Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[teo123]

It helps solve the problem of ignorance in democracy by highly informing a few random people about an issue and then letting them vote on it.

I don't know if that would work any better than usual democracy. When I decided that the Earth was flat, I was way more informed about the issue than most of the people are. Most of the people who vote are effectively doing a coin-toss, so they don't make a statistically signifficant bias either towards the good or towards the bad policies.

Back to your old flat-earth ways I see. Well, I tried.

That's written both in my sociology and my psychology textbooks. You think they are anti-government propaganda? Besides, there are very few tribes whose languages can't be documented because of the tribes being xenophobic. If people are naturally xenophobic, the number of languages that couldn't be classified because of the insufficient data would be large. This is like saying it's natural for human beings to eat meat.

That's bullshit. Where are you getting this?

From the Appendix of the American Heritage Dictionary. It's written by Watkins, I believe in 2002, but I am not sure about the year. It's cited on Wikipedia on the page about Indo-European culture. You can probably find it on-line, I won't waste my megabytes right now. Why would that be bullshit?Also, I think that there is a bias in modern linguistics to make Proto-Indo-Europeans look like non-peaceful people. *pelekju is often said to have meant "weapon axe", even though it could have easily been an axe used to cut wood. *(s)leh2wos is often cited to have meant "army", but that meaning is only attested in Phrygian, and could have very well not be the primary meaning. It most likely meant simply "people", like Greek "laos" or German "Leute".

Genocide is a daily occurrence without government.

Well, the biggest genocides are certainly caused by governments.

Without a third party to intervene, each family takes vengeance on the other in an endless feud. It's not so much about the murderer, it's about the retribution.

Why do you think that's the case? Look, I happen to know a few murderers, and I can safely tell you, the cause of most of the murders is alcohol abuse. They killed unintentionally, and it's not obvious how a punishment could help. Plus, I know one murderer who killed an officer of "socijalna skrb", because they caused him great psychological problems. That murder was caused by the government itself.

Yes, even taking into account those deaths.
Read this:

I wasn't able to download what you linked me to, but here is a statistic that contradicts it:
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/democide-vs-other-causes-of-death/
And he is not counting wars, death pennalties or other bad things mostly caused by governments.

it's insane to conclude that murder should be legal

Maybe it just sounds insane to you because you've been indoctrinated since early childhood to think otherwise. You know, just like veganism sounds insane to meat-eaters.

It's the person who wants to CHANGE society who needs evidence, both people wanting NEW laws, and people wanting to remove old ones.

Since laws usually apply the use of force, called oppression, the burden of proof is on one who thinks a law should be kept, rather than on one who wants to remove it.

You're just regurgitating anti-government propaganda now. 40% of the adult U.S. population is not illiterate. It's around 14%, 21% in addition to that just read poorly.

So, according to the government's own statistics, 14+21=35% of people are functionally illiterate.
According to the Croatia government statistics, only 1% of people are functionally illiterate, but, living in Croatia, I can safely tell you it's a lot higher. I can see why the government studies would be biased, but I can't see why the non-government studies would be.

No, monopolies are outlawed. That's another important government function.

That doesn't stop them from happening.

Biological pollution resulted in plagues, and soot and other air pollution resulted in mass deaths through lung disease before the modern equivalents of the EPA.

It's science and technology that made the factories less poluting, just like it was science and technology that made the toilets and the waste-water management. Government just takes credit for it. When a government actually tries to manage waste better than a private company, it fails to do so (see the Love Canal). That reminds me of saying: "God only helps those who help themselves".

More bullshit.

I know that such studies aren't reliable, but don't claim that it's self-evident that FDA somehow caused the medical science to improve. Look at the Bite-Size Vegan videos on animal testing (she cites many reliable sources). If you invented penicillin or aspirin these days, they wouldn't pass the safety tests. Private companies would do a better job.

That's a problem too, but having liberty doesn't magically create prosperity.

It's not magic, it's the invisible hand. And there is a lot of evidence that it does work. Think of the computer you are typing this on. It's made from so many parts made by so many people working for their own gain. The government doesn't count for anything. It just takes credit for it, and dares to ask you to pay them taxes.

I've educated myself and I am trying to think with my own head. It seems to me that you aren't.

[DarlBundren]

That's written both in my sociology and my psychology textbooks

.

This is the earliest documented evidence of inter-tribal warfare:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/stone-age-massacre-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know if that would work any better than usual democracy. When I decided that the Earth was flat, I was way more informed about the issue than most of the people are. Most of the people who vote are effectively doing a coin-toss, so they don't make a statistically signifficant bias either towards the good or towards the bad policies.

That's why the whole point of it is informing people.

You get to take a few days off work or school or whatever, and get REALLY informed on one single issue, and discuss it with a bunch of people who got the same information. You become an expert on that one issue, like whether fines for illegal parking should be raised (or whatever). All the pros and cons, all the data.

It's only issue by issue, because you really have to narrow things down to properly inform people in a day or so. People can still be wrong, but it's less likely.

That's written both in my sociology and my psychology textbooks. You think they are anti-government propaganda?

What is?
I think we already talked about how your school/text books were kind of terrible. That's not uncommon to have poor quality educational material with many errors and biases.

There are problems with public education, and that's at the root of many of them. We need better teachers and better material.

If people are naturally xenophobic, the number of languages that couldn't be classified because of the insufficient data would be large.

No, that's not an argument. Just because people have a strong tendency to something doesn't mean it can't be overcome, for example by trade, or that 100% of the people will not be like that. You only need one to share the language. Profit motivation is a pretty good one.
Keeping a language secret is probably as hard as a conspiracy theory; the more people know it, the less plausible it is.

From the Appendix of the American Heritage Dictionary. It's written by Watkins, I believe in 2002, but I am not sure about the year.

You need to link and quote these things. You may have misunderstood, Wikipedia may have misunderstood, or the source may be wrong. Don't just say you read it somewhere for other people to hunt down.

Well, the biggest genocides are certainly caused by governments.

Doesn't matter, many small ones add up to more than the big ones.
Society was more violent, despite the wars and genocides, before government. Read Pinker's book.
Slate has a similar article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html


You can look a trends relative to development, too, in tribal societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
Or you can look at behavior in some of our closest relatives, Chimpanzees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Here's an interview with Pinker at reason:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence
Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/

They killed unintentionally, and it's not obvious how a punishment could help.

That's not murder, that's manslaughter. No, it's not useful to punish manslaughter the same as murder. In principle, all drunk drivers should be punished the same, whether they accidentally killed somebody or not, because they all put people in danger (some just got unlucky). The problem is that when they kill somebody, you have to appease the family too (again, preventing retribution and making the victims feel like they got justice is a big part of law).

There are many important and valid arguments you can make about the details of legal application, but making an argument to throw it ALL out is mad.

I wasn't able to download what you linked me to, but here is a statistic that contradicts it:
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/democide-vs-other-causes-of-death/

Find a credible source. I'm not going on a wild goose chase through poorly sited anarchist propaganda.

Maybe it just sounds insane to you because you've been indoctrinated since early childhood to think otherwise.

No, it's just crazy. It results in personal retribution, and those things always escalate. We have overwhelming historical evidence of this, the most primitive form of justice is the death price (where you have to pay a sum to the family of the one you murdered).
The primary social utility we need for a stable society is some form of courts to resolve conflict. This even occurs within micro-governments of organized crime.

You're talking crazy here. When you say things like that you lose all credibility and demonstrate your ignorance of history and society. You have a lot to learn about how society functions. Don't stand on faith that humanity can just get along without any government.

Since laws usually apply the use of force, called oppression, the burden of proof is on one who thinks a law should be kept, rather than on one who wants to remove it.

Incorrect. You're making a claim that a law should be changed/removed. You have the burden of proof.

Likewise, vegans need to prove humans can still have enough food if we end animal agriculture; thankfully that's easy, since we're growing MORE food to feed to animals than killing those animals provides (even ignoring foods that are not traditionally eaten by humans).
You have to show something works (or can work) before you implement it.

There are a lot of arguments that can be made against modern prison systems, but you have to have a viable alternative that solves the fundamental social problem of providing a third party force that settles disputed and prevents escalation into war, as well as act as a deterrent.

So, according to the government's own statistics, 14+21=35% of people are functionally illiterate.

"Functionally" now?
It all depends on where you draw the line for literacy; this has been inconsistent for a long time.
It's a problem with public education, I explained the funding issue. Relying on illiterate parents to teach children to read isn't a solution, neither is going to private schools that poor and illiterate parents can't afford. Money does not magically come with increased freedom.

That doesn't stop them from happening.

It inhibits them and means they get broken down. It's not perfect, but without government to stop it ALL you have are monopolies. Learn just the smallest bit of history.

Maybe EquALLity can school you here, since she's a history buff, and probably more patient than I am.

It's science and technology that made the factories less poluting, just like it was science and technology that made the toilets and the waste-water management.

Who funds those things?
You need to understand game theory. Limiting pollution is beneficial to everybody, but if only one person does it it's harmful to that person because others aren't following the rules. You have to have regulation to force them all to do it (which they will agree with).
A great modern example is stopping cigarette ads in the U.S.; large established cigarette companies agreed with it for the WHOLE industry, because it saved them money on advertisement. But if only one did it, it would have been harmful to that company.

Government just takes credit for it. When a government actually tries to manage waste better than a private company, it fails to do so (see the Love Canal). That reminds me of saying: "God only helps those who help themselves".

Outsourcing work to private companies, paid for and with government oversight, is a viable option (debatable, but within the bounds of reason). That's basically the position of U.S. Republicans. It works well for some industries, less well for others.

I know that such studies aren't reliable, but don't claim that it's self-evident that FDA somehow caused the medical science to improve.

It's not about improvement in the science, it's about removal of competition with pseudoscience.
It's kind of like, when you're gardening, you pull up the weeds and that helps the good plants. It's indirect, but if you don't weed then your good plants will be suffocated.

Look at the Bite-Size Vegan videos on animal testing (she cites many reliable sources).

I doubt it. She's kind of a woo.
There are issues with animal testing. If you want to start a thread on it, we can talk about that.

If you invented penicillin or aspirin these days, they wouldn't pass the safety tests.

EVIDENCE.

You need to stop making all of these wild claims without credible evidence. LINK. QUOTE.
If you don't you're probably going to get banned.

It's not magic, it's the invisible hand. And there is a lot of evidence that it does work.

"Invisible hand" magic. No, there isn't evidence that it works. You'r using Flat Earth logic again.

SOURCES. EVIDENCE. Post it.

I've educated myself and I am trying to think with my own head. It seems to me that you aren't.

Right back to your Flat Earth ways. Imagine for a moment the possibility that you are just as ignorant now about this subject as you were about Flat Earth. Remember how much you thought you knew about physics?

And here we're dealing with even softer sciences. I won't waste time on this with you. If you could not learn from your mistakes with Flat Earth and grow some humility, I'm done with you.

If you post again without evidence, I'm going to ask other members if they agree it's finally time to ban you for wasting people's time and energy and not making real arguments/presenting credible evidence. You're here to make things up and lecture on your new-found faith, and that's not going to fly.

[teo123]

This is the earliest documented evidence of inter-tribal warfare

Maybe there was a small government that caused it, as with todays wars.

You get to take a few days off work or school or whatever, and get REALLY informed on one single issue, and discuss it with a bunch of people who got the same information.

One of the biggest problems in democracy is the paradox of interests. Yes, educated people voting would benefit the society, but it will take a signifficant amount of valuable time for them to educate themselves enough and the probability their vote will change the society is pretty low. Why would they do that?

Don't just say you read it somewhere for other people to hunt down.

OK, let's try this way: look at the etymologies of the words "have", "give" and "take" on Wiktionary. Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't have such words.

Society was more violent, despite the wars and genocides, before government. Read Pinker's book.

Look, the humanistic psychology, that says people are naturally peaceful, is the mainstream. Personality interpretation that supposes people are naturally violent, called psychoanalysis, is considered pseudoscience by most of the psychologists. If I were to read the Pinker's book, I would be doing exactly the same mistake I was doing when I was reading the Moon landing conspiracy theorists. I would be reading claims against mainstream science without the ability to evaluate them.

Find a credible source. I'm not going on a wild goose chase through poorly sited anarchist propaganda.

It's cited on Wikipedia. I think you are overestimating the importance of "credible" sources. English Wikipedia could easily be the most reliable and unbiased source on-line, especially when it comes to a bit more controversial things.

The primary social utility we need for a stable society is some form of courts to resolve conflict.

Having courts? Having judges and lawyers? Having very educated people making money of other people arguing with each other? Sounds like an excellent recipe for making troubles.

Incorrect. You're making a claim that a law should be changed/removed. You have the burden of proof.

Laws are basically statements about how a society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. Though I realize I am not very good at epistemology. When I claimed airplanes didn't exist, why wasn't the burden of proof on those who claimed they did exist?

Relying on illiterate parents to teach children to read isn't a solution, neither is going to private schools that poor and illiterate parents can't afford.

And why would everyone have to go to school? If people are very poor, child labour is a good thing. It's better to be illiterate than to be hungry.

Without government to stop it ALL you have are monopolies.

How exactly? Different people have different preferences. If a corporation A makes red shoes and corporation B makes blue shoes, some people will buy shoes from A and some from B. It's only when you have a government company making shoes and laws not enabling private companies to do the same that you have monopoly.

Limiting pollution is beneficial to everybody, but if only one person does it it's harmful to that person because others aren't following the rules.

Over time, environment-friendly technologies become cheaper, and people or companies will buy them instead of the polluting ones. Think of the electric cars, for example. I agree that governments can speed it up, but under what cost? They will hurt small companies, who can't afford the new technologies, more than the big ones. That will cause monopoly and unemployment. Think of the Great Leap Forward.

it's about removal of competition with pseudoscience.

What's the evidence that FDA actually does that? It's still legal to sell fish oil as prevention of heart disease, even though, according to Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it actually helps. And the same goes for most of the cough medication as well as most of the anti-depressants.

You need to stop making all of these wild claims without credible evidence.

I've told you: it's from the Bite Size Vegan video about animal testing. And I thought it was a well-known thing among vegans. And why do you think she is a quack?

If you could not learn from your mistakes with Flat Earth and grow some humility, I'm done with you.

Well, what I have learned is not to trust ad-hoc hypotheses and to trust the mainstream science unless I know very well what I am doing. I've studied linguistics a lot, so I probably know what I am doing when I make a statement about linguistics.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is the earliest documented evidence of inter-tribal warfare

Maybe there was a small government that caused it, as with todays wars.

More conspiracy theory logic.
Watch as the hypothesis shifts slightly with every debunking, just like Flat Earth.

There is ALWAYS some power structure, even in a clique of highschool kids; they always form rules of operation and have leaders. This goes back to tribes of apes.

Why would they do that?

Why do people show up for jury duty today?
Because they have to, and they're generally compensated. Although they aren't compensated very well ($40-$50 a day).

OK, let's try this way: look at the etymologies of the words "have", "give" and "take" on Wiktionary. Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't have such words.

NO, you do that and show the evidence. That doesn't demonstrate anything even if it is true of these cherry-picked words. And it isn't really true; it's just your ignorance of linguistics and failure to do several seconds of googling:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1eo4x7/did_protoindoeuropean_have_a_verb_for_to_have/

They still had constructions to convey this meaning. Stop with this bullshit.

Possession is seen in every culture we know of (yes, even the famous example of certain Native Americans, they did own land rights, and were personally entitled to the things that came from that land, which was equivalent to a form of ownership) and in non-humans too.

How about you look for "mine" "my" "ours" "keep" " "steal" etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary

Even if you're a moron who tries to use linguistics as "proof" of cultural practice despite mountains of evidence of actual practice, you still could not come to the conclusion you have if you did any real research on the language.

So yes, you're just repeating your Flat Earth bullshit tactics of pulling stuff out of your ass or copying from conspiracy theory sites.
If you carry on and make ANY more bad arguments to waste my time without doing the research (expecting me to do it for you) and without providing evidence, I'm going to ask for consensus on banning you. This is a repeated problem you have improved on not at all.

Look, the humanistic psychology, that says people are naturally peaceful, is the mainstream.

No, people are naturally social and form community and get along with people they're close to, but they're also naturally tribalistic.

You need to do your own research. I gave you references.

Personality interpretation that supposes people are naturally violent, called psychoanalysis, is considered pseudoscience by most of the psychologists.

I'm not saying that asshole. Fuck off with your straw man arguments.

It's cited on Wikipedia. I think you are overestimating the importance of "credible" sources. English Wikipedia could easily be the most reliable and unbiased source on-line, especially when it comes to a bit more controversial things.

You neither linked nor quoted it, whatever you were trying to say. Wikipedia isn't a primary source, I need to see where they got it. Wikipedia does contain errors, likely more so in social sciences.

Laws are basically statements about how a society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. Though I realize I am not very good at epistemology. When I claimed airplanes didn't exist, why wasn't the burden of proof on those who claimed they did exist?

No, laws are the status quo. People are not saying they are all good, but just that society is obviously not collapsing because of them and without them we don't know what will happen. When you want to argue that something should be changed, you need to provide evidence.

And why would everyone have to go to school? If people are very poor, child labour is a good thing. It's better to be illiterate than to be hungry.

That is your theory; now show evidence of it.

These are two competing theories:
Child labour vs education. Which has better outcomes?
You have to prove it.

The burden of proof is on you to go back to child labour, just as it wold have been on the first person proposing free education.

How exactly? Different people have different preferences. If a corporation A makes red shoes and corporation B makes blue shoes, some people will buy shoes from A and some from B. It's only when you have a government company making shoes and laws not enabling private companies to do the same that you have monopoly.

You clearly understand nothing about economics or production.
Corporation A makes ALL the shoes and puts corporation B out of business or buys them. so they are the only shoe maker in the land.
There are a number of practices used to shut down competition. For example, Corporation A might have a deal with the leather companies, and if they sell to a competitor they will no longer buy from them, AND they'll tell the farmers not to sell those companies hides.
Anti-competitive practices are at the root of monopolies.
Do five minutes of reading. Either they buy or control all of the means of production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

If you understood anything about how monopolies worked you would not have to ask these questions.

Over time, environment-friendly technologies become cheaper, and people or companies will buy them instead of the polluting ones.

WHY? And how? With no legal pressure, there's no incentive.
This is just another ignorant faith based claim from you with no evidence.

I agree that governments can speed it up, but under what cost?

In most cases it's not just speeding it up, it's making it happen at all.

They will hurt small companies, who can't afford the new technologies, more than the big ones. That will cause monopoly and unemployment. Think of the Great Leap Forward.

I don't think you know what you're talking about regarding the Great Leap Forward.
Yes, regulation can make start-up a little more difficult. It doesn't increase the barrier to entry so much that it's impossible to start up a new company if the existing ones are overcharging.
Protection against monopolies means the single companies are broken up into medium-sized ones that compete against each other again.
Small companies should not need to enter markets with high technological barriers.

What's the evidence that FDA actually does that? It's still legal to sell fish oil as prevention of heart disease, even though, according to Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it actually helps.

It's illegal to make certain claims about quack medicine. The FDA needs more power to regulate things like homeopathy though; it's currently under-powered because of quacks in congress.
Even things like Acupuncture are starting to be covered by insurance. The immediate future is not bright. We still have regulation of prescription medication and doctors, and there are limits on the quack medicine available. It could be much worse.

And the same goes for most of the cough medication as well as most of the anti-depressants.

Read the medical claims on packages carefully. Nasal decongestants and antihistamines work.
There are a lot of poor over the counter medications, but working poorly doesn't mean not working at all. Anti-depressants work slightly better than placebo.

I've told you: it's from the Bite Size Vegan video about animal testing. And I thought it was a well-known thing among vegans. And why do you think she is a quack?

She has made claims about how vegans can get B-12 from organic vegetables in the past, and believes certain things about autism apparently.
You really need to make the arguments here.

Well, what I have learned is not to trust ad-hoc hypotheses and to trust the mainstream science unless I know very well what I am doing. I've studied linguistics a lot, so I probably know what I am doing when I make a statement about linguistics.

You thought the same about Flat Earth.

[teo123]

More conspiracy theory logic.

How is liberalism a conspiracy theory?

Because they have to, and they're generally compensated.

You can make people vote that way, but how would you make them inform themselves? People in German parlament that voted Hitler to become a dictator were paid to sit in the parlament, yet they didn't inform themselves enough. They fell on the propaganda that Hitler will somehow protect them from terrorism. When my mother was put in jail, the jury was paid to sit in the court, but they hadn't informed themselves about the case. If they had, it would be clear to them that "socijalna skrb" was not telling the truth. It would be useful to know when the wisdom of the crowd works and when it doesn't.

They still had constructions to convey this meaning.

I am aware of that. You are missing the point.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090301052033/http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html
"A characteristic of Indo-European and other archaic societies was the principle of exchange and reciprocal gift-giving. The presentation of a gift entailed the obligation of a countergift, and the acts of giving and receiving were equivalent. They were simply facets of a single process of generalized exchange, which assured the circulation of wealth throughout the society. This principle has left clear traces in the Indo-European vocabulary. "
And there are similar statements on Wiktionary.

I'm not saying that asshole.

I'm sorry! What were you saying, again? The violence has drastically decreased as we have got rid of most of the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes? What a miracle! We must conclude from that that we need governments for some reason to keep us safe! Don't you think you got it a bit backwards?
I didn't think I'd have to use this argument, but look at some actual examples of very liberal societies, like Somalia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991–2006)
It didn't cruble as a result of the lack of a state, instead it improved itself in basically every measurable way. For most of the things, faster than other African countries (health care system improving somewhat more slowly, as an apparent exception, communist regimes like Cuba appear to be rather good at health care). Homicide rates are relatively high, but still lower than in other African countries.

Wikipedia does contain errors, likely more so in social sciences.

I've found a few errors on Wikipedia and corrected them. One of them was that "Vukovar" means "city of wolves". No, Vuka is a river name derived from Proto-Slavic *volga, and "var" means "hill" in the Shtokavian dialect, and is related to the Standard Croatian "vrh", and not to "varos" ("city", which is a Hungarian loan-word). The explanation for that error is obvious. "Issa" was cited on Wikipedia to be of unknown etymology. It's quite often cited in Croatian introductory linguistics as an example of an unexplained toponym,but it's actually easily explainable. It's *yes+*eh2 (a place with many springs). And the same root is seen in Balissa (another place with ancient thermae) and Iasa (another place with ancient thermae). I can't think of any other errors I have noticed on Wikipedia, despite having read probably more than thousand Wikipedia pages. If you claim Wikipedia is wrong on something, you need to provide an explanation how that happened.

People are not saying they are all good, but just that society is obviously not collapsing because of them and without them we don't know what will happen.

Doesn't the Occam's Razor say that what will most likely happen is absolutely nothing?

The burden of proof is on you to go back to child labour, just as it wold have been on the first person proposing free education.

I've looked into it a bit, there are studies that show compulsory education helps, and there are those that show it hurts.

If you understood anything about how monopolies worked you would not have to ask these questions.

As can be seen from the Wikipedia article you linked me to, the general consensus among economists is that current laws against monopoly aren't effective. Maybe my arguments are weak, but that doesn't change the scientific consensus.

WHY? And how? With no legal pressure, there's no incentive.

Again, why do you think people buy electric cars? Governments are in many ways anti-environmentalistic.Have you seen the video "The hidden cost of meat" by MinuteEarth? In a liberal society, there would be far more vegetarians and vegans, and eating meat hurts the planet more than traffic or industries do (that's said in that video).

The FDA needs more power to regulate things like homeopathy though; it's currently under-powered because of quacks in congress.

Government is corrupted, therefore a solution is to increase its power! Don't you think you got it backwards?
Also, what's wrong with people taking alternative medicine if they know it's not based on much evidence? It's much more harmful that a government gives unwarranted credibility to fish-oil as a prevention of heart disease, as it does now, or that potentially life-saving medication is banned.

It could be much worse.

I think that you imply it WOULD be much worse if private companies replaced FDA. Why do you think that's the case?

She has made claims about how vegans can get B-12 from organic vegetables in the past

What? She advises us to take supplements at the ends of almost all of her videos. Also, getting B12 from dirty vegetables isn't impossible, it's just dangerous.

believes certain things about autism apparently.

She just said there are experts who believe milk caused autism. It's a fringe theory, but there are. She also showed the counter-arguments and, in the end, she said she thinks the question is irrelevant, that ethics is more important.

You thought the same about Flat Earth.

This time I've studied an actual science, I have spent way more time doing it, and I feel more confident.

[EquALLity]

Maybe EquALLity can school you here, since she's a history buff, and probably more patient than I am.

Oh sure... wait what's this about? Because I really don't want to read everything.

[brimstoneSalad]

More conspiracy theory logic.

How is liberalism a conspiracy theory?

Because you're shifting the goal posts.

You can make people vote that way, but how would you make them inform themselves?

They don't inform themselves, they sit in a room and the pro and con people come and talk to them. They just have to not sleep.

People in German parlament that voted Hitler to become a dictator were paid to sit in the parlament, yet they didn't inform themselves enough.

That's a problem with politicians, but a personality cult can pretty much trump anything. That's why leaders should not be elected; people should vote on policies directly. This avoids the whole issue. People would vote on his nationalistic policies, but then when it came to genocide they'd start to differ (as people did, but he was already in power).

When my mother was put in jail, the jury was paid to sit in the court, but they hadn't informed themselves about the case. If they had, it would be clear to them that "socijalna skrb" was not telling the truth. It would be useful to know when the wisdom of the crowd works and when it doesn't.

Well, then she should have had a better lawyer.

In this case, you have people speaking for and against the proposition. Again, it's not perfect, the point is that it's better than politicians, which are themselves better than anarchism.

"A characteristic of Indo-European and other archaic societies was the principle of exchange and reciprocal gift-giving. The presentation of a gift entailed the obligation of a countergift, and the acts of giving and receiving were equivalent. They were simply facets of a single process of generalized exchange, which assured the circulation of wealth throughout the society. This principle has left clear traces in the Indo-European vocabulary. "
And there are similar statements on Wiktionary.

That's just trade. There is clearly still ownership in those examples, and exchanges are never 100% equal. A slight benefit to one side (based on a smarter exchange or changing circumstances) is how wealth amasses without monopolies. If you cause the circumstances to change and put people in a situation where your goods are artificially inflated in value due to no competition, that's monopolistic and it's the Achilles heel of capitalism; any free society must have strong prohibitions against monopolistic practices to thrive, or it doesn't stay free long. That, along with the courts which provide third party conflict resolution, is an essential role of government.

The violence has drastically decreased as we have got rid of most of the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes?

It tracks back through tribal societies too.

Tribal society ("anarchism") -> Totalitarian government -> "Democratic" republic -> ? We really don't know what's next, and anybody who claims to is speaking on faith.

It's good to establish authoritarian regimes to displace tribal warfare, and then it's good to establish stable democratic republics to replace those authoritarian regimes; it's a constant march of progress.

I didn't think I'd have to use this argument, but look at some actual examples of very liberal societies, like Somalia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991–2006)

Yes, actually look at those examples.

Anthropologist Spencer MacCallum has identified the rule of law during the period as that of the Xeer, a customary law indigenous to Somalia. The law permits practices such as safe travel, trade, and marriage, which survives "to a significant degree" throughout Somalia, particularly in rural Somalia where it is "virtually unaffected".[1] MacCallum credits the Xeer with "Somalia's success without a central government, since it provides an authentic rule of law to support trade and economic development."[1] In the Xeer, law and crime are defined in terms of property rights; consequently the criminal justice system is compensatory rather than the punitive system of the majority of states, and the Xeer is "unequivocal in its opposition" to any form of taxation. Powell et al. (2006) find that the existence of the common law dispute resolution system in Somalia makes possible basic economic order.[15] MacCallum compares the Xeer to the common law in 6th century Scotland, and notes that there is no monopoly of either police nor judicial services,[1] a condition of polycentric law. However, a weakness of such a system is that it proves ineffective at handling disputes and enforcing resolutions that cross clan boundaries. For example, in a dispute involving telecommunications company Aerolite, the plaintiff from the weaker clan was unable to collect the "unfairly" small settlement they had been awarded.[16]

There was law which protected property rights and provided for dispute resolution, but it was ultimately not very stable. It managed to survive for a few years without all-out war, which is plausible, but these disputes ultimately build up in tribal systems as resentment increases. It was not fair.

Also:

Following the collapse of centralized government, much of the legal system and most of the educational institutions and social services fell under the control of religious institutions, which often received significant funding and support from international charities.

They claim to be anti-tax, but the power of the Islamic establishment grew, which not only collects taxes (Zakat) but was subsidized from outside during this time.

This period may have seen growth of local businesses since infrastructure broke down, but it was not good for the Somalian people:

The international aid group Médecins Sans Frontières stated that the level of daily violence during this period was "catastrophic".[18] A statistic from 2000 indicated that only 21% of the population had access to safe drinking water at that time, and Somalia had one of the highest child mortality rates in the world with 10% of children dying at birth and 25% of those surviving birth dying before age five.[3] Additionally, "adult literacy is estimated to have declined from the already low level of 24% in 1989 to 17.1% in 2001."[19] A more recent 2003 study reported that the literacy rate was 19%.[16] The impact on human development in Somalia of governmental collapse and ensuing civil war was profound, leading to the breakdown of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure and massive internal and external migrations.[19]

[Libertarian think tank bullshit... notice there's a lot of contradiction between sources]

Prior to the fall of the Somali government in the early 1990s, Somalia's life expectancy was approximately equal to neighboring Ethiopia. As of 2014, after a quarter of a century of minimal government, life expectancy in Somalia was 9 years behind Ethiopia.

You can cherry pick libertarian propaganda just like you cherry picked Flat Earth bullshit.

Given, however, that Somalia is actually used as an argument AGAINST libertarianism, it's almost funny that you tried to use it as an example.
Here's a libertarian (one a bit less ignorant) complaining about people using Somalia as an argument against libertarianism:
https://fortheargument.com/2014/02/17/no-somalia-is-not-a-libertarian-paradise/

It didn't cruble as a result of the lack of a state, instead it improved itself in basically every measurable way. For most of the things, faster than other African countries (health care system improving somewhat more slowly, as an apparent exception, communist regimes like Cuba appear to be rather good at health care). Homicide rates are relatively high, but still lower than in other African countries.

No it didn't.
Read the article you linked, asshole.

AGAIN you have made absurd claims, and AGAIN provided no evidence to back them up.
You were warned about this, and I said I'd have to ask for consensus to ban you for violating forum rules if you persisted in doing this and wasting my time with this intellectually dishonest bullshit.

I'll ask generally: Does anybody have a problem with me banning Teo? He has clearly not learned or changed his ways since his flat Earth days, and he's still making these wild claims without evidence.
Can anybody second this decision?

If you claim Wikipedia is wrong on something, you need to provide an explanation how that happened.

Which is only possible if you actually cite your arguments. You can't just say Wikipedia said it without a link or quote.

Doesn't the Occam's Razor say that what will most likely happen is absolutely nothing?

No, that's not how Occam's Razor works.
It does not refer to human behavior except where additional assumptions are needed. However, the belief that nothing would happen without any examples of that requires an assumption of some innate force in human beings that manifests once ALL government is magically removed. That would not be preferred. It's the anarchist belief that is not credible, we already have examples and known processes of power systems forming in a vacuum and of tribalism. There is no known mechanism that prevents this, which is why more assumptions are needed for anarchism.

I've looked into it a bit, there are studies that show compulsory education helps, and there are those that show it hurts.

Which means you have no proof, and the status quo wins. Doesn't mean it's right, but it means it's kept until there's evidence to change it because it's not clear that things would be better without it.

As can be seen from the Wikipedia article you linked me to, the general consensus among economists is that current laws against monopoly aren't effective. Maybe my arguments are weak, but that doesn't change the scientific consensus.

Current laws against monopolies are enforced inconsistently, due possibly to political biases or the expensive legal proceedings they require.
There are problems with the current system, but there's nothing better available. A poor attempt at regulation is better than none, which just allows monopolies unchecked. If you had ideas on how to improve the regulation and better fight monopolies, that would be great.

Again, why do you think people buy electric cars? Governments are in many ways anti-environmentalistic.Have you seen the video "The hidden cost of meat" by MinuteEarth? In a liberal society, there would be far more vegetarians and vegans, and eating meat hurts the planet more than traffic or industries do (that's said in that video).

A minority of people are concerned enough about the environment to do something; most people are ignorant or concerned only with their immediate lives. Government can change that with collective agreement and regulation.

Yes, animal agriculture subsidies are a huge problem. The solution is to fix that problem, not remove government completely (which isn't even possible).

The FDA needs more power to regulate things like homeopathy though; it's currently under-powered because of quacks in congress.

Government is corrupted, therefore a solution is to increase its power! Don't you think you got it backwards?

No, I already explained this.

Also, what's wrong with people taking alternative medicine if they know it's not based on much evidence?

It harms them and society. They think it will work based on faith and the promises of charismatic con men.
You need to spend some time in the skeptic community to understand why this is so harmful, and hear some stories from people who have been taken advantage of. You may think people have the right to kill themselves with drugs, but these people are just ignorant and being taken advantage of.

It's much more harmful that a government gives unwarranted credibility to fish-oil as a prevention of heart disease, as it does now, or that potentially life-saving medication is banned.

No it isn't.
I already explained this. When there's evidence for life saving medicine, it's not banned. The important point is signal to noise.

I think that you imply it WOULD be much worse if private companies replaced FDA. Why do you think that's the case?

Private companies can not ban sham medicine from making claims. Consumer protection companies can do a lot of good, but their protection is not as strong. The BBB is great, for example, but it's no replacement for the FTC.

Is it possible that would work out better? Maybe. But we don't know. The FDA serves an important purpose and we don't have examples of other countries having private companies do this and having it work out better.
Show examples, show evidence.

She advises us to take supplements at the ends of almost all of her videos.

I have not seen this in any of her videos. If she started doing that, that's a great improvement. Again, though, you really need to make your own arguments or at least quote sources or link to them. Saying nebulously that Bite Size Vegan said something is not an argument.

This time I've studied an actual science, I have spent way more time doing it, and I feel more confident.

You felt confident before. And you're still violating forum rules by making the same logical fallacies and wild empirical claims that you refuse to back up with evidence.

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe EquALLity can school you here, since she's a history buff, and probably more patient than I am.

Oh sure... wait what's this about? Because I really don't want to read everything.

He's arguing for abolishing all government. That regulation, welfare, and public education are bad. And... that murder should be legal.

From my perspective, he's doing the same thing he did with Flat Earth yet again. Lots of grand claims and assertions, and refuses to provide evidence.

He's not willing to participate honestly in debate or back up his claims, and he repeats the same fallacies again and again. I think he should be banned, since this is a repeated problem. It's wasting time to argue with him when he's not following the rules and I don't think we owe him a platform to spread anarchocapitalist propaganda. Even if I (in 20 pages or whatever it takes) convince him this particular craziness is wrong he'll just find another like he did after Flat Earth. It's unending with him and he won't learn how to substantiate his arguments or question his certainty once he bites onto something.

[NonZeroSum]

Teo I suggest you get specific if you want to engage better and foster good faith in your discussion partner, think about what question you're asking and what premises you want addressed, to either have accepted or discredited. Here are two interpretations and a third subject ranging in scale from hardest to easiest to discuss without getting lost down rabbit holes:

----------------------------

Option 1) All institutions should be gotten rid of, too much power concentrated in too few, the only authority should be the capacity to inspire trust etc. etc.

This is highly speculative and nigh impossible to defend, your only hope is pointing at real laissez-faire capitalist leaning policies and their outcomes to convince us of our misplaced faith in institutions. I've argued against single issue economic pragmatism (market fundamentalism) for being too close minded, and the need to factor in the interests of all historical intersections to squash those memetic biases handed down from generation to generation. Just looking at the tinder-box of London right now after the fires, with so much talk of more riots, the resources it takes to provide everyone including first-generation immigrants a safe home on arrival might not be strictly practical and only speculatively costed for in the long-term. But it is incredibly important to stop pursuing policies that only put further divides between communities like prettifying buildings rather than fire safety, so new housing projects, convincing empty property owners to stop sitting on their derelict houses accruing property value, etc.

---------------------------

Option 2) A healthy skepticism towards certain types of institutions.

So not wanting to work as a bailiff or for the NSA say, because you can't justify the necessity of some of those jobs being carried out under our current political climate.

Why Shouldn't I Work for the NSA? (Good Will Hunting):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw

I hope you'd agree that knowing what you know about how people being free to dress how they like doesn't have to lead to societal collapse; it would be morally reprehensible for you to join the religious police and enforce the law on the hijab. In the same vein that a draft resister would shirk a bad war even if they believed in the necessary preparedness of the military and the good consequences of involvement in previous wars. That is leave the job to someone else who believes in it wholeheartedly. Try to make your people see the ugly effects such a job has on a person.

----------------------------

Option 3) The legitimacy and correct usage of the "Invisible hand"

Throwing this in more because you do need to back up your statements with evidence, but it is also an interestingly overused buzzword in ancap circles that could use fleshing out.

I like Chomsky's theory, but I ultimately think it was just another one of Smith's cosmopolitan ideals which I reject.

Noam Chomsky suggests that Smith (and more specifically David Ricardo) sometimes used the phrase to refer to a "home bias" for investing domestically in opposition to offshore outsourcing production and neoliberalism.[24]

Rather interestingly these issues were foreseen by the great founders of modern economics, Adam Smith for example. He recognized and discussed what would happen to Britain if the masters adhered to the rules of sound economics – what's now called neoliberalism. He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. However, he felt that this wouldn't happen because the masters would be guided by a home bias. So as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. That passage is pretty hard to miss. It's the only occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in Wealth of Nations, namely in a critique of what we call neoliberalism.[25]

------------------------

I'd encourage you to pick one and stick to it before digging yourself in any deeper with easily refutable extreme positions with disastrous consequences and no time frame, should I expect the purge ideally tomorrow?