Popular Philosphy Among Poker Players....

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than it being against the law there is no difference at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, other than the significant difference that I mentioned, there is no difference at all? Sounds like we agree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
I was merely raising a ligitimate although admittedly stretched counter argument to the 'competitive' people who want to use their intelligence to outwit and out-earn less academic people, but then refuse them the opportunity to use the limited skills they have to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those would be the 'fairweather capitalists' I mentioned; the people who are all in favor of competition when it means they pay lower prices for something at Wal-Mart, but come whining to the government whenever someone competes with them.

Competition in business is part of the game of capitalism. 'Competition' in mugging or robbing someone takes place outside the structure of capitalism, which is why it's against the law in the first place (notice how when you go to wal-mart and buy something, you and wal-mart agree to the transaction, whereas when you get mugged, it's a bit more one-sided).

[Dr. Strangelove]

"Competition is a sin." -John D. Rockefeller

I think it's really rich that so many of the class of people she most admired would and do consider the bulk of her "philosophy" utter garbage.

Ayn Rand=teh suck, "in the parlance of our time"

[purnell]

RedManPlus:
[ QUOTE ]
But don't worry poker guy...
Every stripper and escort and barracuda and easy skank is looking to "loot" you.
The whores are at the top of the poker food chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm..

I just spent a week in Vegas, alone, and didn't hire any prostitutes or strippers. I don't have a problem with it, I just think sex is kinda boring when it becomes a commodity.

I think your "food chain" has more links than you are aware of, RMP.


[ QUOTE ]
People are not stupid...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, [we] are.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a somewhat entertaining read, though John Galts speech at the end reminded me of reading case law. I didnt really want to finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely only skimmed the last 5 pages of Galt's speech.

You may find it interesting, however, that I am a hardcore liberal and count Rand's book in my favorites.

The Democrats are far too right wing for me.

[dhende3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who claims to prize logic so highly, you puzzle me by generalizing your "microcosm" so quickly, absolutely, and universally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to write a book here. I could nit pick over all of the the MINOR inconsistencies with the "microcosm" but then people would get bored and stop reading. Obviously there are parts of this comparison that don't make sense, in fact, I mentioned that there are contradictions. I am just stating that the core aspects of Poker are LARGELY consistent with Rand's ideals in Atlas Shrugged.

[dhende3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is naively simplistic, and just wrong in my opinion. Almost all academic work is based on the idea of collectivism -- people collaborate to achieve more than what each could achieve on his own. It was Isaac Newton who said, "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Similarly, individuals such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, were able to carry out programs of ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

It's really hard to distinguish between what is the result of "individuals" and "society," because all individuals are, in fact, a part of a society.

I would consider myself a collectivist, insofar as I believe that society has a moral responsibility to help out those who are in genuine need. I don't believe it as an absolute; some people just refuse to take advantage of the help offered to them, sometimes people have their own problems and can't help others, and people should enjoy a certain amount of leisure time and pleasure.

Poker's a fun game I enjoy playing, and I enjoy it for many of the "objectivist" aspects that are in it. But life would be pretty unsatisfying if that is all there is to it.

I guess you could look at someone who lives his entire life retarded a couple of ways. Maybe the "objectivist" approach is to consider him a worthless piece of **** since he has very little reasoning capabilities. Personally, I tend to see such a person as having the basic dignity that all humans have and who had the misfortune of receiving a bad starting hand in the poker game of life, if you will. I think it is morally incumbant that such a person be given support so that he can live a reasonably satifsying life, given his inherant limitations. That's a responsibility that belongs to individuals and society as a whole. Obviously, there are tough decisions to be made: how much help and support is enough; how much should government pay for him with taxpayer money (e.g. sending him to special education classes); how do the limitations affect the emotional well-being of his family members and other loved ones; etc.

Just some thoughts. Also, if you're interested in the merits of competition and cooperation, there's a lot of cool aspects of game theory that deals with this. If you've never heard of the "prisoner's dilemma," that's definitely something worth reading about. It'll definitely make you stop and think whether everyone pursuing their own self-interest always leads to the best possible outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a minor grey area for me. Newton's achievements were based on his and others' work as individuals in my opinion. This has nothing to do with society.

As for Hitler and Pol Pot... I think you are proving my point just by mentioning them. For one, I never said that the work of individuals is always good (for lack of a better word). These individuals base their ideologies on a sort of "mob mentality" and not on reason. Without society, these atrocities would not be possible. By succumbing to society, one abandons the search for the truth through reason in exchange for a steadfast mode of thinking. Read the works of any existentialist for a more elaborate explaination. Specifically, Jean Paul Sartre's "The Anti-Semite and the Jew" for his explanation on Hilter and racism.

[lgas]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think sex is kinda boring when it becomes a commodity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not doing it right.

[jkkkk]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people by nature are selfish, basically meaning that they are more inerested in matters involving the self rather than matters involving others. During human development, we learn to share, work well with others, and work within a social structure on various levels. This is just being human. I think we are constantly fighting this tug of war between our selfish best interests and those of society. Personally, I think the world should just elect me king, and I'd set things right!

Ayn Rand=teh suck, "in the parlance of our time"

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, although i wouldn't quite define human nature as selfish.

When i first considered the idea of humans being inherently selfish, i thought it to be more or less true but really i see the definition of the adjective 'selfish' as differentiating between normal and selfish behaviour.

Human beings have a lot of needs and wants, it is simply more efficient for us as individuals to act upon our desires. The world would be a horribly inefficient place if people had most of the things they wanted to do, done for them.

A human trait that contradicts the term selfish is the want to save anothers life. Most sane people, if they saw another in danger, would instinctively act to preserve life and i don't think the motivation behind this is for a reward of some such, i believe there is an inherent will in humans to save other humans.

This said, i am not saying one would willingly risk their life for a strangers, just that i believe selfish behaviour can be defined as people that are overly concerned with one self.

There is most definitely a different set of people in my mind when i think between selfish and non-selfish.

[Bodhi]

I didn't think I would reply to this post, but seeing that so many have contributed...

There is no connection at all for me between philosophy and poker.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you and I sit down together at the poker table is it reason or government that ensures I follow the rules?

I don't know much about Rand or objectivism but the image I get of tall, broad shouldered men competing in the market place on an even playing field, negotiating fairly, etc. doesn't look like any market or economy or human instituion I've ever seen. Nobody wants a truly free market--fair rules are good, any rules are better than none and my rules are the best.

Adam Smith saw "free" markets as well-regulated markets. But the establishment of regulations is another sphere in which people will compete. Rand's "ideal world" as you put seems only to be able to exist in an impossible bubble.

Read Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Now that guy was sharp. Don't know if he smoked though.