Casino sues patrons.
Quote: EvenBobOkay, if I bet you $1000 on a prop bet and you don't
pay, how am I damaged? Am I injured
monetarily? Has my life been altered? Am I
worse off than before the bet?
No goods were exchanged, no service was performed.
I'm not out anything. The bet was an intellectual
exercise, with a monetary incentive. Neither party
is injured when the losing party reneges...
Prove otherwise.
I understand now. You are a Libertarian.
wrong, by not paying rent the landlord was precluded from collecting rents from responsible tenants! Piss poor analogy!Quote: kenarmanBy using Bob's argument I guess tenants should't be required to pay their rent. The landlord still owns the property and is not really out anything material and therefore no worse off than before.
Quote: treetopbuddyWhy is this so hard to understand? The casino is not out any money! The casino is owed the debt! What else can be possibly said....!!!
The issue comes when the debtor isn't repaying the debt. That is the case presented in the OP and it the whole point of the thread. If the casino must sue in the court system in order to collect a debt that they are rightfully owed, then they have been harmed by the failure of the debtor to pay without the need for a law suit. No harm, no foul might be correct sometimes, but in this case there was harm.
Quote: Docand it didn't cost them much of anything to provide you with the game, so there is no need for you to pay anything back. No harm, no foul, right?
.
Yes, thats how some people look at it. They can wait to be
paid because they aren't out anything. Of course they owe
the money, of course there was a contract. For a short time
in college I worked for a collection agency. 70% of their
collections were on unpaid medical bills. You here the same
argument from those people. They aren't paying because
the doctor didn't 'do' anything, he just gave advice. Many
people place no value on that.
yes, we all know there are legal fees involved here....it a cost of doing business. Nobody is saying what the gamblers did was O.K......JC!!!!Quote: DocThe issue comes when the debtor isn't repaying the debt. That is the case presented in the OP and it the whole point of the thread. If the casino must sue in the court system in order to collect a debt that they are rightfully owed, then they have been harmed by the failure of the debtor to pay without the need for a law suit. No harm, no foul might be correct sometimes, but in this case there was harm.
Quote: EvenBobYes, thats how some people look at it.
Perhaps that is where I missed the point. I thought you were indicating that was the way you look at it.
any money!"
But, seriously, stop feeding the troll.
Quote: DigitalTimI understand now. You are a Libertarian.
Libertarianism is a theory of property rights, contract, and nonagression. Bob's arguments are in no sense libertarian. It struck me as highly collectivist, appealing to need and what people "deserve" as opposed to what is right or wrong.
Quote: bigfoot66Bob's arguments are in no sense libertarian.
Not even in the same galaxy.
Quote:It struck me as highly collectivist, appealing to need and what people "deserve" as opposed to what is right or wrong.
That's altruism, not collectivism.
I hope your not calling me a troll.....In the real world your hypothetical wouldn't happen. Remember credit was extended. It could be argued that the casino is at fault for extending the credit. The casino was trying to bust the gamblers down to private. The debt is owed.....the casino is out nothing.Quote: NareedOk, so you go into a casino and bet $100,000 of your own money. You get very lucky and parlay that, over a few days, into $1,000,000. When you try to cash out, the casino hands you $100,000 and says "We're not going to pay, sorry. We owe you a million, but if we don't pay you what's the harm? You're not out
any money!"
But, seriously, stop feeding the troll.
Quote: NareedThat's altruism, not collectivism.
When I read Bob's arguments what came to mind is "from each according to his need, to each according to his ability". Property rights being dependent on need rather than ownership.
Quote: Nareed"We're not going to pay, sorry. We owe you a million, but if we don't pay you what's the harm? .
Actually, they did that to the poker player in England,
whats his name. He won at bac fair and square and
they refused to pay him without giving a reason.
Nareed should talk about trolls, he made half his posts
trolling here.
Quote: treetopbuddyThe debt is owed.....the casino is out nothing.
That is not true, most likely. But even if it were true, the casino is out the money owed by the people who lost it at the games, and it should be paid.
Libertarianism is not a theory.Quote: bigfoot66Libertarianism is a theory of property rights, contract, and nonagression. Bob's arguments are in no sense libertarian. It struck me as highly collectivist, appealing to need and what people "deserve" as opposed to what is right or wrong.
Quote: treetopbuddywrong, by not paying rent the landlord was precluded from collecting rents from responsible tenants! Piss poor analogy!
By spending their efforst on providing a gambling environment for the deadbeats the casino didn't collect winnings from responsible gamblers. Same thing.
wait, what? Wrong, no business was turned away due to the "whales" being there. What a ludicrious statement.Quote: kenarmanBy spending their efforst on providing a gambling environment for the deadbeats the casino didn't collect winnings from responsible gamblers. Same thing.
what the F? I'm not carrying EvenBob's water anymore........outQuote: kenarmanOh I didn't realize you were in Macau and saw that the casino hosts and the rest of the entourage that would provide service to the whales were not present.
Quote: treetopbuddywhat the F? I'm not carrying EvenBob's water anymore........out
Excellent choice.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYou clearly don't have much idea of what goes into running a casino.
Snatch it up http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchresults.aspx?ci=54814 before some other genius gets it.
YOUDONTKNOWWHATITTAKESTORUNACASINO.COM
is available. Snap it up before someone else does. Just $9.99*
Quote: treetopbuddyLibertarianism is not a theory.
Yes it is. It is a political and moral philosophy.
Again, Libertarianism is not a theory. I like your Ron Paul 2012 slogan.....I'm with you.Quote: bigfoot66Yes it is. It is a political and moral philosophy.
Quote: treetopbuddyThe bet/bets are in a sense, a contract.
The bets are not "in a sense" a contract... they ARE a contract.
Had the gamblers won wouldn't they expect to be paid?
Quote: treetopbuddyAgain, Libertarianism is not a theory. I like your Ron Paul 2012 slogan.....I'm with you.
I don't think you know what a "theory" is. Libertarianism, agree or disagree, is very much a political theory.
Yes, AlanMendelson, as I stated several times throughout the thread, the line of credit is a contract as well as making the bet. My opening thought "In a sense is a contract" was designed to soften my reply to EvenBob as not to offend. Thanks for correcting me even though you didn't.Quote: AlanMendelsonThe bets are not "in a sense" a contract... they ARE a contract.
Had the gamblers won wouldn't they expect to be paid?
wrong, libertarianism is NOT is not political theory. Look up the word libertarianism and I'm guessing the word "theory" is not mentioned.Quote: 24BingoI don't think you know what a "theory" is. Libertarianism, agree or disagree, is very much a political theory.
"A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles."
Where political theories are concerned, this usage is typically the one meant, and is common.
Quote: DigitalTimBob, are you an asshole?
/5 day suspension if he is
/10 day suspension if he is not
/Suspension is for me, not the aforementioned asshole
I had to give this offense some serious consideration, and I don't consider EvenBob to be that which you accuse him of being, but I've decided on a three-day suspension whether he is or not.
Quote: Mission146I had to give this offense some serious consideration, and I don't consider EvenBob to be that which you accuse him of being, but I've decided on a three-day suspension whether he is or not.
Please note that I did NOT complain or report this
to a mod. But just because I am what I was accused
of being, that doesn't mean I like hearing about it..
