Chainsaw M Linden Gets The Chop – Philip Linden Steps In
by Pixeleen Mistral on 25/06/10 at 11:26 am
Linden Lab CEO M Linden is stepping down, after axing 30% of the Lab’s staff in recent weeks and pulling a surprise no-show for his speech at the Second Life 7th Birthday celebration. Philip Linden has been named interim CEO in a move that raised the hopes of residents with short memories, but left those who recall the reign of king Philip un-moved — and brought frowns to the faces of those who realize the Lab’s board of directors have signed off on the Lab’s questionable strategies over the last few years. Philip Linden is the chairman of the Linden Lab board.
M Linden land offline permanently?
Funeral arrangements for M Linden’s avatar’s remains are uncertain. The Linden mass grave in Rouge sim would seem to be an obvious choice for a memorial, but when asked for comment sim owner CodeBastard Redgrave was concerned about possible griefing.
Pixeleen Mistral: do you have a headstone for M Linden yet?
CodeBastard Redgrave: lol not yet.. think he deserves one?
Pixeleen Mistral: why not? it will be interesting to see what sort of gifts the residents leave by it
CodeBastard Redgrave: or get my sim griefed lmao
CodeBastard Redgrave: but i’m thinking about it, honestly. he was not such a bad guy, he just had a dirty job to do.
The immediate impact of the return of Philip Linden on the L$ market was neutral, and volumes on the LindenX L$ spacebux currency exchange remain low. After dropping significantly in value against the $USD in the last week, the L$ fictional currency seems unlikely to strengthen in the near term.
We
Jun 27th, 2010
@IntLibber
“Once again, you fail to distinguish the difference between zero odds and million to one odds. The difference is small but not infinitely so. Therefore your contention that it is quantitatively equal to jumping off a cliff is provably false. Firstly, your odds of surviving a cliff jump are zero for any cliff taller than x feet, demonstrably so with statistical histories, while people provably win at million to one odds all the time.”
I might point out that there are hundreds of thousands more people gambling every day then there are people jumping off cliffs, and the results of the former is more statistically analyzed than the latter. Additionally, there is a chance of surviving a cliff fall, there’s incidents of people surviving parachuting after their chute wouldn’t pull. Anyways the point is, the chances of me winning a slot machine at million to one odds are so ridiculously statistically insignificant that it’s not worth doing. You seem to be talking about an overall statistic, of “well if it’s 1 in a million, and a million people play, then one is likely to win” but I think that idea is little comfort to the other 999,999 people who just lost money. I’m talking about the chance of one specific person winning. In the same way that it’s possible to win at such ridiculous odds, it’s possible that I could play slots every minute, of every day, for my entire life, and never win once. Just because something has a chance of happening, doesn’t mean it’ll ever happen.
“and also that Linden Lab requires that none operate below a given percentage.”
You mentioned an oversight board earlier, I asked for proof of this because I had never heard of such a thing, you never did. Do you have proof for this statement as well? I’ve never heard Linden Lab “requiring” anything for gambling, besides that you don’t do it in Second Life.
“Now, you may have no hope that you are that winner, if you are sufficiently pessimistic. People with depression usually are. That doesn’t mean your conclusion is rational or statistically accurate.”
I prefer the term “realistic”, but please continue with the passive-aggressive personal attacks if you think it makes your argument seem more valid. Tell you what, since you like wagers, you can play a million to one slot machine, and I’ll bet you a million dollars that you are not the one in a million. That’s a 100% return on risk as you say, and evidently believing that you will be the winner in this is rational and statistically accurate.
“Casinos don’t “prey” on anything.”
You’ve probably said “no” to that bet by now; Because it’s a stupid bet. But that’s how casinos work, they prey on the idea that someone will come in, see all those big numbers for the jackpot, and think “hey maybe I’ll be that guy who gets it!”, then after they’ve tossed away their life-savings, they’ve learned what everyone else knows: no, you won’t be.
Casinos in SL were even worse, since they had no guarantees of winning whatsoever, unless you can point out some proof to these LL gambling oversight boards and regulations you keep referring too, then there never was any regulation for gambling in SL and no guarantee if you won they would pay you your winnings, or that you could win at all.
“This is simple and understandable to most people who are capable of rational thought.”
Ending with another passive-aggressive personal attack? Well aren’t you just precious.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 27th, 2010
@We “I would say the thing about banning Gambling is not about being a nanny government to limit choice, but rather to do the other side of things: to limit the ability for bad people to get rich and powerful by using scams. People are rarely highly informed, and bad people will go to great lengths to make sure they’re not. ”
This is the arrogant argument of the truly self-righteous. It’s the “people are too stupid to think for themselves and make harmful decisions but I’m here to protect them from those evil people that will exploit their stupidity” argument.
Of course every dictator in history justified his power with pretty much the same argument. It’s an exercise in hyper-vain paternalism to think you can make better decisions for adults then the individuals who suffer direct consequences of their own personal choices. Such thinking is nothing more than a rationale for control over people’s lives. It’s a road paved with good intentions that leads to the destruction of freedom.
I’m quite capable of determining if I want to gamble or not. So, butt the hell out of my internet and let me take care of myself. Thank you.
We
Jun 28th, 2010
@Persephone
I might point out again, I have never said that Gambling should be banned. I like how it’s mostly treated now in the US, not allowed most places, but there are special areas and zoning it can be done, and there are many government oversights. SL had none of that I might also mention.
I might also point out that my argument is not for banning you from gambling because I “know better” but rather that I can understand why it could be banned for the purposes of keeping bad people exploiting idiots and getting rich and powerful. If you want to make a stupid decision, fine, but make it on your own terms, don’t get the mafia rich in the process of it.
Careful, you’re treading close to Godwin’s territory. But I appreciate that you’re comparing banning bad people getting rich by scamming the unaware to dictatorships. It’s fantastically out there on the slippery slope water-park, up there with “legalizing gay marriage will turn Americans into communist homosexuals who like beastiality”.
IntLibber Brautigan
Jun 28th, 2010
We,
“Tell you what, since you like wagers, you can play a million to one slot machine, and I’ll bet you a million dollars that you are not the one in a million. That’s a 100% return on risk as you say, and evidently believing that you will be the winner in this is rational and statistically accurate.”
Actually, it isn’t, demonstrating that you lack the rational and mathematical faculties to have an informed judgement in these matters. When you figure out and can explain how you are wrong, then we can continue the discussion.
We
Jun 28th, 2010
@IntLibber
Well I can tell you that the odds of winning after playing a round in a million to one slot machine would be 0.0001% if you think that your mathematical prowess would net you that odd in one try, then I invite you to go to Las Vegas and become super rich. Too bad being condescending wouldn’t help bolster your odds, huh? But I can understand why you’d want to flee the lazily constructed house of “logic” that is your debate.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 28th, 2010
@We “I have never said that Gambling should be banned.”
And then…
“I can understand why it could be banned for the purposes of keeping bad people exploiting idiots and getting rich and powerful.”
Okay, so you never explicitly said that gambling should be banned, but yet you made an argument that would rationalize gambling? Are you ever sure where you stand on this issue?
We
Jun 28th, 2010
@Persephone
It’s the difference between
“I can understand why someone want Gambling banned”
and
“I DEMAND Gambling be banned”
You can understand something without fully agreeing with it. I stated my exact position on a gambling ban, which you happily glossed over.
“I like how it’s mostly treated now in the US, not allowed most places, but there are special areas and zoning it can be done, and there are many government oversights”
Danziel Lane
Jun 28th, 2010
Well … gambling …
One of the reasons for casinos to be rich is that many many people think they know better about the odds …
However, back to topic:
M “Chainsaw” Linden swung his chainsaw a hundred times. 100 heads rolled.
Did He calculate the odds?
Did he count on himself being the next head to roll?
Were his odds exactly 1:100, were they better, were they worse?
If someone is so experienced with the chainsaw, shouldn’t he be able to work with it a bit more carefully?
Did anyone ever survive a chainsaw massacre that he started?
Questions … so many questions about the article …
Will they ever be answered or will you return to the gambling ban discussion?
I bet you wll …
Oh no! If I do, I will get banned!
darkfoxx
Jun 28th, 2010
About the leaving of M and the return of Phil: I dont think Phil was ever alone in making policies and regulations on SL, neither was M and Phil wont be now that he’s back. There’s other parties that have a say in that, the LL lawyers to name one… So, I dont think it will make much of a difference really.
On gambling, short and simple:
Every time someone says “there should be a law” there probably shouldn’t.
And personal opinion: gambling is stupid. If you’re eager to just give your money away, there’s a million better ways to get rid of it.
(send it to me for instance! There’s a bigger chance i’ll give you double your money back then in any casino on SL. Really. I promise. Scout’s honour.)
Gundel Gaukelei
Jun 28th, 2010
“The Moor has done his work – the Moor may go.”
So thats what the M stands for…
Persephone Bolero
Jun 28th, 2010
@We “and there are many government oversights”
And we come back to the question at hand. Why do you think that a third party is more capable of making decisions in an individual’s interest than the individuals who will suffer most directly the consequences of said decisions?
You say because, basically, most people are stupid and easily exploited. Well, with powerful bureaucracies looking out for them, what incentive do they have to carefully consider the outcomes of their choices?
But also, if many (or most) people are basically too stupid to protect themselves from exploitation, as you suggest, why do you think these government bureaucracies, which presumably would be operated by human beings, would be more benign than those evil people that exploit the simple minds that populate the majority of this world, as you claim? Why would they possess the wisdom the majority of people, you believe, do not? In other words, what mechanism would be more effective at keeping these “evil” people from populating the bureaucracies just as they allegedly run casinos? What mechanism elevates these public servants to a position of moral authority by way they would be more apt to do good for people? How are the incentives for a bureaucrat given toward producing good more so than the incentives for a casino? After all, since taxes are collect by force or the threat thereof, bureaucrats are paid regardless of whether or not their “customers” are satisfied with their services. Casinos still have to attract their customers, who at any time can simply walk away and refuse to pay anymore. Wouldn’t a casino be therefore less inclined than a bureaucracy to leave their customers dissatisfied? Why do you think government oversight is more effective at protecting people than individual choice?
We
Jun 28th, 2010
@Persephone
I think you miss the point of “Government Oversights”, not to limit freedoms, but to limit Casinos from turning their games from mostly scams to entirely scams. Like in SL, it’s very possible that some of the gambling machines had 0 chance to really win, and only paid out small amounts every now and then to keep people playing. Or, if you did have a chance to win, they might just refuse to pay you the money. And who would be there to stop them? The Government oversights in real gambling aren’t there to shut it down, they’re there to make sure that the people who have decided to gamble at least get something of a chance to win, however small. Do you think that you would still be championing this libertarian “keep government out of gambling” cause, if you had just won a jackpot at a casino, and the casino owner told you to get lost when you went to get paid? Believe me, if there were no third parties to regulate that, they would.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 28th, 2010
@We “Do you think that you would still be championing this libertarian “keep government out of gambling” cause, if you had just won a jackpot at a casino, and the casino owner told you to get lost when you went to get paid?”
That’s called fraud. You might as well be calling for massive government oversight of ice cream trucks. I mean, what happens if a kid gives the man money for an ice cream cone and he drives off? Won’t you think of the children??? Obviously, if you hit a jackpot and are not paid for it, it’s an act of criminal behavior. We’re not talking about protecting people from criminals. Those protections already exist and there’s no need to debate their necessity.
We’re talking about oversight of an entire industry. And if you think a casino industry should be regulated to make sure everyone who hits a jackpot is actually paid, why not have a Federal Bureau of Mobile Ice Cream Dealers to ensure ice cream truck drivers give kids the ice cream they paid for? In that case, we’re at least talking about a population that isn’t responsible for their own choices.
I’m talking about a casino sets up shop and offers people games of chance. And the question still stands: Why can’t adult individuals decided for themselves whether or not the casino owners offer something of value for their money? I think people are quite capable of exercising the best judgment in their own interests better than any bureaucracy. After all, since when are people more careful with other people’s money than the owners of that money? It defies rational thought to think otherwise.
elnalter
Jun 28th, 2010
“I think people are quite capable of exercising the best judgment in their own interests better than any bureaucracy. After all, since when are people more careful with other people’s money than the owners of that money? It defies rational thought to think otherwise.”
Umm, okay Ayn Rand. Yet time and time again, people have been proven to be rather irresponsible unto themselves, concerning their health and their wallets. Look at the state of America, almost everyone’s fat and broke. The total free market argument never works, because it’s too idealistic and contrary to the state of the goddamn species. I’m not saying the entire market has to be regulated, but restrictions placed with care are the only logical course here.
Because your argument is the justification that real estate should be cheated away from old people who don’t know any better. If they’re over 18, and dumb enough to fall for a snakeoil pitch, they’re free game? People should have some protection to an extent, and your ice-cream argument is a clear leap of strawman extremist logic.
IntLibber Brautigan
Jun 28th, 2010
Quite right Persephone.
We,
You evidently know ZERO about libertarian thought about anything. Libertarians recognise that the SOLE duty of government is to protect people from FORCE and FRAUD.
Fraud can happen in ANY economic activity, so using it as a justification to ban an economic activity is groundless.
You’ve got this pathological obsession with the idea that certain types of activity are always scams, always criminally run, and therefore should always be prohibited, that fits in with your extremely pessimistic outlook on the human species which is, unfortunately, so typical of the big government socialist/fascist type who thinks that all people are no damn good or else are all dumber than a bag of hammers and need to be told what to do their entire lives by big nanny government. Sorry, but your point of view is certifiably insane.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 28th, 2010
@We Oh, and one more point. Your claims that gambling oversight doesn’t result in banning… well, yes it does. Like all government intrusion, the tendency is to start with protections and move slowly toward prohibitions.
From John Stossel’s blog:
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/where-is-john-galt-when-you-need-him/
We
Jun 29th, 2010
@Persephone
“We’re talking about oversight of an entire industry. And if you think a casino industry should be regulated to make sure everyone who hits a jackpot is actually paid, why not have a Federal Bureau of Mobile Ice Cream Dealers to ensure ice cream truck drivers give kids the ice cream they paid for? In that case, we’re at least talking about a population that isn’t responsible for their own choices.”
I noticed you ignored the other point of it, since it distinctly doesn’t apply to Ice cream trucks or any other business, that there may be NO chance that you can win a slot machine or any other such gambling game, without government oversight making sure you can. Fraud is easy to tell when it’s someone running off with your money, but how would you tell with an intricate machine like a slot machine, without someone with the authority outside of the structure to learn the inner-workings and make sure they’re fair? And who do you think enforces fraud laws anyways, private business owners? It’s government oversight for all businesses to make sure they’re playing fair and nice, because in a free market economy they absolutely would not.
“Why can’t adult individuals decided for themselves whether or not the casino owners offer something of value for their money?”
I haven’t answered the question, because it has nothing to do with my debate stance or point of view. But why is murder illegal? Can’t people make their own choices on whether or not killing is a good idea, why can’t we keep the bureaucratic fat-cats out of my murdering habits?
@IntLibber
“You evidently know ZERO about libertarian thought about anything. ”
Judging from your behavior, I’d say it has to do with waltzing in, declaring yourself as having the moral and intellectual high ground, then interrupting any actual debate point with personal attacks. But I can understand how that would be easily confused with narcissism.
“Fraud can happen in ANY economic activity, so using it as a justification to ban an economic activity is groundless.”
I’m going to keep a tally now of how many times you both have claimed that I want Gambling banned, despite me stating my exact stance on the subject. This will be the 3rd time. I don’t demand banning, I demand regulation and moderation, which is what is happening with real gambling. I can’t imagine having to repeat this again to someone such as you who claims intellectual superiority every chance you get.
“You’ve got this pathological obsession with the idea that certain types of activity are always scams, always criminally run, and therefore should always be prohibited, that fits in with your extremely pessimistic outlook on the human species which is, unfortunately, so typical of the big government socialist/fascist type who thinks that all people are no damn good or else are all dumber than a bag of hammers and need to be told what to do their entire lives by big nanny government. Sorry, but your point of view is certifiably insane.”
I’m not sure why you’re using the term “certain types” when we’re only talking about Gambling. But hey, now you’ve decided I’m a communist AND a fascist based on this, that’s a pretty impressive feat for me. And we’re so close to Godwin territory now, just a bit farther, sport! I know you’re just waiting to pull out a doozy of how regulating gambling will lead to death camps.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 29th, 2010
@We “But why is murder illegal? Can’t people make their own choices on whether or not killing is a good idea, why can’t we keep the bureaucratic fat-cats out of my murdering habits?”
So, playing a slot machine is a lot like killing someone? Exactly where is the victim in that equation? See, you make a silly analogy here. Obviously, when you choose to kill someone…and pay attention now…they don’t CHOOSE to be killed. When you choose to play a slot machine, well, you choose to play a slot machine.
And people really do choose to play slot machines. And are they expecting some payout? Well, there’s the chance that might happen. Oh, but what if those slot machines are rigged to never, ever, ever pay out? What else can save you when you’re putting quarters in a machine that just keeps taking them? Right? Once you pull that handle, you just have to keep doing it until you win.
Yep. No other options in that scenario.
Seriously, that was a weak analogy to compare a person’s choice to gamble with a person’s choice to kill another. And I still fail to see why government oversight is the only possible mechanism to keep gaming fair. Why can’t competition for customers provide an incentive to make sure enough win to keep coming back? If no one ever wins at a casino, why would they keep playing there?
darkfoxx
Jun 29th, 2010
I think this is an entirely moot discussion. The US ban on internet gambling is there for one reason only: they cannot tax winnings from foreighn players and gambling sites. They care very little about the games being fair, they only care about missing out on monies. So since LL is an american based company, they’re not allowed to regulate gambling. That LL looks the other way with the still existing games and stays out of any sort of regulation is logical. If they’d regulate it, they admit to allowing it to take place, and are breaking the law.
We
Jun 29th, 2010
@Persephone
“So, playing a slot machine is a lot like killing someone?”
I was attacking the concept that you were presenting, not making a direct analogy. You’ve decided that people should have the power to do what they like, regardless of the consequences to themselves and others. And yes, gambling has consequences to others, as I’ve stated before, people who run casinos are shady people, and the money they gain from gambling gives them power. Every person that blows their life savings for the small chance of get-rich-quick is empowering bad people.
“What else can save you when you’re putting quarters in a machine that just keeps taking them? Right? Once you pull that handle, you just have to keep doing it until you win.”
I guess you’re not familiar with gambling addiction, and that’s in a society that treats gambling as a vice, with government oversight to force casinos to warn people about gambling addiction, and to set up help and services to avoid it. Now imagine that scenario where there’s no government oversight, and casinos are encouraging people with every trick in the book to be addicted. They already use a psychological tactic to help you get addicted, by giving you small wins every now and then, which make you feel good and encourage you to keep playing, while costing the casino barely anything. Not quite so easy to “just stop”.
“Why can’t competition for customers provide an incentive to make sure enough win to keep coming back? If no one ever wins at a casino, why would they keep playing there?”
Well first off, without government oversight in anti-trust laws, there’d be no such thing as competition, since it’d all be one mega-corporation by now. Second off, how would you know that “no one wins” at this casino? Especially since it’d be so easy for a company to avoid that, hire a few people, plant them around casinos and have them “win” at the games every now and then, or even more simple, just have them spread the word that lots of people win there. No government oversight to actually check the workings of the machines, so it’s your word versus the casino and all their money, lawyers, and power. Good luck on that.
At0m0 Beerbaum
Jun 29th, 2010
words words words
Spoilers: A game run by a bunch of silicon valley types that put typical corporate drones who, if had to use sheer skill and work effort to get ahead, would be mopping floors, in power, then wonder why everything falls apart is a game that is a nice recipe for disaster.
Second life is dying, and this time, it’s realistic.
If it wasn’t gambling, it’d be something else. Btw, the gambling ban had to do more with the US government than some evil linden conspiracy. The US govt in all its infinite wisdom banned internet gambling.
speculate all you want, it’s a game, it’s pretty boring, more of the things that made the game remotely interesting are old, passe, and/or have been banned.
people will get bored of the same thing and move on. SL is fucked in that regard.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 29th, 2010
@We “Every person that blows their life savings for the small chance of get-rich-quick is empowering bad people.”
How many people blow their lives savings on gambling? The vast majority of people play games of chance for harmless entertainment. Here you equate all gambling with addictive gambling. This is a fallacy used by drug warriors too to justify the ongoing war on marijuana. You take the guy that robbed a bank stoned or the mother who was too stoned to take care of her kids and equate all marijuana use with the addiction. Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of adults who consume marijuana do so in a way that harms no one. You just keep the conversation about those that use the drug in a way that harms others, equate marijuana dealers with terrorists, and then go about justifying your control over the consensual behavior of adults.
“Now imagine that scenario where there’s no government oversight, and casinos are encouraging people with every trick in the book to be addicted. ”
Imagine a scenario where adults are expected to make their own choices. Some people get addicted to video games. Yet, video game companies can make as many ads as they want, using any trick they want to convince you to play their games. There’s no secret WoW is set up to be played for hours and hours. Are they exploiting addiction? For those small few addicts, almost certainly. Where’s the government oversight stopping those evil video game companies from encouraging people to use their product?
(And please don’t try and make the lame “think of the children” argument with video games or any of this. Children are not responsible for their choices, so that’s a totally different discussion. We’re only talking about adults, and therefore, I think it’s a quite legitimate role for government to ban all gambling by minors.)
This idea that it’s not easy to “just stop” for those that have a problem is a silly argument to make. No, they can’t just stop. But they can stop. Many people get over their addictions. Whatever the case, why do the rest of us have to become responsible for the irresponsible few?
The vast majority of us engage in these activities in a way that results in nothing more than entertainment for the payers and profits for the casinos. Both parties are engaged in consensual transactions and are satisfied when the transactions cease.
Using the excuse that a small minority become addicted and therefore government oversight is necessary over gambling could be used to argue that everything needs government oversight. Can you name a pleasurable activity that no one has ever become addicted to? So, basically we’d need strict government oversight over jogging, hand washing, video games, internet, nose spray, sex, and food. All these things are addictive to some people.
“Well first off, without government oversight in anti-trust laws, there’d be no such thing as competition, since it’d all be one mega-corporation by now. ”
Oh god. You’re one of them.
Listen, if this mega-corporation threat were real, Starbucks would be the only coffee shop in the world. But they’re actually running up against the problem all mega-corporations do. Eventually, the market demands something different. So, they find themselves competing with small businesses.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/09/starbucks-midlife-crisis
And this notion they could plant people around the casino to have false wins is again your own personal belief in your superior intellect. Such a trick might work for a while, but you’re telling me that it would never be uncovered? And what if I opened up a casino next door that had real payouts? The people who came to my casino would find themselves having much more fun. So, they’d come back for more. And that would put the shady casino out of business.
Of course, if there were miles of red tape to set up a new casino, thanks to your regulations, I wouldn’t have that option. Instead, the existing casino would just need to bribe the right bureaucrat, and they can scam anyone free of competition from more honest dealers. And people playing at the shady casino would go on playing thinking your regulations are protecting them rather than making wise choices as to how they spend their money. Good job.
I’m not saying the free market would protect everyone. You *can’t* protect everyone. But handing power to a number of strangers, who are paid regardless of the quality of the services they provide, to protect everyone is bound to be far less efficient and wrought with problems. Why not rely on individual choice to protect people? It’s not perfect, but it’s far more efficient than government. And the more choices people can create, the more choices consumers will have. The more choices they have, the less room for corruption and exploitations.
darkfoxx
Jun 29th, 2010
Not to be a spoilsport, but about the mega coorperations, look at the car manufacturing industry for an example how that is not really a problem. There are hundreds of car brands in the world, but they are all owned by just a few bigger companies. But all those different brands still compete with eachother, while they share the same owners.
And a little ps on starbucks… they will never be no 1 in the world because of one simple reason. They dont sell coffee. People like coffee, simple, normal, bullshit free coffee. Starbucks fails at that.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 29th, 2010
@darkfoxx “There are hundreds of car brands in the world, but they are all owned by just a few bigger companies.”
Yes, and you’re talking about one of the most highly regulated industries in the nation. That’s the problem with regulations. They create mega-corporations.
Take Wal-Mart, for example. They’ve been a corporate whipping boy for years, largely over their low wages. So, activists demand regulations. Well, when those regulations are being crafted, guess who’s right there involved in the process. Wal-Mart’s lobbyists. These regulations create a complicated legal systems that can only be gamed by expensive lobbyists and lawyers. Who has lobbyists and lawyers? Wal-Mart or your mom and pop general store?
So, wherever there are lots of regulations, smaller competitors can’t enter or stay in the game. They simply don’t have the resources to navigate all those complicated laws. Regulations impeded competition and undermine choice. So, wherever there are regulations, there are only mega-corporations with very little consumer choice.
In the case of Starbucks, they too benefit from the competitor-killing regulations in this country, but they don’t have it so easy. It’s very easy to set up a coffee shop as opposed to a car manufacturer. So, Starbucks has been forced to work harder to create products that people want. And with their competition right down the street, consumers have lots of choices. Think how things could be if there were fewer regulations stifling competition.
We
Jun 29th, 2010
@Persephone
“How many people blow their lives savings on gambling? The vast majority of people play games of chance for harmless entertainment. Here you equate all gambling with addictive gambling. This is a fallacy used by drug warriors too to justify the ongoing war on marijuana”
I was oversimplifying for the sake of showing that, a.) it happens and b.) gambling is a multi-billion dollar industry that sells no product or service.
“Imagine a scenario where adults are expected to make their own choices. Some people get addicted to video games. Yet, video game companies can make as many ads as they want, using any trick they want to convince you to play their games.”
Apples and Oranges. WoW only costs 15 dollars a month at most, you can’t spend any more than that on one account no matter how much time you spend doing it. Gambling can cost you as much money as you have.
“And please don’t try and make the lame “think of the children” argument with video games or any of this. Children are not responsible for their choices, so that’s a totally different discussion.”
Speaking of thinking of the children, since government oversight decides where casinos can be located, without that, they can put them anywhere. I wonder how you’d feel about a casino being built next to a grade school, or a quiet park, or right next to your house.
“This idea that it’s not easy to “just stop” for those that have a problem is a silly argument to make. No, they can’t just stop. But they can stop. Many people get over their addictions. Whatever the case, why do the rest of us have to become responsible for the irresponsible few?”
Yes, many people get over their addictions, usually with the help of government funded programs made to combat the addictions, i.e.: the gambling addiction centers that casinos are forced to inform customers about. I am amused though that you’re first championing the cause that people can make their own responsible decisions better than anyone, then complaining that you’re being held back but others irresponsible decisions.
“Oh god. You’re one of them.”
Sorry, yes, I am a realist.
“Listen, if this mega-corporation threat were real, Starbucks would be the only coffee shop in the world. But they’re actually running up against the problem all mega-corporations do. Eventually, the market demands something different. So, they find themselves competing with small businesses.”
Uh, competing? No, the proper term is “buying small businesses”. That’s how mega-corporations are made, and the reason that mega-corporations AREN’T a threat now is because of government oversight and Anti-trust laws. And even with that, it’s not like it hasn’t been tried, price fixing is common (a few phone corporations even got caught doing that recently), AT&T got hit by Anti-trust laws in the 80s, Microsoft later on, etc. It’s not a problem for mega-corporations to shift to the market demands, if a small business has a successful idea, they buy the small business, if the small business won’t sell, they rip off the idea and do it with more advertising and locations (Whoops, no government oversight to regulate that, so good luck Mom and Pop).
“And this notion they could plant people around the casino to have false wins is again your own personal belief in your superior intellect. Such a trick might work for a while, but you’re telling me that it would never be uncovered? And what if I opened up a casino next door that had real payouts? The people who came to my casino would find themselves having much more fun. So, they’d come back for more. And that would put the shady casino out of business.”
My “Superior Intellect”? I think you’re referring to IntLibber, I’m not the one making claims like that. And, uncovered by who? and how? You’re making a lot of assumptions that SOMEONE would do something about it, but exactly how would this person find out that the machines don’t pay out anymore than a little bit every now and then? Again, it’s their word versus the casino. If you opened up a casino next door that had real payouts, that also means you’re making less money than the other casino, unless you’re doing the same thing as they are, giving little wins every now and then but no real chance at a jackpot, but making the little wins give a bit more money. Then Casino A runs a smear campaign against your casino, claiming all the things they do against yours using the same people to spread rumors.
“Of course, if there were miles of red tape to set up a new casino, thanks to your regulations, I wouldn’t have that option. Instead, the existing casino would just need to bribe the right bureaucrat, and they can scam anyone free of competition from more honest dealers. And people playing at the shady casino would go on playing thinking your regulations are protecting them rather than making wise choices as to how they spend their money. Good job.”
Aaah, see, now you’re starting to see what casino owners are really like. Course, the idea of an “honest” casino owner is a delightful fantasy in your libertarian unicorn valley. All taking away the regulations would do is let them play even dirtier than they do now. Think about that, how dirty and shady casinos are currently, is how they are with regulations and oversight, unlock that beast and they’d bring new meanings to the word “sleaze”.
“I’m not saying the free market would protect everyone. You *can’t* protect everyone. But handing power to a number of strangers, who are paid regardless of the quality of the services they provide, to protect everyone is bound to be far less efficient and wrought with problems. Why not rely on individual choice to protect people? It’s not perfect, but it’s far more efficient than government. And the more choices people can create, the more choices consumers will have. The more choices they have, the less room for corruption and exploitations.”
The current system isn’t perfect, I’d be the first to admit that. But the Free Market system is even worse, it’s nice to idealize that you “unlock the chains” or regulations, and suddenly all the corporations decide to want to play nice with each other and everyone makes responsible choices based on intellectual and complete information. The problem is, that’s not based in reality. People will make irresponsible decisions, and those decisions will effect themselves and others. How can you make decisions on proper information when corporations are intentionally spreading false information to get you to buy their product? Corporate competition is not a guarantee. Let’s say we have a free market society, and you and I live in a inland city, and we’re both the heads of major water utility corporations, supplying water to the city. We can either compete for customers in portions of the city, sell our water utilities for less and less in the effort to compete, spend thousands on advertising. Or, we can work together, become a single entity, force everyone in the city to buy our water or get out, we can charge whatever we want, because what else would they do? They need water to survive. They can either find their own sources of water (and good luck in the middle of a city), evacuate the city (and go where? In a free market society, every city and town would be like this), or begrudgingly pay the money. Free market doesn’t create choices, it limits them.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 29th, 2010
“WoW only costs 15 dollars a month at most, you can’t spend any more than that on one account no matter how much time you spend doing it. Gambling can cost you as much money as you have. ”
Wrong. People gamble for small amounts of money all the time. Do you have anything to back up this claim that you must spend all your money to gamble? What’s the average amount spent on gambling per player? Last I looked there were lots of flights out of Vegas. How did those gamblers pay for their tickets if they’re all broke when they leave?
“I wonder how you’d feel about a casino being built next to a grade school, or a quiet park, or right next to your house.”
This is a red herring and not worth responding to. You want to debate urban planning, we can do that when we’re done with the topic at hand.
“Yes, many people get over their addictions, usually with the help of government funded programs made to combat the addictions”
Actually, the vast majority of voluntary treatment comes from private caregivers. So, again, your facts are as wrong as your opinions.
“Sorry, yes, I am a realist.”
Correction. You’re a human-hating statist.
“That’s how mega-corporations are made, and the reason that mega-corporations AREN’T a threat now is because of government oversight and Anti-trust laws.”
Wrong. Government regulations make mega-corporations possible. Small businesses can’t fund the lobbyists and lawyers that navigate complicated legal systems created by regulations. See my comment to darkfoxx for more. You’re simply wrong here.
“”Then Casino A runs a smear campaign against your casino, claiming all the things they do against yours using the same people to spread rumors.”"
And people again would be too stupid to think for themselves. Casino A said this!!!! I have to believe them!!!! Yep, can’t leave it to individual thought. You must have the almighty hand of our benevolent big brother to take care of us and tell us what to believe.
If money could make people believe whatever you tell them, why isn’t Ross Perot president? He had $4 billion of his own money. He still lost the election. Where is he today?
Wow, it’s like people don’t believe whatever you tell them, even if you have a ton of money to buy media time. It’s like…people think as individuals??? Think so?
“And, uncovered by who? and how? ”
Journalists. Other players. Competitors. Those are a few examples. There’s others.
“AT&T got hit by Anti-trust laws in the 80s, Microsoft later on, etc. ”
I guess you’ve never heard of a little device called the iPhone that’s giving Microsoft a run for its money. Let me ask you. Is iPhone the result of the free market or government oversight? What government program created the iPhone?
“Course, the idea of an “honest” casino owner is a delightful fantasy in your libertarian unicorn valley.”
That would be as opposed to your statist big brother negative utopia where people are controlled because they’re just too evil and too stupid to be free to choose. I’m sorry you have such a low opinion of mankind, but I’m no longer willing to debate that with you. People are simply better than you give them credit for and are absolutely capable of protecting themselves. And furthermore, given the freedom to do so, they will naturally prosper.
“Or, we can work together, become a single entity, force everyone in the city to buy our water or get out, we can charge whatever we want, because what else would they do? ”
And I can come in and sell people bottled water cheaper than you do, forcing you to lower your price or go bankrupt. And it would all happen thanks to individual choice.
“Free market doesn’t create choices, it limits them.”
Seriously, you just don’t get it.
We
Jun 29th, 2010
@Persephone
“Wrong. People gamble for small amounts of money all the time. Do you have anything to back up this claim that you must spend all your money to gamble? What’s the average amount spent on gambling per player? Last I looked there were lots of flights out of Vegas. How did those gamblers pay for their tickets if they’re all broke when they leave?”
I didn’t say it will, I said it can. We’re talking about addiction not casual players, a person addicted to WoW is still only paying 15 dollars a month. A person addicted to gambling can and probably is spending all their money on it.
“This is a red herring and not worth responding to. You want to debate urban planning, we can do that when we’re done with the topic at hand.”
A red herring? I’m not sure what the topic at hand is, since the topic of the story is M leaving, then it somehow shifted into SL casinos, then it shifted into all gambling, now it’s shifting into a debate on free market and libertarianism. Since zoning would have to be government regulated, it has plenty to do with free market societies. But feel free to ignore the point if it’s inconvenient to your world-view.
“Actually, the vast majority of voluntary treatment comes from private caregivers. So, again, your facts are as wrong as your opinions.”
Private caregivers? You asked for proof earlier on about one of my points, do you have any for this? (Note: I may laugh if you link to a Fox News site again)
“Correction. You’re a human-hating statist.”
Hahah what, I’m not allowed to make my own decisions on my belief system? Is acknowledging humanities selfishness “human-hating”? Ayn Rand, one of the founders of your libertarian beliefs, sees selfishness as a human virtue. I see it as a vice. The fact of the matter though is that evolution sees selfishness as a successful survival trait.
“Wrong. Government regulations make mega-corporations possible. Small businesses can’t fund the lobbyists and lawyers that navigate complicated legal systems created by regulations. See my comment to darkfoxx for more. You’re simply wrong here.”
Government regulations certainly wouldn’t help anyone, but I notice you missed the key point of how those government regulations are unfair for small businesses: lobbyists and bribery, both of which fueled by money. Who has lots of money? Big businesses. Why don’t you think that this power of money wouldn’t apply to a free market economy?
“And people again would be too stupid to think for themselves. Casino A said this!!!! I have to believe them!!!! Yep, can’t leave it to individual thought.”
One of the problems with “thinking for yourself” is that you need sources of factual information to get proper opinions. How do you do that when all the information about the casino is questionable or biased?
The other problem is, humans are able to think for ourselves when we’re alone pretty well. But around other humans, we become pack animals, and we’re easily swayed by group thought and the concept of authority. This has been proven again and again that people will not think for themselves when confronted with authority figures telling them otherwise or being forced to go against the direction of a group.
Have you ever heard of the 1974 Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience to authority? It’s where they put two people in a room, one a subject the other a figure of authority, and told them they had set up a shock system to a person in another room, and asked them to give him shocks. They were told that each level went more and more severe of a shock and asked to do more and more, and with each shock, the unseen but heard actor in the other room would scream, beg, and plead them to stop. They hypothesized that 4% would give the max lethal shock because a person of authority told them too. In the end, it turned out that 62.5% of people would give the maximum lethal dose to a person they could hear begging, screaming, and pleading with them to stop.
Stanley Milgram wrote this about it:
“I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
Or how about the 1953 Asch conformity experiments, in which a subject was put in a room with a bunch of others (all part of the experiment) and asked to answer a simple and obvious question, “Which of the lines A, B, & C is the same size as line X” The lines were made so that B was obviously the answer, but the confederates around the subject would usually all agree on the wrong answer. When they did, 33% of subjects would give the same answer as the rest, even though they knew it was wrong.
Asch wrote this regarding it:
“That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong… is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.”
Want more? Look up The Standford Prison Experiment in which students playing prison guards beat and torture their fellow students playing prisoners, The Good Samaritan Experiment in which people on the way to a sermon (about being a good Samaritan no less) ignore a man pleading for help, the Bystander Apathy Experiment, where a room full of people hear a researcher have a seizure and they all just assume someone else is going to do something about it, or the Kitty Genovese murder, where a woman is murdered while a building full of people ignored her pleas for help. It goes on and on. It sucks, I know, but that’s how it is.
“If money could make people believe whatever you tell them, why isn’t Ross Perot president? He had $4 billion of his own money. He still lost the election. Where is he today?”
He actually spent about 60 million during the 1992 campaign race, which is only a little more than Clinton and Bush were spending (about 55 million), what did that get him? Well he was leading the polls for the beginning on 20 million spending, then he inexplicably sabotaged himself by dropping out of the campaign, until he came back later, spending another 40 million, but far too late after he had seemingly already left the race. In the end he became the most successful 3rd party candidate in America with about 15% of votes, and that’s a lot considering he dropped out of the race part way through, and that it’s a two party system, so 3rd party candidates run at a disadvantage. Apparently money can get you very far.
“Journalists. Other players. Competitors. Those are a few examples. There’s others.”
Journalists? The same journalists that are a part of news empires that are currently owned by major corporations even now? Other players? Are those the ones that are possibly owned by the casinos or just the other people who are just as uninformed and confused as you are? Competitors? The OTHER source of lies you mean? This seems to be the lynch pin of libertarian thought, that SOMEONE will be there to right all the wrongs. Guess what? That someone right now is government. It may not be the best but it’s what we got.
“I guess you’ve never heard of a little device called the iPhone that’s giving Microsoft a run for its money. Let me ask you. Is iPhone the result of the free market or government oversight? What government program created the iPhone?”
The iPhone? What Microsoft made cell phones was that competing with? None probably, because Microsoft never made cell phones then, they’ve only recently decided to jump into the market. So I don’t know how iPhones are giving Microsoft a “run for their money” when the product wasn’t directly competing with any of Microsoft’s products.
“That would be as opposed to your statist big brother negative utopia where people are controlled because they’re just too evil and too stupid to be free to choose”
Give me a second, I can’t breathe with all these words you’re putting in my mouth.
“People are simply better than you give them credit for and are absolutely capable of protecting themselves”
There are two things that my views of people are based around that conflict with libertarian view points and why corporations seem heartless and cold.
1.) People are mostly selfish. Selfishness is an evolutionary successful trait. The person who sacrifices themselves dies and doesn’t pass on traits, the person who lets others die for them lives on. The only time this trait is ever over-ridden is in terms of a person’s own off-spring, which in itself is another instinct based trait.
2.) People can’t conceptualize and emphasize well with that they don’t directly come in contact with. You see video of starving nations and feel bad, but as soon as it switches off, you go right back to your merry day. This is so common there’s even a catch phrase for it: “Out of sight, out of mind.”
Mix these two things together and you get a nasty result with corporations, you get people who direct the corporation to get the most wealth possible for themselves, and because they’re rich, control things from afar, live in only rich areas and go to only rich places, they never have to see or directly come in contact with the results of their actions. To them “lay off 2,000 people” is just a number, not 2,000 lives. It would be the same way to you, me, or most anyone else. It’s how humans are, we’re not mentally built to work in such massive societies, we’re made for small family groups and tribes.
“And I can come in and sell people bottled water cheaper than you do, forcing you to lower your price or go bankrupt. And it would all happen thanks to individual choice.”
Water from where? How are you going to ship it? How are you going to distribute? What’s to stop them from buying you out? Would you simply refuse and why? You’d get more money from letting them buy you out. What if they decided to run a smear campaign? “Our team of scientists at Mega-Water Corp have discovered that Persephone Water Co. bottled water comes from a sewage facility, you can see a full report on City News Network (Owned by Mega-Water) on why Persephone Water Co. is trying to poison your children. Here are five experts (owned by Mega-Water) testifying against the safety and health of Persephone Water Co. bottled water.” Again, there seems to be this assumption that things would just happen to make everything alright.
“Seriously, you just don’t get it.”
Right back at you, sport.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 29th, 2010
@We Basically all you did was reiterate your claim that humans are worthless. Okay. I got it. You hate mankind.
You see people as evil and stupid. We disagree on this. I seek freedom to liberate individuals who I believe are basically good and capable of doing great things. You seek control over people who you see as basically evil and stupid, and who only produce pain, suffering, and exploitation.
Okay.
End of discussion.
We
Jun 29th, 2010
@Persephone
I also displayed scientific experiments as proof to my points (and you’re continually putting words in my mouth, I don’t even believe in good or evil). But sure, make sure your libertarian-brand reality blinders are on tight and flee, this debate is stupid and I’m too stubborn to give up.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 29th, 2010
I know in percy’s eyes I’m a dumb ape who knows nothing about the economy, but We gave a lot of good points. Plus you chose to only acknowledge a general point in response to what could be a book, instead of breaking down his argument in whatever way you could find bit by bit.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@We
If your experiments prove people are stupid or evil, how does putting these stupid evil people into a position of government power make them benevolent creators of good?
These so-called public servants are paid regardless of the quality of services they provide. If you’re not happy with government, you still pay taxes.
Businesses in a truly free market only succeed if their customers are happy. If you’re not happy with a business, you take your money elsewhere.
So, how is government a force of good again?
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 30th, 2010
“If you’re not happy with a business, you take your money elsewhere.”
>Because in your eyes it’s be happy or gtfo, no third option
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@Gaara In your eyes, if you’re unhappy with a business’s services, you’re a helpless oppressed victim without any options at all.
We
Jun 30th, 2010
@Persephone
“If your experiments prove people are stupid or evil”
Don’t know where you got “stupid” or “evil” out of that, they were mostly about human’s tendency to conform and to obey authority figures.
“how does putting these stupid evil people into a position of government power make them benevolent creators of good?”
Because it’s an outside governing force that is not benefited or detracted by moderating other forces. Checks and balances.
“Businesses in a truly free market only succeed if their customers are happy”
Only as long as there’s competition, which free market slowly kills. I’m surprised you’re bringing that up again, since you handily ignored a rather large section of my debate towards that point.
“End of discussion.”
Indeed. Weren’t you fleeing? I don’t imagine you’re going to say anything new that I haven’t already responded to, and that my responses aren’t going to be anything that you haven’t already glossed over and avoided.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 30th, 2010
Actually I don’t think I’m a helpless victim. If you could, please direct me to any indications I made that suggested such a strange opinion. I remember none. I have options yes, but most of what you’ve been saying, in just about every comment regarding businesses and the economy, is that if one isn’t happy with what they are investing in they should leave and take it elsewhere. That, in basic terms, is a hint that in your eyes if someone has a problem with what they are investing in, they should fuck off, so to speak.
As for options I haven’t played SL all that much lately. Just a little a day to help my friends at a club and that’s it. I’ve got an OS account, an Inworldz account. Please tell me. How do I see myself as a helpless victim?
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@Gaara “If you could, please direct me to any indications I made that suggested such a strange opinion.”
I was going to say the same thing of what you claimed my opinion was. Now you know how I felt reading your comment.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@ We “Only as long as there’s competition, which free market slowly kills.”
Regulations make it harder to open and conduct a business. How does creating impediments to opening businesses create competition?
We
Jun 30th, 2010
@Persephone
“Regulations make it harder to open and conduct a business. How does creating impediments to opening businesses create competition?”
And yet people manage to open businesses and create power house corporations from garage companies (See: Microsoft & Apple) all the time in this statist dystopian freedom-killing society of ours, how curious! Golly, maybe evil government regulations like “Don’t take over everything”, “Don’t price fix”, and “don’t fraud the customers” aren’t strangling the poor Mom and Pop store of it’s precious lifeblood, eh Bullwinkle?
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 30th, 2010
“I was going to say the same thing of what you claimed my opinion was. Now you know how I felt reading your comment.”
Again, I point to this:
“If you’re not happy with a business, you take your money elsewhere.”
I could pull out more but I don’t feel like wasting time sifting through the other topics. The point is, you’re putting words in people’s mouths while constantly saying you don’t mean what you say. You’re contradicting yourself in the long run to make yourself look good at the present, and you’re failing.
Your argument towards me is that of a child’s. You insist your opinion is not what it appears to be and yet my opinion is what you claim it to be because you say so. You then when I asked for proof of this chose to ask me to provide proof on my statement, the basis of which are comments like these, “If you’re not happy with a business, you take your money elsewhere.”, which you completely write off as not saying what you mean. Essentially, you answered a question with a question. Is it that you have no proof?
darkfoxx
Jun 30th, 2010
@ Persephone; No, im not talking about one of the nations most regulated industries, im talking about the *world*’s many car brands. As an example that big corperations are not a problem and regulations by any government is not needed.
Example. Mitsubishi and Subaru have been strongly competing with eachother, in the WRC (world rally championship) they have been eachother’s nemesis for years. No regulation there by the US government, they are Japanese brands and have factories all over the world. And guess what, they are both owned by the same company. And they still are competitors fighting for the customer’s favour… because people like choice, and they understand that very well, so they offer a choice.
I still dont know why this discussion is still going on. LL will *nevar* regulate gambling as they’d be breaking the law, big cooperations are not a problem (watch Pen & Teller’s Bullshit about Kmart), and the only regulating a government should be doing in a free market, is make sure the law is not being broken. If it truly is a free market.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@Gaara I said, “If you’re not happy with a business, you take your money elsewhere.”
This statement in no way says you don’t have any other options, and you know that. It’s an option you always have. It may not be an appealing option over the alternatives, but it’s one option you always have.
I hope that demonstrates how you mischaracterized my argument.
But yet, we’ve had this conversation before haven’t we, Gaara? I’ve explained this to you before when you’ve used straw men. And now you are here again doing the same thing, which suggests you do this intentionally.
You put words in my mouth, then when I correct you, you claim I’m contradicting myself. And you call me childish?
Please stop playing this ridiculous game. You made a weak argument that you’re powerless before Linden Labs. I demonstrated otherwise, and you’ve got no response left other than this nonsense again.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@We “And yet people manage to open businesses and create power house corporations from garage companies (See: Microsoft & Apple) all the time in this statist dystopian freedom-killing society of ours”
And many people have small businesses that aren’t taken over by mega-corporations, despite all the unregulated aspects of our free market. How curious!
Maybe all that freedom of financial association doesn’t destroy competition.
Weak, We. Seriously. You made a ad hoc procter hoc statement. Just because regulations exist doesn’t prove their producing what you claim anymore than the fact some freedom exists proves what I’m saying.
Nice try, though.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@darkfoxx “I still dont know why this discussion is still going on. LL will *nevar* regulate gambling as they’d be breaking the law, big cooperations are not a problem (watch Pen & Teller’s Bullshit about Kmart)”
This is quite true. The discussion has spun well beyond SL.
And Bullshit is the Best. TV. Ever.
We
Jun 30th, 2010
@Persephone
“And many people have small businesses that aren’t taken over by mega-corporations, despite all the unregulated aspects of our free market. How curious!”
Well first off, considering there’s no “unregulated aspects” of the current economy in regards to Anti-trust, there are many regulations to keeping a business from monopolizing, your point is kind of moot. You however were trying to state that CURRENT regulations are keeping small business owners from competing with large mega-corporations, yet here we have two immediate examples of the opposite happening. I’ve yet to see you actually provide an example of one such regulation that hampers small business from competing with large business, considering that most of the government regulations are to keep a reign on large business.
Second, I might point out that there has been lots of controversy with Wal-Mart lately crushing small businesses in small towns, by building up a store, and offering just about everything at lower prices than the small business owners can manage.
I’ve already addressed why in a Free Market, competition would be slowly weeded out, you’ve completely avoided the point repeatedly. I understand that such revelations are inconvenient to your world-view, but if you can’t answer it, maybe your world-view is the one that needs adjusting? Libertarianism has the same problem as Socialism, both nice ideas on paper, but they require that human beings aren’t human beings.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@We “Second, I might point out that there has been lots of controversy with Wal-Mart lately crushing small businesses in small towns, by building up a store, and offering just about everything at lower prices than the small business owners can manage.”
I’ll copy and paste what I told Darkfoxx, which demonstrates that this happens precisely because of the regulations you say are protecting those small businesses. In fact, they destroy them.
Take Wal-Mart, for example. They’ve been a corporate whipping boy for years, largely over their low wages. So, activists demand regulations. Well, when those regulations are being crafted, guess who’s right there involved in the process. Wal-Mart’s lobbyists. These regulations create a complicated legal systems that can only be gamed by expensive lobbyists and lawyers. Who has lobbyists and lawyers? Wal-Mart or your mom and pop general store?
So, wherever there are lots of regulations, smaller competitors can’t enter or stay in the game. They simply don’t have the resources to navigate all those complicated laws. Regulations impeded competition and undermine choice. So, wherever there are regulations, there are only mega-corporations with very little consumer choice.
I’ve already refuted your claims that in a free market, competition is weeded out. You’ve completely avoided this point repeatedly. I understand such revelations are inconvenient to your world-view, but if you can’t answer it, maybe your world view is the one that needs adjusting.
Do you actually read the things you write, We? Seriously.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 30th, 2010
Well to be fair, I’m a very argumentive person.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jun 30th, 2010
But yes, I haven’t been paying too much attention to your arguments. I’ll admit my fault on that, I’ve been busy lately. But yes, I see now. You’re not saying that’s the only option. I was taking it as you meaning that was the only option in your eyes. My bad.
We
Jun 30th, 2010
@Persephone
“So, wherever there are lots of regulations, smaller competitors can’t enter or stay in the game. They simply don’t have the resources to navigate all those complicated laws.”
I’ve asked twice now, your avoidance of this question is very interesting: Can you name one government oversight regulation that is stifling Mom and Pop businesses and making it impossible for them to compete?
“I’ve already refuted your claims that in a free market, competition is weeded out. You’ve completely avoided this point repeatedly.”
You did? I saw you respond a few times, and I responded back, in a rather large post, you then oversimplified and mostly ignored the entire post, then responded to that instead of my arguments. I’ve yet to see you make a compelling argument why in a free market, competition would exist.
“Do you actually read the things you write, We? Seriously.”
I do, do you? By the way you gloss over my points and put words in my mouth, it doesn’t seem like you read much of anything I write.
Persephone Bolero
Jun 30th, 2010
@We “Can you name one government oversight regulation that is stifling Mom and Pop businesses and making it impossible for them to compete?”
I explained this twice now. Regulations create complicated playgrounds for lawyers, and they are crafted by lobbyists. Do mom and pop stores have lawyers and lobbyists? No? Then ALL regulations hurt mom and pop stores, since the bigger companies will have the lawyers and the lobbyists to ensure regulations work in their favor. What part of this is so hard for you to understand that you have to keep asking me about it?
“You did? I saw you respond a few times, and I responded back, in a rather large post, you then oversimplified and mostly ignored the entire post”
I’m not going to read your long-winded copy and paste jobs. Keep your arguments concise or I’ll only read the first couple paragraphs.
“I’ve yet to see you make a compelling argument why in a free market, competition would exist.”
I did. And I just did again. Next time, I just copy and paste what I wrote above.
We
Jun 30th, 2010
@Persephone
“What part of this is so hard for you to understand that you have to keep asking me about it?”
How is that an actual example of one such regulation? You’ve avoided this question 3 times now. Can you name even ONE actual example of a real regulation that makes it harder for small business to exist and easier for large business to take them down? I’m not asking for your general idea of what might be happening in the government, I’m asking for actual proof of one example to support your views. Your inability to answer this question is very interesting.
“I’m not going to read your long-winded copy and paste jobs. Keep your arguments concise or I’ll only read the first couple paragraphs.”
Good to know you’ll develop and defend a world-view philosophy, so long as you only have to take it in bite-size easy-to-consume paragraphs. I can put it in picture-book form if that’d be more convenient for you, I’ll even let you color the pages.
“I did. And I just did again. Next time, I just copy and paste what I wrote above.”
I didn’t see any compelling arguments in your post, just a general idea which you’ve failed to back up with any proof 3 times now. With no proof, that idea is as compelling as any other conspiracy theory.