Originally Posted by Bigoldnit

Ok, I'll play along...

First, lets talk cost. If you wanted to get Secret Service level protection, we're talking at least one, probably multiple guards to accompany you at all time, plus an advance team of another few folks to scout out places that you will be going in the future to make sure those are secure, plus their equipment (guns, armored cars, perhaps some surveillance equipment, whatever)... I know you think that the market it uberefficient and everything, but, realistically, how much do you think this type of set up would cost? And what percentage of the population do you think currently pays so much in taxes that eliminating the government would give them back enough money that they would be able to afford this level of protection? Will you at least concede that we're talking about a fairly small percentage of the population here?

I don't know the exact answer, but simple math and logic tells me that the average (or even slightly above average worker) is not going to earn enough in salary to pay for one on one protection. I mean, where is the typical family of four finding the money to employ eight security guards (which is probably the minimum amount of people you'd need to provide round the clock protection for 4 family members)? So, yeah, maybe folks would buy some more guns and deadbolts, but the idea that everyone who wants one could suddenly have a team of green berets guarding their house 24/7 is just ridiculous.

Finally, in a world with no government and no law enforcement, what possible incentive would there be for these highly trained guards to work for you all day every day in return for some portion of your wealth instead of just busting into your house or your store one time, taking ALL of your wealth, and then just spend the rest of the day protecting their families? In a world in which the stronger can just take whatever they want from the weak whenever they want it, why do they need to work for the weak guy?

Originally Posted by LirvA

How much money do you think you would have made if there had been no government restrictions on online poker and anyone in any country can start a poker site and serve everyone else all over the world? Hundreds of poker sites, instant deposit and withdrawal. Millions and millions of players. You'd be having a bit more $$$ amirite?

Originally Posted by grizy

More obviously... how are the security guards supposed to afford their own security guards?

Originally Posted by Bigoldnit

And how much money did people lose because Full Tilt, the Purple Lounge, UB, etc decided to scam money from the player base?

And did people trust those sites because they were regulated by those powerful governments in Alderny and the KGG, or did they trust them because they had the naive notion that "those Full Tilt guys make so much money every day, they'd never risk all of the by stealing from players?"

And was the number of private companies created to really investigate the merits of different sites and tell the consumer where the best place to play was greater then or less then the number of sites that popped up to schill for any site that would give them an affilliate deal?

Originally Posted by Bigoldnit

And how much money did people lose because Full Tilt, the Purple Lounge, UB, etc decided to scam money from the player base?

And did people trust those sites because they were regulated by those powerful governments in Alderny and the KGG, or did they trust them because they had the naive notion that "those Full Tilt guys make so much money every day, they'd never risk all of the by stealing from players?"

And was the number of private companies created to really investigate the merits of different sites and tell the consumer where the best place to play was greater then or less then the number of sites that popped up to schill for any site that would give them an affilliate deal?

Originally Posted by LirvA

There's no such thing as "the public good". It's not an entity or establishment. They don't serve "the public good", they serve other people, and if they are in that profession voluntarily, make money, and enjoy making satisfied customers, I think they'll be ok.

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

Dude, it's the government's fault.

Originally Posted by Bigoldnit

No. It's not. Not to get too much into the Full Tilt situation b/c there's still a ton that we don't know, but

(A) online poker is actually one of the least heavily regulated markets in much of the world. Compared to food, cars, cell phones, etc, there is very little government regulation.

(B) Many players from countries with limited or no regulations wrt online poker chose to play on UB or Full Tilt at some point. Their customer bases weren't made up exclusively of poor Americans who had no other options.

(C) Think back to say 6 months before BF. Tilt was largely seen as a legit company that was safe to play on. People who questioned it's viability were seen as crackpot conspiracy theorists or schills who probably worked for competing sites. And when people defended Tilt, they didn't say, "Full Tilt can't be corrupt, the AGC would never allow that," they always said something like, "lol, Full Tilt rakes a couple million a day, why would they risk that in order to steal a few million in player deposits."

Bringing things back on track, it is not sufficient to just say "government bad, free market good" when day after day, week after week you can see cases where private entities are wasteful, bureaucratic, and completely willing to sabotage long term self interest in order to make a few more bucks today

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

I was joking.

Originally Posted by grizy

Your solution of every home is a fortress is complete non-sense and very very few people actually want 24/7 guards in their homes.