Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[NonZeroSum]

Look, I am not so deep into the social sciences. Can you summarize your key points in the way I can even understand them? I'm not doing that "Well, it doesn't make sense to me, but I guess it would make sense to a scientist." type of thinking again.

Process - Put a quarter of the effort into the discussion the rest of us are doing in order to help you.
Option 1 - My critique of a raft of your political ideologies, none of which sociological.
Option 2 - The boundary of the discussion you said you'd commit to; what movement activism do you envision to actually bring about the type of society you want to live in?
Option 3 - You use buzzwords like the invisible hand and wisdom of the crowd to justify your ideology, do some reading and explain to us how you think those concepts are coherent and how they necessarily lead to your vision of society, or if you don't feel capable of discussing it as you have stated, just don't bring it up, don't hint at it being a speculative justification.

[EquALLity]

That's the picture the criminalistic series portray to us. The real question is: does this happen enough often that it's worth doing something about it? Well, I don't think so. I have talked to some murderers, and the story is almost always something like this: "I got drunk and did things I wouldn't even think of doing if I wasn't drunk. When I realized what I had done, I felt terrible."

Drunk =/= mentally ill. Drunk is a temporary state of being that you get from consuming a substance. Those are two different things.
If you are drunk and kill someone, your sentence is different from someone who kills while sober and with planning. There are different levels of sentencing for killing another person.

What do you mean, does it happen often enough that it's worth doing something about it? If it happens at all you have to do something, or else that person will kill more people.

And I personally know one old woman who unintentionally killed someone and was put in prison, despite being so mentally ill that she was constantly disoriented and didn't even know she was in prison.

I don't think she should be in prison. But people who intentionally kill should be put in prison.

I know only one person who killed intentionally, and that person killed an officer of "socijalna skrb". And, trust me, I understand him. "Socijalna skrb" is an institution that's supposed to help the poor and end the family violence, but they cause so much psychological trauma everywhere they intervene. That murder wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a government.

You can't blame the murder on the actions of the person who was murdered. You are responsible for what you do. I don't know that situation and what the officer did, but you can't blame government in general for one murder that happened of a government officer.

That people are worse off if they follow some laws, like the laws that mandate animal testing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFx3vHOkHRE

Animal testing is necessary to an extent, because we don't have complete alternatives.

Also that's not evidence that laws don't help with advertising regulations, which is what we were talking about.

You're saying that the law doesn't help with something by saying it is effective at doing something bad (enforcing animal testing). That contradicts the idea that the law is generally ineffective, which is why you said it doesn't help stop deception with advertising.

My point was: if politicians cared about the poor, they could simply give them money, they certainly wouldn't pass a law that effectively prevents the poorest from getting a job.

You can't just give people money. The government printing money causes inflation, which causes economic problems.

Many people believe raising the minimum wage would help the poor. It's a legitimate and ongoing debate, and there's not a consensus about it being good or bad.

Some politicians care about people, some care about their donors (rich people). There is corruption in the government, but that doesn't mean government in general is bad. We need to reform government to fix it. Abolishing it would just cause more problems.

Substantial failures of the free markets appear to be related to the phenomenon of the radical mistranslation. It's easy for us to imagine that a loanword actually means "I don't know." in the donor language, yet there are very few alleged cases of that, and all of them, on closer examination, turn out to be myths. The same goes for the alleged substantial failures of the free market.

? I don't know what you're talking about.

You think free market capitalism with no regulation works?
Here's an excerpt of the Sadler Report, which led to factory regulations in England:

Sadler: Were your children working under you then?
Bennett: Yes, two of them.
Sadler: State the effect upon your children.
Bennett: Of a morning when they had to get up, they have been so fast asleep that I have
had to go up stairs and lift them out of bed, and have heard their crying with the feelings of
a parent; I have been much affected by it.
Sadler: Were not they much fatigued at the termination of such a day’s labour as that?
Bennett: Yes; many a time I have seen their hands moving while they have been nodding,
almost asleep; they have been doing their business almost mechanically.
Sadler: While they have been almost asleep, they have attempted to work?
Bennett: Yes; and they have missed the carding and spoiled the thread, when we have had
to beat them for it.
Sadler: Could they have done their work towards the termination of such a long day’s
labour, if they had not been chastised [punished] to it?
Bennett: No.
Sadler: You do not think that they could have kept awake or up to their work till the
seventeenth hour, without being chastised?
Bennett: No.
Sadler: Will you state what effect it had upon your children at the end of their day’s work?
Bennett: At the end of their day’s work, when they have come home, instead of taking their
victuals [food], they have dropped asleep with the victuals in their hands; and sometimes
when we have sent them to bed with a little bread or something to eat in their hand, I have
found it in their bed the next morning. . . .

Does that really sound like a system that works?

There are sill people in Croatia who believe communism was a good thing. The question is: has the support for Obamacare been drastically lower since it was implemented? The answer is clearly: yes.

There are many reasons why people may support or be against Obamacare. That does not necessarily reflect on the success of the program.

Also, that's wrong. Obamacare support is at an all-time high, with over half the country currently supporting it. Sooooo...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/pew-survey-obamacare-support-record-high/index.htmlhttp://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/327267-poll-obamacare-has-majority-support-for-first-time

That's just simply not true. The number of people who were actually uninsured is by orders of magnitude lower than what was commonly cited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcSl-HYjnz8

Ok... YouTube itself is not a reliable source for political facts, especially a clearly biased one called "Learn Liberty".

What's your evidence of that? My experience has taught me exactly the opposite.

It literally puts away people who are violent. It physically removes them from society.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the people in Germany were suffering because of the inflation caused primarily by the German government printing too much money.
Can you point me to an actual dictatorship arising from anarchy in recent history?

You know some facts about history, but you need to learn the context. The reason why there was inflation was because Germany printed money... which they did because of the economic situation caused by the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles. Also, regardless of whether or not you think it was the governments fault (I think it was partially), it shows that violence rises when there is hardship.

Also, Lenin and Mussolini both rose to power from similar economic hardships. However, Lenin wasn't supportive of unnecessary violence and authoritarianism... hard times lead to people supporting whoever promises food. This gives the OPPORTUNITY for a violent dictator like Hitler or Mussolini.

Can you point me to an actual anarchist society that existed at all in recent history? Because I can't think of one.

[teo123]

Let's just limit ourselves to one key question: What evidence is there that making murder illegal makes it happen less often? And let's count the unintentional killings by police officers on duty (I know one person who was killed that way) as a murder.

[EquALLity]

Because you can't argue against them, I'm just going to assume you agree with me about all of my other points. So:

1) You agree someone being drunk and committing murder isn't the same as a mentally ill person.
2) You agree it's necessary to stop murder.
-you don't agree people should be put in prison for murder-
-you count murders of government officials by people as murders govt is responsible for-
3) You agree that the government is effective in laws for animal testing and advertising regulation.
4) You agree things like minimum wage and Obamacare are controversial but not necessarily bad, and if they are bad that that doesn't mean government should be abolished.
5) You agree the free market with no regulation at all has many problems.
6) You agree violence enables brutal dictators to rise to power, such as Hitler and Mussolini.

You don't agree that people should be put in prison for murder, because you don't think it's effective... The evidence it's effective is the fact that it literally removes murderers from society, preventing them from murdering more people.

Without prisons, there would be more violent people living freely in society, and people who wouldn't have necessarily been violent before may become violent because there are no definite consequences. This would lead to hardship and economic problems due to destabilization, enabling a totalitarian dictator to rise to power.

[teo123]

Stop pretending to know things you don't.
Laws banning child labour might have made many children starve to death or turn to prostitution.
And there have been many times government tryed to stop the media from spreading misinformation. They are called censorships. And we all know they led to even more misinformation in the media, don't we? Do you want the politicians to be able to ban vegan propaganda because they think it's pseudoscience?

Why do you assume people who have killed once are more likely than others to kill again? It seems to me that exactly the opposite is true. If people see alcohol has made them murder, they are less likely to drink it again. Removing them from the society means silencing those who warn people to be careful not to become a violent criminal.

[NonZeroSum]

Stop pretending to know things you don't.
Laws banning child labour might have made many children starve to death or turn to prostitution.
And there have been many times government tryed to stop the media from spreading misinformation. They are called censorships. And we all know they led to even more misinformation in the media, don't we? Do you want the politicians to be able to ban vegan propaganda because they think it's pseudoscience?

Why do you assume people who have killed once are more likely than others to kill again? It seems to me that exactly the opposite is true. If people see alcohol has made them murder, they are less likely to drink it again. Removing them from the society means silencing those who warn people to be careful not to become a violent criminal.

More conspiracy nonsense, taking the tiniest grain of truth and packing it with bull... We shouldn't be expected to find the real statistics for them to argue against. I'm done obvs as they are incredibly resistant to debate any of my points or is incapable of.

[EquALLity]

Stop pretending to know things you don't.

Then don't completely ignore my arguments? If you can argue against what I'm saying, then maybe try making an argument, instead of making it seem like you can't argue against it so you're trying to sweep it under the rug?

Laws banning child labour might have made many children starve to death or turn to prostitution.

Do you have any reason or evidence to support that, or are you just saying? Because it's a concrete fact that child labor laws stopped child labor from being as harsh and numerous to a large extent.

And there have been many times government tryed to stop the media from spreading misinformation. They are called censorships. And we all know they led to even more misinformation in the media, don't we? Do you want the politicians to be able to ban vegan propaganda because they think it's pseudoscience?

Ok, what?

Clearly you agree the government can be effective at stopping the spread of misinformation. So, you're basically conceding that your previous point was invalid, while trying to ignore that because... now you're saying that the fact that they stop misinformation and deception is a bad thing??? How? How has the government stopping companies from excessive lying led to MORE misinformation? Please explain.

Censorship usually refers to government restricting free speech in terms of a person's beliefs etc.. That's really not the right word to use here.
Propaganda usually refers to negative misinformation, so if there is negative misinformation, even promoting veganism, then I think the government should stop advertisers on TV etc. from promoting it. It's false advertising.

Why do you assume people who have killed once are more likely than others to kill again? It seems to me that exactly the opposite is true. If people see alcohol has made them murder, they are less likely to drink it again. Removing them from the society means silencing those who warn people to be careful not to become a violent criminal.

Ok, you keep conflating all murderers with the few murderers who you know personally. You can't say that because you know murderers who murdered while drunk that ALL murderers committed murder because they were drunk. It's literally not true. Like, literally.

Like I said before, there are different levels of sentencing for different levels of murder. Someone who kills while drunk by accident likely won't receive the same sentence as someone who commits murder while fully conscious. And someone who commits murder while fully conscious may murder again for the reason they originally murdered.
Some evidence that murderers will murder again are high recidivism rates for violent criminals (such as murderers).


PS you still haven't addressed that:
1) just because government policies are controversial, such as minimum wage and obamacare, doesn't mean that govt as a whole is bad
2) instability and hardship enables the rise of brutal dictators

So, do you agree with those statements? If not, do you have an argument as to why? If you have no argument against mine, then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs.

[teo123]

Then don't completely ignore my arguments? If you can argue against what I'm saying, then maybe try making an argument, instead of making it seem like you can't argue against it so you're trying to sweep it under the rug?

Because I wanted to finally get to a key question you seem to ignore.

Do you have any reason or evidence to support that, or are you just saying? Because it's a concrete fact that child labor laws stopped child labor from being as harsh and numerous to a large extent.

See the article about child labour on Wikipedia. The general consensus among the experts is that child labour laws just push people further into poverty. You're probably getting your information about it from Greenpeace or something like that. Greenpeace is in the world of politics approximately what's PETA in the world of vegetarianism and veganism. They have good-sounding rhetorics, but policies that cause more harm than good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Eliminating_child_labour

Censorship usually refers to government restricting free speech in terms of a person's beliefs etc.. That's really not the right word to use here.

The rhetoric used to justify censorship was that we should stop the media from spreading stupid lies. The media does spread stupid lies, but censorship is not a solution. In fact, censorship makes the media spread even more misinformation. Journalists are bad at deciding what's true, but politicians are even worse.

Ok, you keep conflating all murderers with the few murderers who you know personally. You can't say that because you know murderers who murdered while drunk that ALL murderers committed murder because they were drunk. It's literally not true. Like, literally.

I am not saying ALL murderers committed murder because they were drunk. I am saying most of the murderers I know committed murder because they were drunk. I see no reason to think I am looking at a biased sample. Do you have some statistics that show otherwise?
All the murderers you know are, I guess, fictional characters from criminalistic series. They are in no way typical murderers.

Like I said before, there are different levels of sentencing for different levels of murder. Someone who kills while drunk by accident likely won't receive the same sentence as someone who commits murder while fully conscious.

Why do you think that's the case?

And someone who commits murder while fully conscious may murder again for the reason they originally murdered.

After they experienced all that feelings of guilt? I don't think so.

Some evidence that murderers will murder again are high recidivism rates for violent criminals (such as murderers).

Which aren't even there. According to Wikipedia, murderers have the lowest recidivism rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates
Look, prisons only help with serial killers. And serial killers are very very very rare. Putting countless people who are essentially innocent into prison just to stop a few serial killers from murdering again doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?

Just because government policies are controversial, such as minimum wage and obamacare, doesn't mean that govt as a whole is bad.

Right, just because most of the government policies are controversial isn't an absolute proof that government as a whole is bad. But it's still quite a good evidence for that.

Instability and hardship enables the rise of brutal dictators

We don't really know that. Anarchy in Somalia, for example, gave a rise to a democratic government and not to a dictatorship.

[teo123]

More conspiracy nonsense, taking the tiniest grain of truth and packing it with bull... We shouldn't be expected to find the real statistics for them to argue against. I'm done obvs as they are incredibly resistant to debate any of my points or is incapable of.

Hey, listen, I've tried to stop using the political buzzwords such as "invisible hand". Even though almost everybody does that, like the words "democracy", "exploitation", which don't really mean anything in the context they are used. I've also linked to some statistics that support my point of view. As for me explaining which institutions should be trusted, I don't really know that. I have experience only with the bad stuff about the government, and to me it seems like no institution can be trusted. Which ones do you think should be trusted and why?

[NonZeroSum]

I have experience only with the bad stuff about the government, and to me it seems like no institution can be trusted. Which ones do you think should be trusted and why?

I've tapped out teo, you can't expect to engage in this very limited way and uncover the truth of a matter, and it's just bad form in discussion. If you can't understand because of a language barrier that's one thing, but come on seriously. I'll leave you and EquALLity to it.