they are not doing their job -- unless they are creating new legislation. See what I did. Vote for me again

What happens is that only the wealthy can afford to hire big-guns (lawyers/accountants) in order to circumvent the new regulations. That is historically true. It will always be the little guy or startup that gets the barriers put up. Anyone who has started a business with employees (and not a huge amount of cash) finds this out quickly.

Regulations always stack the deck against the little guy -- inadvertedly creating more barriers.