Is being pro ethically wrong? Of couse not you communist!

[Mike Gallo]

Dude,

You have too much time on your hands.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me introduce myself. I've been a professional online poker player for about a year now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your a professional yet. I believe there has been other post on this subject

[LargeCents]

For me, poker income seems similar to the types of jobs where you earn tips. I mean, you can't make much at waitressing or stripping, unless you perform at exceptional levels. The same could be said of poker: playing the highest limits, providing lots of action, etc. So, poker players that earn a living on their skill are basically performing a service at an exceptional skill level. By the way, if I am at the table, and you toke the dealer, toss a chip my way also. I've earned it! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

--Cents

[tolbiny]

You asked an ethical question and supported it with a economic answer. You haven't explained why comunism is "bad" and why capitalism is "good". Also your sex toy store anecdote was off topic and not well discussed. Would you consider it alright to outcompete the little old lady by hiring thugs to fire bomb her store at night? As far as economics goes that might be the best way to do this, but it doesn't address at all the ethical side of the equation. It is very easy to scream loudly that capitalism is good, its not, its a system that in and of itself is neutral. How you run that system and how it affects people's lives is how you should interpret right and wrong.
and as a side note, communism was a hell of a lot better sounding an idea to 50 million starving peasents in russia because, well considering the prevous 1500 years of rule there it was a better idea.

[bwana devil]

Oh, and by the way

[ QUOTE ]
if your going to insult my literacy I suggest you spell commingled with to m's.


[/ QUOTE ]


"your" should be "you're"

[DVO]

Let me get this straight.

In terms of ethics,

1) a system in which citizens must succumb to the government's wishes in terms of every day life

and

2) A system in which people are mostly free to make their own choices (capitalism)

Are both ethically 'neutral?'

[Scotch78]

First, let's separate communism from the nationalist (USSR, China, etc.) and despotic (Cuba) governments that call themselves communist. Under a true communist political system more decisions (that directly influence the individual) will be made by the government than under a democratic-capitalist society. However, under a true communist government (as under a true democratic one) the people are the government.

Second, the citizens of democratic, communist, nationalist, and despotic governments are all free to make their own decisions, strictly speaking. Some will have more or less options to choose from, thus limiting their freedom, but you mentioned succumbing to the government's decisions. So in respect to obeying another person's decisions, how do these governments compare to each other? Well, they all expect their citizens to obey the laws and punish individuals who don't. What varies are the specific laws and the punishments. First, the punishments: Americans tend to assume that "communist" countries give harsher punishments. Since there's no fun to be had if we're wrong, let's assume we're right--are more stringent punishments ethically wrong? I'll come back to that one after we all agree on what the correct punishment is for every misdeed and design a system to quantify each government's distance from the ideal. For now I'll just skip ahead and assume, like my fellow Americans, that "communist" countries penalize more actions. Again, there's no discussion if we're wrong, so for the sake of argument let's assume we're right. Well, what should and should not be punishable under law? More quicksand . . . hmm . . . get the picture yet?

However, if my fellow Americans are searching for a way to demonize foreign governments, here's a simpler argument:

1) Every individual has a right to govern himself.

2) Imposing a decision on an individual without his agreement violates his rights.

3) It is ethically wrong to violate an individual's rights.

4) "Communist" governments violate the rights of individual citizens more often and more severely than democratic-capitalist governments.

Therefore:

5) "Communist" governments are morally wrong.

Scott

PS For the non-philosophers out there, that slice of swiss cheese at the end is a sarcastic piece of bullshit.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this straight.

In terms of ethics,

1) a system in which citizens must succumb to the government's wishes in terms of every day life

and

2) A system in which people are mostly free to make their own choices (capitalism)

Are both ethically 'neutral?'

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how capitalism is freedom where communism isn't. i would put capitalism in category 1, in your description.

i'm certainly not free, under capitalism (which is more of a descriptor than a 'system') to do many things. and just about every other thing that i am 'free' to do legally, i cannot just choose to do, because those things cost money (and are, therefore, not free). i an choose many different ways to spend my money once i have it, but my poverty will have a severely limiting effect on the choices i have in front of me, just like communism.

also, a good portion of the money i 'earn' in capitalism is taken from me by the government and used to pay for things i would never approve of if i was asked directly, nor would i have much choice in the matter of who gets to choose. if everybody thought (and voted) that i should give up even more of my paycheck to the government so that senators could eat caviar from the crotches of virgins, i would have no say in the matter.

i think 'capitalism' and 'communism' are closer than any of us would like to admit. capitalism as we practice it, and communism as it has been practiced, are both imperfect imitations of the ideal systems those terms represent.

anyway, to the original poster: why are you rambling? what made you think this post was significant or relevant or needed? you did a horrible job of applying the concepts of your argument to the original question, which you posed. you set yourself up and still failed to deliver.

btw, i don't think there's anything wrong with taking money from people in a poker game. i play to win. those people are out to take my money, so what is wrong with me trying to win theirs? if you are responsible enough to lay down a bet at my table, then my moral culpability for your financial success goes out the window.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking money from someone is harming them and therefore could be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget for a moment what it felt like when your mother poured hydrogen peroxide on an infected cut, because I'd like to assume that it's wrong to hurt someone. Stealing, aka "taking someone's money", is hurting him in the same way that a) kicking him in the balls, b) divorcing him, or c) telling 5-yr old him he can't have the new X-Box because mommy and daddy don't have the money, is hurting him. If you picked a), stop reading. I learned long ago never to argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. If you picked b), Congratulations! you're the poster boy for materialism. If you picked c), volunteer for Toys for Tots. And if you picked d) Thou shalt not steal, please reread your bible and find me the part where it says "because it's wrong".

And if you made it this far, here's the next question: playing poker is "taking someone's money" in the same sense that a) picking his pocket, or b) selling him a massage, is taking his money.

[ QUOTE ]
You are occasionally playing against addicts that can not help themselves. You are contributing to the destruction of that addict’s miserable life.


[/ QUOTE ]

This little gem is like one squirt of Lysol in a port-o-pottie, then it's right back to the bullshit. Accepting responsibility for those unable to do so for themselves is a great example of morality, but the converse is a lot harder to prove, namely that it's immoral not to accept responsibility for those unable to do so for themsleves. So while I'd agree with you that an ethical poker player should be very careful taking (too much) money from a gambling addict, I can't agree that a poker player is unethical for treating the addict like every other fish.

Scott

[Scotch78]

The economy grows every time money voluntarily changes hands. As to whether society grows from a specific monetary transaction . . . since when was economics about the non-fiscal advancement of society?

Scott