Open letter to Mason Malmuth - About the Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Two Plus Two About the Forums

Open letter to Mason Malmuth

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6

11-19-2012 , 06:46 PM

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,568

Quote:

Economic Freedom

An essential part of economic freedom is freedom to choose how to use our income: how much to spend on ourselves and on what items; how much to save and in what form; how much to give away and to whom. Currently, more than 40 percent of our income is disposed of on our behalf by government at federal, state, and local levels combined. One of us once suggested a new national holiday, "Personal Independence Day --- that day in the year when we stop working to pay the expenses of government ... and start working to pay for the items we severally and individually choose in light of our own needs and desires." In 1929 that holiday would have come on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, February 12; today it would come about May 30; if present trends were to continue, it would coincide with the other Independence day, July 4, around 1988.

Of course, we have something to say about how much of our income is spent on our behalf by government. We participate in the political process that has resulted in government's spending an amount equal to more than 40 percent of our income. Majority rule is a necessary and desirable expedient. It is, however, very different from the kind of freedom you have when you shop at a supermarket. When you enter the voting booth once a year, you almost always vote for a package rather than for specific items. If you are in the majority, you will at best get both the items you favored and the ones you opposed but regarded as on balance less important. Generally, you end up with something different from what you thought you voted for. If you are in the minority, you must conform to the majority vote and wait for your turn to come. When you vote daily in the supermarket, you get precisely what you voted for, and so does everyone else. The ballot box produces conformity without unanimity; the marketplace, unanimity without conformity. That is why it is desirable to use the ballot box, so far as possible, only for those decisions where conformity is essential.

As consumers, we are not even free to choose how to spend the part of our income that is left after taxes. We are not free to buy cyclamates or laetrile, and soon, perhaps, saccharin. Our physician is not free to prescribe many drugs for us that he may regard as the most effective for our aliments, even though the drugs may be widely available abroad. We are not free to buy an automobile without seat belts, though, for the time being, we are still free to choose whether or not to buckle up.

Another essential part of economic freedom is freedom to use the resources we possess in accordance with our own values --- freedom to enter any occupation, engage in any business enterprise, buy from and sell to anyone else, so long as we do so on a strictly voluntary basis and do not resort to force in order to coerce others.

Today you are not free to offer your services as a lawyer, a physician, a dentist, a plumber, a barber, a mortician, or engage in a host of other occupations, without first getting a permit or license from a government official. You are not free to work overtime at terms mutually agreeable to you and your employer, unless the terms conform the rules and regulations laid down by a government official.

You are not free to set up a bank, go into the taxicab business, or the business of selling electricity or telephone service, or running a railroad, busline, or airline, without first receiving permission from a government official.

You are not free to raise funds on the capital markets unless you fill out the numerous pages of forms the SEC requires and unless you satisfy the SEC that the prospectus you propose to issue presents such a bleak picture of your prospects that no investor in his right mind would invest in your project if he took the prospectus literally. And getting SEC approval may cost upwards of $100,000 --- which certainly discourages the small firms our government professes to help.

Freedom to own property is another essential part of economic freedom. And we do have widespread property ownership. Well over half of us own the homes we live in. When it comes to machines, factories, and similar means of production, the situation is very different. We refer to ourselves as a free private enterprise society, as a capitalist society. Yet in terms of ownership of corporate enterprise, we are about 46 percent socialist. Owning 1 percent of a corporation means that you are entitled to receive 1 percent of its profits and must share 1 percent of its losses up to the full value of yoru stock. The 1979 federal corporate income tax is 46 percent on all income over $100,000 (reduced from 48 percent in prior years). The federal government is entitled to 46 cents out of every dollar of profit, and it shares 46 out of every dollar of losses (provided there are some earlier profits to offset those losses). The federal government owns 46 percent of every corporation --- though not in a form that entitles it to vote directly on corporate affairs. It would take a book much longer than this one even to list in full all the restrictions on our economic freedom, let alone describe them in detail. These examples are intended simply to suggest how pervasive such restrictions have become.

Human Freedom

Restrictions on economic freedom inevitably affect freedom in general, even such areas as freedom of speech and press. Consider the following excerpts from a 1977 letter from Lee Grace, then executive vice-president of an oil and gas association. This is what he wrote with respect to energy legislation:

"As you know, the real issue more so than the price per thousand cubic feet is the continuation of the first amendment of the constitution, the guarantee of freedom of speech. With increasing regulation, as big brother looks closer over our shoulder, we grow timid against speaking out for truth and our beliefs against falsehoods and wrong doings. Fear of IRS audits, bureaucratic strangulation or government harassment is a powerful weapon against freedom of speech.

In the October 31 [1977] edition of the U.S. News & World Report, the Washington Whispers section noted that, "Oil industry officials claim that they have received this ultimatum from Energy Secretary James Schlesinger: 'Support the administration's proposed tax on crude oil --- or face tougher regulation and a possible drive to break up the oil companies."

His judgement is amply confirmed by the public behavior of oil officials. Tongue lashed by senator Henry Jackson for earning "obscene profits," not a single member of a group of oil industry executives answered back, or even left the room and refused to submit to further personal abuse. Oil company executives, who in private express strong opposition to the present complex structure of federal controls under which they operate or to the major extension of government intervention proposed by president Carter, make bland public statements approving the objectives of the controls.

Few businessmen regard president Carter's so called voluntary wage and price controls as a desirable or effective way to combat inflation. Yet one businessman after another, one business organization after another, has paid lip service to the program, said nice things about it, and promised to cooperate. Only a few, like Donald Rumsfeld, former congressman, white house official, and cabinet member, had the courage to denounce it publicly. They were joined by George Meany, the crusty octogenarian former head of the AFL-CIO.

It is entirely appropriate that people should bear a cost --- if only of unpopularity and criticism --- for speaking freely. However, the cost should be reasonable and not disproportionate. There should not be, in the words of a famous supreme court decision, "a chilling effect" on free speech. Yet there is little doubt that currently there is such an effect on business executives.

The "chilling effect" is not restricted to business executives. It affects all of us. We know most intimately the academic community. Many of our colleagues in economics and the natural science departments receive grants from the national science foundation; in the humanities, from the national foundation of humanities; all those who teach in state universities get their salaries partly from the state legislatures. We believe that the national science foundation, the national foundation for the humanities, and tax subsidies to higher education are all undesirable and should be terminated. That is undoubtedly a minority view in the academic community, but the minority is much larger than anyone would gather from public statements to that effect.

The press is highly dependent on government --- not only as a major source of news but in numerous other day to day operating matters. Consider a striking example from Great Britain. The London Times, a great newspaper, was prevented from publishing one day several years ago by one of its unions because of a story that it was planning to publish about the union's attempt to influence the content of the paper. Subsequently, labor disputes closed down the paper entirely. The unions in question are able to exercise this power because they have been granted special immunities by the government. A national union of journalists in Britain is pushing for a closed shop of journalists and threatening to boycott papers that employ nonmembers of the union. All this in the country that was the source of so many of our liberties.

With respect to religious freedom, Amish farmers in the United States have had their houses and other property seized because they refused, on religious grounds, to pay social security taxes --- and also to accept social security benefits. Church schools have had their students cited as truants in violation of compulsory attendance laws because their teachers did not have the requisite slips of paper certifying to their having satisfied state requirements.

Although these examples only scratch the surface, they illustrate the fundamental proposition that freedom is one whole, that anything that reduces freedom in one part of our lives is likely to affect freedom in the other parts.

Freedom cannot be absolute. We do live in an interdependent society. Some restrictions on our freedom are necessary to avoid other, still worse, restrictions. However, we have gone far beyond that point. The urgent need today is to eliminate restrictions, not add to them.

Free To Choose (The Tyranny of Controls) - Milton Friedman

This was published, as you know, in 1980. And since then, government has only gotten bigger and more pervasive. The amount of controls and regulations government imposes on us has not decreased, but has increased dramatically. The UIGEA was but one of many, and it has been the source of our hindered online poker market.

The PPA suggests we should all support legislation that doesn't do away with the UIGEA, but actually strengthens and expands it. Now, other forms of internet gambling would be explicitly illegal. The invasive tentacles of the IRS would wrap themselves around poker sites and into our bank rolls. Companies would be shut out of the market, and small start ups wouldn't have a chance.

Mason, Milton Friedman may or may not have agreed with this statement, but I stand by it 100%: This is not freedom, it is fascism. The government having control over private industry is fascism, and by supporting the federal legislation the PPA is pushing, you yourself are supporting fascism. More government controls.

One of the most disgusting uses of government is carving out benefits for one's own business at others' expense, and supporting this legislation would be doing just that. If it passes, sure, your business will benefit, but what about people that want to engage in other forms of online gambling? This would be taking their freedom away, and that is very wrong.

In conclusion, I urge you to oppose the federal legislation the PPA is pushing, drop your support of the PPA, and expel such special interests from your forum.

Finally, I want to sincerely thank you again for introducing me to Milton Friedman. The lessons he taught have been incredibly influential to me, and I'm a better person for learning them. I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and in return, I'd like to introduce you to an individual I think very highly of - Stefan Molyneux. Please feel free to look through his videos, he does truly amazing work.

https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/
www.freedomainradio.com

Last edited by LirvA; 11-19-2012 at 06:52 PM.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 06:50 PM

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

FRIST

Quote

11-19-2012 , 06:51 PM

its_just_me

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,288

i LOLed

Spoiler:

Quote

11-19-2012 , 06:52 PM

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote

11-19-2012 , 06:54 PM

Mr.mmmKay

Drugs are bad...

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 20,139

lol

Quote

11-19-2012 , 06:56 PM

its_just_me

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,288

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

money quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

The government having control over private industry is fascism

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:02 PM

Rusemandingo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14,067

Theyre just being pragmatic in the way they approach getting online poker back into the US. Theyre the poker players' alliance, not the online freedom alliance. Most of us would prefer unregulated IP but that's just not gonna happen. Idealism ftl.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:04 PM

its_just_me

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,288

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusemandingo

this neither the place nor the time for a rational post!

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:09 PM

Ce1ska

banned

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4,598

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

Hi Mason.

We all know you have built a successful business with your publishing company and this forum, and having success like that takes lots of good decisions. I do feel though that there has been a terrible mistake you have made with your business, and that is the reason for this thread.

I believe that letting the PPA have a presence here has been your greatest mistake with this business, and I believe that supporting them, and the legislation they are pursing, is very very bad.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the severe down turn in the online poker market in the U.S. has an effect on all poker related businesses, your publishing company of course being one of them. It also doesn't take a genius to recognize that an up turn in the market would be good for your business. But I hope you're not letting that possibility obfuscate your principles.

I want to remind you of what Milton Friedman published in his book:

Free To Choose (The Tyranny of Controls) - Milton Friedman

This was published, as you know, in 1980. And since then, government has only gotten bigger and more pervasive. The amount of controls and regulations government imposes on us has not decreased, but has increased dramatically. The UIGEA was but one of many, and it has been the source of our hindered online poker market.

The PPA suggests we should all support legislation that doesn't do away with the UIGEA, but actually strengthens and expands it. Now, other forms of internet gambling would be explicitly illegal. The invasive tentacles of the IRS would wrap themselves around poker sites and into our bank rolls. Companies would be shut out of the market, and small start ups wouldn't have a chance.

Mason, Milton Friedman may or may not have agreed with this statement, but I stand by it 100%: This is not freedom, it is fascism. The government having control over private industry is fascism, and by supporting the federal legislation the PPA is pushing, you yourself are supporting fascism. More government controls.

One of the most disgusting uses of government is carving out benefits for one's own business at others' expense, and supporting this legislation would be doing just that. If it passes, sure, your business will benefit, but what about people that want to engage in other forms of online gambling? This would be taking their freedom away, and that is very wrong.

In conclusion, I urge you to oppose the federal legislation the PPA is pushing, drop your support of the PPA, and expel such special interests from your forum.

Finally, I want to sincerely thank you again for introducing me to Milton Friedman. The lessons he taught have been incredibly influential to me, and I'm a better person for learning them. I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and in return, I'd like to introduce you to an individual I think very highly of - Stefan Molyneux. Please feel free to look through his videos, he does truly amazing work.

https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/
www.freedomainradio.com

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:13 PM

#10

Videopro

Making TV

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 19,451

OK who had under 2 hours in the Lirv self-ban pool?

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:20 PM

#11

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,183

Taxation is theft! Bwa ha ha ha!

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:41 PM

#12

elrey

‏

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 7,532

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusemandingo

dont even try to humor him

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:48 PM

#13

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,666

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professionalpoker

OK who had under 2 hours in the Lirv self-ban pool?

I was debating whether to blindly take the under before anyone set a line, or to instead just bet that he wouldn't leave at all, but I guess I was too slow.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 07:51 PM

#14

ChicagoRy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 20,589

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusemandingo

Man, I wish you were right too, but I think it's clear that most people prefer regulation and are moved faster by fear and uncertainty.

The only reason people might prefer deregulation right now is bc regulation hasn't happened and deregulation was pretty good overall. But as soon as they start adding viable sites people will prefer the regulation, unfortunately.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 08:16 PM

#15

Abe008

I ARE just biebwr
but not a mod

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 12,139

lmao

Quote

11-19-2012 , 08:32 PM

#16

Ron Burgundy

banned

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 15,277

lol, Milton talked big L game, but then he goes and invents a system to make it as easy as possible for the govt to steal everyone's money (tax with-holding) and supported central banking and manipulation of interest rates. So **** that poser.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 08:49 PM

#17

Dids

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 60,871

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professionalpoker

OK who had under 2 hours in the Lirv self-ban pool?

30 minutes would have been a better line and I still would have bet the under.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 08:59 PM

#18

nham

34oz

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,646

wow are we supposed to read all this

Quote

11-19-2012 , 09:10 PM

#19

tylertwo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 8,111

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step...

IMO, deregulation will attract the sharks, regulation will attract the fish, you decide.

Last edited by tylertwo; 11-19-2012 at 09:12 PM. Reason: I'm glad you're back LirVa. I need someone to gloat with when the Broncos win.

Quote

11-19-2012 , 09:13 PM

#20

Booker Wolfbox

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 38,421

Quote

11-19-2012 , 10:27 PM

#21

Neil S

King of the sidebar

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 19,654

I do have to agree with him on PPA. It's short-sighted to support just anyone who's trying to bring just any form of online gambling into the US, especially one that irrationally sells out other forms of gambling just to favor poker.