Revel to allow Smoking starting Valentines Day-Staff

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think you've thought this through fully. Anarcho-capitalism is unsustainable even if you started with an immediate coercive wealth-redistribution to level the playing field (which, ironically, runs counter to the premise of anarcho-capitalism in the first place).

Without checks and balances (that is, coercive regulation) on private enterprises, power in an anarcho-capitalist society would centralize. Capital wants to preserve itself and reproduce, just like genetic material does, and without adequate competition you'd end up with a government-like corporate entity but, instead of the one we have now which is "for the People", would be "for the Shareholders." So you'd have just as much coercion but, unlike now, absolutely no redress.

Excellent post. This is graduate-level political science, and honestly I think it's going over the heads of a lot of people who are making emotional arguments here.

Quote: sodawater

Excellent post. This is graduate-level political science, and honestly I think it's going over the heads of a lot of people who are making emotional arguments here.

Fine point. Let's forget about anarchism then. Regardless if you feel it is morally appropriate to use the coercive machinery of the state to keep a private business from allowing people to smoke inside its doors you still need to justify that.

Quote: bigfoot66

Fine point. Let's forget about anarchism then. Regardless if you feel it is morally appropriate to use the coercive machinery of the state to keep a private business from allowing people to smoke inside its doors you still need to justify that.

OK, well if you are conceding that the state probably should have the right to enforce laws for the public good, maybe we have made some progress.

As for whether it's "morally appropriate to use coercive machinery of the state to keep a private business from allowing people to smoke inside its doors"... I really don't know what you mean by "private business." Businesses that are open to the public are subject to all manner of regulation by the government, and rightly so. I want my restaurants to be health-inspected, and I want my movie theaters to be compliant with the fire code. It's in the public interest that businesses maintain a safe environment for its customers and employees.

With all the medical evidence we now have that second-hand smoke is deadly, I do not see how it is any different to require public businesses to provide clean breathing air in the same way we require restaurants to provide clean food and movie theaters to have fire exits.

Quote: sodawater

With all the medical evidence we now have that second-hand smoke is deadly, I do not see how it is any different to require public businesses to provide clean breathing air in the same way we require restaurants to provide clean food and movie theaters to have fire exits.

I like that argument, but then why not prevent companies from making gas guzzlers when they can make fuel efficient cars?
Why allow cars to be made at all?
Why not make the speed limit 40 instead of 65?
There are so many things we 'allow' that we know will cause more deaths.
It all comes down to the same concept for me, I want the government to be less involved, not more....

Quote: SOOPOO

I like that argument, but then why not prevent companies from making gas guzzlers when they can make fuel efficient cars?
Why allow cars to be made at all?
Why not make the speed limit 40 instead of 65?
There are so many things we 'allow' that we know will cause more deaths.
It all comes down to the same concept for me, I want the government to be less involved, not more....

it all comes down to cost vs. benefit.

The reason the speed limit is 65 and not 120 is safety. But the reason the speed limit is 65 and not 25 is because that would come at too great a cost for the economy.

You have to balance things out.

But for something like indoor smoking, the cost/benefit analysis is pretty easy to do. It's not an inherently productive activity for smokers to consume cigarettes (as opposed to transporting people around, which is inherently productive) -- sure, cigarette sales create jobs and wealth, but at a huge cost to public health.

Also, it's not like there isn't an easy alternative for smokers -- just go outside. Banning indoor smoking in public buildings is a slam dunk, and should be standard.

Quote: SOOPOO

I like that argument, but then why not prevent companies from making gas guzzlers when they can make fuel efficient cars?

Isn't that the exact intent of gas guzzler taxes and fuel efficiency standards?

Quote: rdw4potus

Isn't that the exact intent of gas guzzler taxes and fuel efficiency standards?

I used the word 'preven't, not 'make a teeny weeny bit inconvenient'. And your comment on the reason we select a speed limit is dead on. We accept a certain increase in death rate as the cost of saving time. Why is the DUI number .08 and not .07 or .00? We want to be allow people to have that cocktail at the restaurant, even though we know that any alcohol decreases performance.

edit... i combined answers to both rdw4potus and sodawater's comments

Quote: SOOPOO

I used the word 'preven't, not 'make a teeny weeny bit inconvenient'. And your comment on the reason we select a speed limit is dead on. We accept a certain increase in death rate as the cost of saving time. Why is the DUI number .08 and not .07 or .00? We want to be allow people to have that cocktail at the restaurant, even though we know that any alcohol decreases performance.

edit... i combined answers to both rdw4potus and sodawater's comments

Sure, you used the word prevent. But isn't that a lot stronger than what's happening here? Smoke at Revel now, and you get a mean look. If anything, that's LESS punitive than the existing toothless fuel standards for automobiles.

Quote: EvenBob

Do you know what Mao did in 1949, when he took
over as the leader of China? He banned opium, made
it punishable by death to deal in it or possess it. Opium
addiction was killing the spirit of China. Guess what,
the addicts got over it. Its still illegal to this day, and
China is thriving.

My point is, you can ban a substance that kills people
and they accept it and move on. What a country of
weak willed politicians we have, everyone is in big
tobacco's pocket. Both party's. Hell, Obama smokes,
ferchrisakes.

One does not have to go to that extreme. One can easily adopt Singaporean philosophy. They believe that money can influence people's behavior. In 80's about 50% males and about 12% females in Singapore smoked. They raised the taxes (I believe a pack of cig cost about S$12). Today, only about 20% males and 4% females smoke.

Quote: sodawater

OK, well if you are conceding that the state probably should have the right to enforce laws for the public good, maybe we have made some progress.

As for whether it's "morally appropriate to use coercive machinery of the state to keep a private business from allowing people to smoke inside its doors"... I really don't know what you mean by "private business." Businesses that are open to the public are subject to all manner of regulation by the government, and rightly so. I want my restaurants to be health-inspected, and I want my movie theaters to be compliant with the fire code. It's in the public interest that businesses maintain a safe environment for its customers and employees.

With all the medical evidence we now have that second-hand smoke is deadly, I do not see how it is any different to require public businesses to provide clean breathing air in the same way we require restaurants to provide clean food and movie theaters to have fire exits.

I am not conceding anything, just saying that we can narrow the scope of the conversation to just the smoking ban. Your argument here is again begging the question by saying that the government does A, B, and C, therefore they can do D. If I want to open a bar and allow my patrons to smoke, Who is being hurt? If we were raping, stealing, murdering, etc, you would be morally justified to show up with a gang of armed men to stop us. But we are just smoking tobacco, What in the world gives you the right to show up with a gang if armed men? The fact that smoke is dangerous is beside the point, 40,000 people are killed on our socialist road network each year and countless others are injured, but people are allowed to balance the risks and benefits in their own lives and decide for themselves. I think smoking is are ally stupid decision, but other people don't agree. If people want to live their lives in different ways that is OK. Part of living in a free world is accepting other people's rights and freedoms, and property is the most fundamental of rights after life itself. If you want to maintain any of your freedoms, you have to respect and tolerate the decisions that your neighbors make. Especially their dumb decisions. If you are not free to make dumb decisions you are not free.

Rights can be understood as being positive rights or negative rights. If I say "you have a right to education" the positive understanding of that is "someone must educate you", the world owes you something. The negative understanding is "the government cannot stop you from getting an education". Freedom of speech is widely conceived as a negative right, no one owes you a forum to express yourself from, but they cannot stop your expression in your own forum.
People here keep asserting their right to a smoke free casino experience, but this is not a positive right. No one owes you a casino experience on the terms of your choosing.

Finally, government regulation does not really work the way you describe. I hope you do not think that restaurants would be any dirtier than they are without health inspections. Think about it , if you had invested years of your life and half a million bucks in opening a restaurant, wouldn't your desire to protect your investment and then profit be a strong enough motivation to keep you from taking the risk that you might poison a customer? Government regulations are usually designed by the large players in an industry to act as a barrier to entry for new and smaller firms. Take this story below, where the Fresh Market was forced by the state to cancel a sale on organic milk and raise its prices because of regulations. I am sure it was simply a concerned customer that reported them for selling the milk so cheap...
http://m.supermarketnews.com/dairy/la-officials-force-fresh-market-end-milk-sale

I am the king of double posts.

Quote: bigfoot66

I am the king of double posts.

Many members have double posted myself included. Back when we had a clear understanding of the flagging option the double poster could ask that the extra post be flagged. It was just a matter of two members with enough time on the forum to do the honors and life went on. With the addition of secret and not so secret administrators, moderators, special agents etc. that option no longer seems to be as clear.

Quote: bigfoot66

I don't have the time to properly address this now but I think you have this backwards, power centralizes under the state. Under the free market once great companies like gm (but for the bailout), hostess, etc come and go at the whim of consumers. More importantly, it seems that your chief fear of a free society is that....a government will evolve. This is a possibility I guess. The important thing is that people would have to come to know and understand the non aggression principle. I have been aggressive with you here but I am
Enjoying the engaging discussion, your opinion is shared by many more people than mine and it would be easy for you to just call me crazy and write me off.

It's not a fear so much as an acceptance of reality. Human society is a naturally emergent phenomenon. It always has been, you can't stop it and it's folly to try. Given that, I propose it is far better to set bounds around how that society evolves (including government) rather than hoping randomness yields a desirable one. In other words, if ultimately I accept that some larger organization will have coercive power over me, I'd rather have a say in how that organization comes to pass than otherwise. Anarchy is, in my mind, too much left to chance.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's not a fear so much as an acceptance of reality. Human society is a naturally emergent phenomenon. It always has been, you can't stop it and it's folly to try. Given that, I propose it is far better to set bounds around how that society evolves (including government) rather than hoping randomness yields a desirable one. In other words, if ultimately I accept that some larger organization will have coercive power over me, I'd rather have a say in how that organization comes to pass than otherwise. Anarchy is, in my mind, too much left to chance.

I think you have this backwards. No mechanism for sucessfully controlling the growth of the state has ever been demonstrated to work. The truth of the matter is that there would not be a voluntaryist movement if the government remained a limited sort of cops, courts, and roads organization. You say that that "too much is left to chance" in a world where people only engage in mutually beneficial transactions, but giving some group of sociopath politicians the power to take as much money out of your wallet as they please doesn't?

As you can imagine, I have this discussion with people frequently and I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the moral question, it is always put the way you put it, that the state is s necessary evil. The truth is that every service the the state provides today has been provided voluntarily at some point in human history and could be again today. Regular human interaction and social pressure are very strong forces thatwill work better than the government system. We do not break wind in public, talk on the phone in a movie theater, forget to wear deoderant, etc. because of regular social pressure. These same mechanisms can regulate bigger problems. For the real, radical A-Holes there is another solution: Ostracism. The guy accused of theft or murder would not be able to rent an apartment or conduct any other sort of business. Would you rent an apartment to a guy with this sort of stuff in his past? We could have behavior reputation scores similar to credit scores of today. They guy who murdered his wife would not be allowed on anyone's private property anywhere near the city and would likely die from starvation.

New to thread w/o reading... Valentine's Day??!!!?? are they outta their minds? Please, March 1, or some other non-event day. Gawd, bringin your nine or dime to a joint, and smellin like an ashtray when leavin... NO.

Quote: 98Clubs

New to thread w/o reading... Valentine's Day??!!!?? are they outta their minds? Please, March 1, or some other non-event day. Gawd, bringin your nine or dime to a joint, and smellin like an ashtray when leavin... NO.

Just had to google "nine or dime" and kind of worried that I did that at work.

Quote: Mission146

Wow!

That's some animosity. Granted, I smoke a good deal less than many other smokers...but my Lord, if I had $5.00 just for being in better physical shape and (overall) likely to live longer than some non-smokers, I'd be loaded...probably just on obese non-smokers vs. me alone.

You'll start putting on weight if and when you quit. That's guaranteed.

nine or dime... excellent looking lady/wife/gf....etc

Quote: bigfoot66

I think you have this backwards. No mechanism for sucessfully controlling the growth of the state has ever been demonstrated to work. The truth of the matter is that there would not be a voluntaryist movement if the government remained a limited sort of cops, courts, and roads organization. You say that that "too much is left to chance" in a world where people only engage in mutually beneficial transactions, but giving some group of sociopath politicians the power to take as much money out of your wallet as they please doesn't?

As you can imagine, I have this discussion with people frequently and I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the moral question, it is always put the way you put it, that the state is s necessary evil. The truth is that every service the the state provides today has been provided voluntarily at some point in human history and could be again today. Regular human interaction and social pressure are very strong forces thatwill work better than the government system. We do not break wind in public, talk on the phone in a movie theater, forget to wear deoderant, etc. because of regular social pressure. These same mechanisms can regulate bigger problems. For the real, radical A-Holes there is another solution: Ostracism. The guy accused of theft or murder would not be able to rent an apartment or conduct any other sort of business. Would you rent an apartment to a guy with this sort of stuff in his past? We could have behavior reputation scores similar to credit scores of today. They guy who murdered his wife would not be allowed on anyone's private property anywhere near the city and would likely die from starvation.

Firstly, I never said anything about "in a world where people only engage in mutually beneficial transactions," and I think it's naive to assume any human society will ever be like that. One cannot design a functional human society by starting from a high-minded but utterly unrealistic principle, like "people will never behave aggressively" or "people will always put the good of society above their own." The key is to accept human nature, including all our flaws, and design a society that works *despite* those flaws (or rather, doesn't treat them as flaws at all). Ostracism doesn't work at all because some people simply don't care. You think a guy accused of theft would not be able to rent an apartment? First off, in the U.S. anyway, being accused of something doesn't mean squat -- we need proof, and who delivers that up if not an impartial state? An impartial non-state entity, perhaps a corporation willing to sell justice for the lowest price? How is that impartial?

Second, the idea that a thief can't engage in commerce flies in the face of capitalism. Right now, if a thief has money, he can get an apartment no questions asked. Maybe not from everyone, but if there is *demand* for no-questions-asked apartments, then someone will provide *supply*. And now you have a thriving criminal enterprise in the middle of a capitalist economy.

You can either have "anarcho" or "capitalism" but you can't have both. And since anarchy is fundamentally opposed to human nature, you'll end up with an emergent government -- whether formally and thoughtfully derived as ours is, or via random chance and based on opportunism. I prefer the former. Capitalism works because humans are self-interested creatures. Anarchy fails for precisely the same reason.

I'd like to say that I'm enjoying the philosophy discussion, especially the posts by MathExtremist. The air is rather thin at the level you're writing, at least for me, but I am listening.

Quote: bigfoot66

Regular human interaction and social pressure are very strong forces thatwill work better than the government system.

Like when someone tweets misinformation, and then the tweeteruniverse pinpoints your house address as baby-killer rapist or Justin Bieber haters, and viglanete justice begins?

Yeah it works. Better, I don't know about that.

Quote: MathExtremist

Capitalism works because humans are self-interested creatures..

Of course. Thats why the Pilgrims failed at their
feeble attempt at Socialism. When they went
back to capitalism, they flourished. I have no
interest in helping my neighbor, about as much
as he has in helping me.

Quote: zippyboy

But that's part of the allure. Smokers go outside to smoke together, and it's not just the camaraderie, it's the intimacy of exhaling and breathing in someone's else's exhales, especially if it's someone you're attracted to. Like innocently sharing a drink and sucking on an opposite sex's straw.

Ummm....it is?

The only way I would share a straw with someone is at $10/sip.

Quote: zeekm

You'll start putting on weight if and when you quit. That's guaranteed.

Guaranteed....

Hmmm....

Combination of oral fixation and the enjoyment of food to replace a small portion of the loss of dopamine being released to compensate for the smoking.

It's a question of willpower.

What kind of odds are you laying? I guess you would have to take me on my word that I am not smoking, but there are ways to easily prove the weight.

Quote: Wizard

I'd like to say that I'm enjoying the philosophy discussion, especially the posts by MathExtremist. The air is rather thin at the level you're writing, at least for me, but I am listening.

Ditto here....specially the thin air part.

Quote: MathExtremist

Firstly, I never said anything about "in a world where people only engage in mutually beneficial transactions," and I think it's naive to assume any human society will ever be like that. One cannot design a functional human society by starting from a high-minded but utterly unrealistic principle, like "people will never behave aggressively" or "people will always put the good of society above their own." The key is to accept human nature, including all our flaws, and design a society that works *despite* those flaws (or rather, doesn't treat them as flaws at all).

I agree completely with almost all of this. I should have been more clear. What I meant by that we should start with the premise that only voluntary interaction is acceptable: violence, force and fraud are at best a last resort. Of course I do not believe that no human will rob/rape/steal from another human being in the absence of government, though it would be possible to interpret my statement that way. I agree that man is flawed, also, which is why it is a terrible idea to give some men arbitrary authority to take as much money as they want from other men, and kill as many other men as they see fit. Where are these angels going to come from who will rule over us? They do not exist, and even if they did, power corrupts. I am again going to link to a member of the nominally anti-war party defending the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a direct result of American foreign policy. Watch it. You don't often see this here, but you better believe Iraqi's are very familiar with this particular 30 seconds of television. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo If an Iraqi Minister was on video saying that 500,000 dead American children was an acceptable price to pay for their foreign policy goals, would you not see this as the evil it is?

When the ancient Isrealites demanded a king, God warned them,"This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us," (1 Samuel 8:11-21).

This is not a commentary on the evils of monarchy, the same could be said about our government. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are trying to design society. Institutions do not need to be designed, they will evolve in response to need.


"

Quote: MathExtremist

Ostracism doesn't work at all because some people simply don't care. You think a guy accused of theft would not be able to rent an apartment? First off, in the U.S. anyway, being accused of something doesn't mean squat -- we need proof, and who delivers that up if not an impartial state? An impartial non-state entity, perhaps a corporation willing to sell justice for the lowest price? How is that impartial?

Second, the idea that a thief can't engage in commerce flies in the face of capitalism. Right now, if a thief has money, he can get an apartment no questions asked. Maybe not from everyone, but if there is *demand* for no-questions-asked apartments, then someone will provide *supply*. And now you have a thriving criminal enterprise in the middle of a capitalist economy.

You can either have "anarcho" or "capitalism" but you can't have both. And since anarchy is fundamentally opposed to human nature, you'll end up with an emergent government -- whether formally and thoughtfully derived as ours is, or via random chance and based on opportunism. I prefer the former. Capitalism works because humans are self-interested creatures. Anarchy fails for precisely the same reason.

Ostracism works a lot better in a world where all property is privately owned. I am not claiming that there will be no crime or theft, but then the government does very little to stop those crimes now. Have you ever tried reporting a property crime to the police? Ever watched The Big Lebowski? The Dude's car is stolen and the cops finally recover it, this is the interaction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CynvMlFyo . The cops do not prevent or even particularly care about property crimes. They would much rather pull you over and issue you a BS $400 ticket for driving in their sacred diamond lane or not wearing your seat belt. These people do not look out for you. The free market can deliver iPhones, Skype, Cars, Video Poker, etc. There is absolutely no reason to think that free people could not deal with criminals as well. I happen to believe that ostracism is a very powerful mechanism, people who cannot trade with other people will die very quickly. The truth is that eventually the free market will come up with a far better solution than either of us can imagine in a couple hours.

Quote: bigfoot66

People here keep asserting their right to a smoke free casino experience, but this is not a positive right. No one owes you a casino experience on the terms of your choosing.

But it's owed to the choosing of the smokers; the one in five adults that smoke.

It's just going to take a couple landmark lawsuits, to hold businesses liable for knowingly allowing an unhealthful situation to occur at their place of business and cause harm to their customers and employees.... When businesses are held liable, then smoking will not be welcome in any business..

I think this has turned into a stupid thread. It's about the Revel and not egos, thin air theories, or what ifs. Just look at the facts. FACT: Smoking is legal, some places allow it, others don't. Live with it. FACT: We all know smokers are some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. FACT: Many smokers die incredibly painful and humiliating deaths, and deservedly so. That is something us non-smokers can and should all cheer about, as it is a form of education for the younger generations. FACT: Second hand smoke is a killer of innocent people, many of whom are only trying to make a living but are required to work among fools.

Quote: iluvdisco33

I think this has turned into a stupid thread. It's about the Revel and not egos, thin air theories, or what ifs. Just look at the facts. FACT: Smoking is legal, some places allow it, others don't. Live with it. FACT: We all know smokers are some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. FACT: Many smokers die incredibly painful and humiliating deaths, and deservedly so. That is something us non-smokers can and should all cheer about, as it is a form of education for the younger generations. FACT: Second hand smoke is a killer of innocent people, many of whom are only trying to make a living but are required to work among fools.

smoking is not legal indoors in businesses in NJ (except for cigar shops). The casinos applied for exemptions to the law and soon, maybe within 10 years, those exemptions will be revoked. And that's if the city of AC doesn't also pass its own law, which it might. (and already did once before).

Smoking is also illegal indoors in NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, California, etc, etc, etc

Quote: iluvdisco33

Just look at the facts. FACT: Smoking is legal, some places allow it, others don't. Live with it.

So far, so good.

Quote:

FACT: We all know smokers are some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

Over-generalization. I will grant you that uneducated people are more likely to smoke, pursuant to many CDC reports.

Quote:

FACT: Many smokers die incredibly painful and humiliating deaths, and deservedly so. That is something us non-smokers can and should all cheer about, as it is a form of education for the younger generations.

I dispute whether or not they necessarily deserve to die, "Incredibly painful and humiliating deaths." I would have to say that my, "Cheering," someone dying of a painful and/or humiliating death would probably be reserved for murderers, child molesters, and the like.

Quote:

FACT: Second hand smoke is a killer of innocent people, many of whom are only trying to make a living but are required to work among fools.

Patently wrong. There are any number of workplaces that do not allow smoking, and even in the food services industry, (one of the top three occupations in terms of likliness of an individual to smoke) there are a number of States in which smoking in the workplace is illegal. Any restaurant/bar in the entire State of Ohio serves as a good example. Furthermore, there are some companies that do not permit any of their employees to smoke, even on their own time.

Given that this is the case, your, "Fact," that some people are, "Required," to work where others are smoking is, at best, disingenuous. How is it an imperative that any specific person works for any specific employer?

Quote: bigfoot66

When the ancient Isrealites demanded a king, God warned them,...

Ostracism works a lot better in a world where all property is privately owned. I am not claiming that there will be no crime or theft, but then the government does very little to stop those crimes now.
...
I happen to believe that ostracism is a very powerful mechanism, people who cannot trade with other people will die very quickly. The truth is that eventually the free market will come up with a far better solution than either of us can imagine in a couple hours.

Bad idea to bring the bible into this: the bible prescribes death by immolation for certain crimes, and if that isn't cruel and unusual I don't know what is (Lev. 20:14). If you want to live in a country with laws directly derived from thousand-year-old religious texts, those countries exist. But I don't. Even the bible calls for paying taxes.

And what is it about our current economy that prevents voluntaryism from ascending? In other words, if you're so certain that the free market will come up with a better solution, why hasn't it already? What specifically is preventing the ostracism-based social order you prefer from actually coming to pass?

Ostracism is a powerful force, granted, but it's also easily manipulated. Just think back to high school, or re-read Lord of the Flies. A society based on any premise that starts with "if everybody would only just..." is doomed to fail, and voluntaryism is based on the premise "if everybody would only just ostracize the bad people, we could have a functioning society." That would never, ever happen in a capitalist economy because there will always be leakage: criminals with money will find non-criminals to trade with. And then, even if those non-criminals also become "ostracized", what will happen over time is that the group outside the "circle of trust" becomes larger and more powerful than those within it. Then the movement dies out. It's not sustainable, no more than communism is sustainable.

It may be possible in the future to have a technology-based reputation-centric economy, where one's ability to transact in the economy is limited both by their capital *and* their reputation, but we have neither the inclination nor the technology to make that happen now. Our current economy is based on imperfect information and asymmetric transactions. Those factors require regulation, not an unfettered free market, assuming social justice is at all part of the equation. And if it's not, I'd argue the society you envision is anything but civilized.

Quote: MathExtremist

Ostracism is a powerful force, granted, but it's also easily manipulated. Just think back to high school, or re-read Lord of the Flies.

I was reading through this thread and my mind drifted to Lord of the Flies. Beat to the post by about half an hour. There is a clear example of ostracism being abused in the book.

By the way, if you didn't get it the first time you read it, the author uses children because the collapse of their society is more believable, but the use of children is not critical to his thesis.

I am not religious either. I used that bible passage as a historical reference.

Ostracism works very well on eBay. If you fail to pay or deliver as promised for an item of small value, there is no mechanism that forces you to do, but people who do not pay for winning bids or ship products as advertised in a timely manner are shut out from the system: You can really only screw someone once or twice. Another great example is credit scores. People who screw over their creditors are not dealt with violently by Big Al breaking their knees, and no civilized person believes in Debtors prison. But if we lived in the time of Debtor's prision and I was trying to argue in favor of ending a violent response to people not paying debts, you could challenge me with something like, "How would the free market handle people not paying their debts? No one will ever pay their debts! It will be chaos! The fear of not being repaid means that the credit markets would evaporate and the economy would stop growing because no capital would be available". I never would have had an answer for that, I am not smart enough to come up with the idea for credit scores. But the market came up with the system and it works pretty well. Again, I don't even know that ostracism will be the tool of choice, but I suspect it will be at least attempted.

I leave you with the words of the great Robert Higgs,"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural, the state's mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous."

Would still love to hear all about how some greedy capitalist in a free society would kill 500,000 Iraqi children in his quest for profits like our government did with its rotten foreign policy in a quest for more power.

Quote: Mission146

So far, so good.



Over-generalization. I will grant you that uneducated people are more likely to smoke, pursuant to many CDC reports.



I dispute whether or not they necessarily deserve to die, "Incredibly painful and humiliating deaths." I would have to say that my, "Cheering," someone dying of a painful and/or humiliating death would probably be reserved for murderers, child molesters, and the like.



Patently wrong. There are any number of workplaces that do not allow smoking, and even in the food services industry, (one of the top three occupations in terms of likliness of an individual to smoke) there are a number of States in which smoking in the workplace is illegal. Any restaurant/bar in the entire State of Ohio serves as a good example. Furthermore, there are some companies that do not permit any of their employees to smoke, even on their own time.

Given that this is the case, your, "Fact," that some people are, "Required," to work where others are smoking is, at best, disingenuous. How is it an imperative that any specific person works for any specific employer?

You may have forgotten something important: Many people who work among foolhardy smokers, such as in casinos which is a primary thought among all of us here, are in a no way out work situation, and due to the current administration they will remain in such a status.

I did not say all workplaces allow smokers.

I, and others, cheer smokers who suffer unusually horrible deaths from cancer only because it is educational for our youth to witness or hear about such misery. With all the peer pressure they face, I know of no other effective way to teach the children the evils of smoking.

Disco, I'm pretty sure you can educate the youth by exposing them to people suffering from the effects of smoking without cheering about it.

Quote: iluvdisco33

You may have forgotten something important: Many people who work among foolhardy smokers, such as in casinos which is a primary thought among all of us here, are in a no way out work situation, and due to the current administration they will remain in such a status.

I did not say all workplaces allow smokers.

I, and others, cheer smokers who suffer unusually horrible deaths from cancer only because it is educational for our youth to witness or hear about such misery. With all the peer pressure they face, I know of no other effective way to teach the children the evils of smoking.

Rob you wake up on the wrong side of the RV this morning?

In the 60s, people actually tried living in those hippie communes. Not the first to do so, but my point is -- why don't you go organize your own experiment first somewhere with like minded people (Ron Paul people) and show us how great it works?

Quote: rxwine

In the 60s, people actually tried living in those hippie communes. Not the first to do so, but my point is -- why don't you go organize your own experiment first somewhere with like minded people (Ron Paul people) and show us how great it works?

Currently in progress: Free State Project. Too soon to draw conclusions.

Quote: bigfoot66

Ostracism works very well on eBay.

Ebay may have changed their rules to combat this, but buyers usually did not leave negative feedback on bad sellers because the bad seller would retaliate with negative feedback on the buyer. I've purchased about 200 things on Ebay, so I'm familiar with the game. Notice how many auctions say "Bids from anyone with negative feedback will not be accepted."

Likewise, travel websites that accept reviews from the public get a lot of false reviews. Some unscrupulous hotels pay people to write good reviews of their own property and bad reviews of competitors. Perhaps Mission can comment on that.

Even the free speech on this web site has been challenged twice with threatened lawsuits over posts another member didn't like. Both times I called their bluff. However, a weaker webmaster I think would cave and remove the offending posts.

Quote: zippyboy

I remember one baseball player dying from ephedrine use, and within a couple months Sudafed is whisked off the market, or at least put behind the counter where now we have to sign a paper with our DL# just to get that cold medicine. The Sudafed out on the floor isn't the same active ingredient. Ridiculous that one ball player can alter the law like that, yet cigarettes are still legal when they're documented to kill 500,000 people annually in the USA alone. If I believed in god, I wish the hand of god would come down and magically fix all the injustices of the world like apartheid, cigarettes and Honey Boo-Boo being a celebrity.

Come on Zippyboy, you believe that? Sudafed was put behind the counter because it was very easy to create crystal meth from it. Meth producers were going into stores and buying up the lot to create crystal meth.

Quote: Wizard

Ebay may have changed their rules to combat this, but buyers usually did not leave negative feedback on bad sellers because the bad seller would retaliate with negative feedback on the buyer. I've purchased about 200 things on Ebay, so I'm familiar with the game. Notice how many auctions say "Bids from anyone with negative feedback will not be accepted."

I agree that the systems are not perfect, but they are also relatively new, less than 20 years old, so give it a couple more decades to mature. Regardless, I should not be held to a standard of perfection here. Compare the eBay model to the government model of trying to sue someone who lives 3000 miles away over a $300 disagreement. The very idea of using the government to solve this problem is absurd. By comparison, the eBay model works pretty well. Well enough in fact, that the very large bulk of transactions on eBay go over without any problems. Bad transactions are clearly an exception to the rule.

Casinos and workplaces are made non-smoking not to protect its patrons, who have a choice as to where they can go, but to protect the workers.

Various laws are in place throughout the world that allow for people to work in a healthy workplace. 2nd hand smoke is not healthy. Naturally, a workplace where smoking is allowed discriminates against those with respiratory illnesses such as asthma and those women who are expecting. In a progressive society, this is not permitted.

It has nothing to do with the patrons. Canada has made that clear. They recognize that the customers have a choice.

Quote: rxwine

In the 60s, people actually tried living in those hippie communes. Not the first to do so, but my point is -- why don't you go organize your own experiment first somewhere with like minded people (Ron Paul people) and show us how great it works?

Commune? I am a libertarian, not a communist, not a hippie. Besides, your argument is "Want us to stop stealing half your paycheck to kill people overseas? Well, why don't you move out, you unpatriotic #$%...." The interesting thing is that my society would be far more tolerant of people who wanted to start any social experiment like that they wanted to. One more quesrtion, If I do move to New Hampshire for the www.freestateproject.com (of which I am a signer) based on your comment I assume I can count on you to support our effort to secede?

Quote: iluvdisco33

I think this has turned into a stupid thread. It's about the Revel and not egos, thin air theories, or what ifs. Just look at the facts. FACT: Smoking is legal, some places allow it, others don't. Live with it. FACT: We all know smokers are some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. FACT: Many smokers die incredibly painful and humiliating deaths, and deservedly so. That is something us non-smokers can and should all cheer about, as it is a form of education for the younger generations. FACT: Second hand smoke is a killer of innocent people, many of whom are only trying to make a living but are required to work among fools.

I disagree with the fact that "smokers are some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth". Smoking is an addiction, just like gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc. Very smart people get hooked onto these things. They don't deserve to die from horrible deaths just because they take up a bad habit.

Why use the eBay model when we already have the Amish, or am I the only one familiar with the culture? Children are brought up Amish until the enter the age of rumschpringa (usually mid teens), a time when they leave the community and live a normal, capatalist life. During this time they are to decide if they wish to stay "normal" or return to the Amish community. If they choose to stay "English", they are banished from so much as visiting their family and are ostrasized from the Amish community. Not surprisingly, a great majority of teens return to live out an Amish life.

It works, most definitely. But I think the major difference is size. In cults, communes, very small communities, I see it being very effective. If you're dependant on a small group of people for acceptance, entertainment, companionship, etc, of course you'll act right to maintain those connections. But most of us just live "American capatalist". If I wreck my name here in WNY, I can easily move 50/500/5,000 miles and start over.

Quote: MathExtremist

Firstly, I never said anything about "in a world where people only engage in mutually beneficial transactions," and I think it's naive to assume any human society will ever be like that. One cannot design a functional human society by starting from a high-minded but utterly unrealistic principle, like "people will never behave aggressively" or "people will always put the good of society above their own." The key is to accept human nature, including all our flaws, and design a society that works *despite* those flaws (or rather, doesn't treat them as flaws at all). Ostracism doesn't work at all because some people simply don't care. You think a guy accused of theft would not be able to rent an apartment? First off, in the U.S. anyway, being accused of something doesn't mean squat -- we need proof, and who delivers that up if not an impartial state? An impartial non-state entity, perhaps a corporation willing to sell justice for the lowest price? How is that impartial?

Second, the idea that a thief can't engage in commerce flies in the face of capitalism. Right now, if a thief has money, he can get an apartment no questions asked. Maybe not from everyone, but if there is *demand* for no-questions-asked apartments, then someone will provide *supply*. And now you have a thriving criminal enterprise in the middle of a capitalist economy.

You can either have "anarcho" or "capitalism" but you can't have both. And since anarchy is fundamentally opposed to human nature, you'll end up with an emergent government -- whether formally and thoughtfully derived as ours is, or via random chance and based on opportunism. I prefer the former. Capitalism works because humans are self-interested creatures. Anarchy fails for precisely the same reason.

I'd like to suggest that government is controlled anarchy - however, it is limited in that the anarchists are the ones in power. They tear through tax money as if it is just magically "there". They do not think of how people had to work 8 or 16 or 20 hours a day to obtain what they so readily take for granted. Porkbarrel politics is anarchy, "too big to fail" is another example - how about "too small to fail" for all us sole proprietors out there that really needed help. Help that most sole proprietors I know would be too proud to accept. Government spends for government, without consequence. Surplus - instead of giving back to the people, they find a way to spend it on whatever will benefit them in the next election- that is a new type of anarchy - by the office holders, for the office holders.

Government is controlled anarchy? Bit of an oxymoron, as a true anarchy is a society without a enforced system of government. You can't have a governmental anarchy.

Quote: bigfoot66

Commune? I am a libertarian, not a communist, not a hippie. Besides, your argument is "Want us to stop stealing half your paycheck to kill people overseas? Well, why don't you move out, you unpatriotic #$%...." The interesting thing is that my society would be far more tolerant of people who wanted to start any social experiment like that they wanted to. One more quesrtion, If I do move to New Hampshire for the www.freestateproject.com (of which I am a signer) based on your comment I assume I can count on you to support our effort to secede?

Well, if you've ever used resources in the U.S. that you didn't directly pay for you're a stealer too so don't be hypocrite. I drove on roads and sidewalks on my bicycle as a teen before I actually paid much taxes and used city lighting , went to public school, watched a parade helped and funded by the city taxes etc.,? Didn't have any fireman show up to put out a fire, but I could have called them.

How many libertarians offer to pay for services they didn't agree to but received anyway? Like being taken to an ER after a wreck whether they have insurance or not. I'd like to hear the stats on that.

What the hey, I will support your effort to secede? Assuming I hear about it.

Quote: thecesspit

Government is controlled anarchy? Bit of an oxymoron, as a true anarchy is a society without a enforced system of government. You can't have a governmental anarchy.

I am of the opinion that the government itself is anarchistic

The thing is about being a libertarian -- do you know what it actually means?

Today's form of libertarian does not want any more laws imposed on them, but seem to be fairly happy with the laws that are in place "the status quo". They feel that taxes are a waste, especially when they are not the direct beneficiary of them (that's why they seem to be perfectly happy with Medicare/Mediciad/Social Security but not ObamaCare). I wonder how you would feel about Medicare if you knew you were going to die at age 60. I wonder how you would feel about paying school taxes when you don't have any children or your children are grown up.

Alone, libertarianism does not bring about great societies. It might bring about great people, but it doesn't bring about great societies. Socialism just quells the great people and takes away too much from those who have the most to contribute. A great socieity takes a mixture of the two -- minimum amounts of law with social welfare with an everlasting struggle between the two.

Anyhow, I'm way off topic.

If Revel is going to allow smoking, opening a smoking area is probably the best way to attract gamblers and still maintain smoking. The Niagara casinos here both have smoking areas (outside) where you can puff in between shuffles or in between slot machine pulls.

For me, a smoking ban inside a casino has always been about the worker, who is in there 40 hours a week breathing in the air. For Revel, the lack of smoking is a differentiator, but the AC market doesn't support it because the people going to AC have probably been going for years and I doubt there are many new customers as a result.

When you choose a casino to go to, what are your values? Well, #1 would probably be loyalty and a rewards program that you like, whether its the free room comps through TR or the other programs that other casinos offer. #2 would probably be comfort - what amenities are you used to? #3 might be price -- what will it cost for me to get there, eat, and stay? #4 might be game experience -- what games are offered, what games do I like, what are the limits. #5 might be smoking.

Most people who go to AC have been going for years. They accept the smoky environment as a cost of going to AC and something they've accepted a long time ago. And Revel doesn't really offer anything to them in the other four categories to entice them.