A discussion on TFES forum

[brimstoneSalad]

On the Internet forums, I supported even crazier ideas. On a few Internet forums, I argued that the Battle of Vukovar in 1991 didn't actually happen. That is, that I find it hard to believe that I've spent so much time studying Croatian history (not only for the school, but also for interpreting the toponyms) and that I am unaware of the evidence of it if it actually happened. Arguments from ignorance can be so tempting, yet are almost always false.

The most extreme I remember was the "murder should be legal" style anarchism. Have you put that stuff aside?

As for going vegan, listen, I think I first need to get rid of my parents. They are constantly objecting me for just being a vegetarian. I made a compromise with them and started to eat fish again. After all, fish probably don't feel pain, and my parents left me alone a bit.

I hope you can get out of there soon, it sounds like a bad situation to be in. Maybe you can dig back into computer science the right way (libraries etc.) and get a job in that field since it interests you?

[teo123]

I don't quite see why radical anarchism would be crazy. A simple empirical truth is that countries with more government power tend to have higher murder rate. For instance, the government controls almost every part of social and economic lives of people in Venezuela, and Caracas has the highest murder rate of all capital cities in the world. And as the governments got less and less powerful over time, the violence has decreased. In the Middle Ages, the knights were bossing everyone around, yet you couldn't safely walk the streets because of the criminals. The famines and genocides in recent history appear to be a consequence of the politicians being wrong but powerful. The Irish Potato Famine probably wouldn't have happened if there were no laws preventing the Catholics from buying larger amounts of land (on which you can cultivate something other than potato). The Great Chinese Famine, again, wouldn't have been so severe (or occured at all) if, along with the poor weather, there hadn't been poor government policies based primarily on pseudoscientific ideas of Lysenkoism. Of course, then there are genocides such as the Holocaust, also caused by politicians being wrong but powerful. Now, what would happen if there is no government, the only way to really know that is to test it in the real world, and for, as you say, long periods of time. But the fear-mongerings about the terrible things that would happen if there were no government sound a lot like the Pascal's Wager to me.

I think right now that I shouldn't have contacted Dubravka Ivsic about my interpretation of the Croatian toponyms. I felt much better when I thought I had actually discovered something. I put a lot of effort, but I thought I saw the results I wanted. I felt that I was finally driven in the right direction, that all the things I got wrong were because I just wasn't thinking the right way. That the reason I got all those things (airplanes...) wrong was that I was just repeating the nonsense phrases I heard from the conspiracy theorists instead of thinking with my own head, and that it was trivial to fix. It really felt good to think you could make conclusions by yourself about at least something, it gave my reasoning much greater credibility. If I had figured out a method to produce reasonably certain interpretations of the Croatian toponyms, a similar method can probably be used to figure out some other things people know little about. When I received her replies, it made me feel so worthless. I almost wanted to kill myself. If almost three years of studying linguistics almost every day for hours wasn't enough, then nothing will be. I don't know how to get that feeling back. I spent almost three years studying linguistics, now I guess I will have to spend even more time studying something else. I don't think I will ever feel that certainty about something I've discovered again, and that's what I used to like.

[Red]

I don't quite see why radical anarchism would be crazy. A simple empirical truth is that countries with more government power tend to have higher murder rate.

I highly doubt that. It depends on what type of government we're talking about first of all, and it depends on what types of freedoms are restricted. And secondly, empirical truths require empirical evidence. A few cherry picked examples don't serve as such.

For instance, the government controls almost every part of social and economic lives of people in Venezuela, and Caracas has the highest murder rate of all capital cities in the world.

Venezuela is effectively communist, and given their current situation and scarcity of a lot of basic necessities, but you have to prove that the government that is the problem. Otherwise, you'll have committed a false cause fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

You have to consider the cultural and social climates. Gangs are a serious problem there, and there is a lot of civil unrest.

And as the governments got less and less powerful over time, the violence has decreased.

I disagree. I think that it's more to do with democratic republic governments taking over, giving the people a larger voice, increase spread of education (which is strongly encouraged by the government), and advances in forensic sciences.

Democratic republic governments aren't inherently weaker, there is just a division of power (executive, legislative, judicial), and checks and balances to ensure no one has more power than initially granted. The Bill of Rights (which wasn't part if the original Constitution) was passed to grant people and the states basic rights that cannot be violated, which only weakens it so much. It is still possible to have a strong government while having crime rates be low. Again, it depends on the interests and purpose of the government. In developed nations, it's to maximize quality of life for the common person. We have laws to ensure that these rights aren't violated, and they aren't just levied on the government (murder, rape).

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Giving people the most amount of freedom isn't necessarily a good thing. The founders of the United States understood this, and gave the people certain unalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to fair trial, etc.. They also knew that the general populace wasn't very intelligent, which is why they implemented things like the Electoral College (I disagree with it, and it doesn't really address the problem, considering the worse candidate in 2000 and 2016 due to it, but it does make sense). And it's not like you can't strengthen the government without changing the constitution.

They created a system that put the people first, instead of the government. Now there's still debate as to how to put the people first, but I believe that a strong government would be best for the interests of everybody.

Did you read the book @brimstoneSalad suggested? I read about 60%, and trying to project what I remember from it.

In the Middle Ages, the knights were bossing everyone around, yet you couldn't safely walk the streets because of the criminals.

That's not exactly right. Do you know what feudalism is? The serfs would work the land and give crops produced to their superiors for protection (the knights were among these). It's like paying taxes; give to the superiors so they can offer things like protection and public utilities.

And again, it's important to factor in the spread of education (there wasn't any for 90% of the population in Europe at that time), and advances in forensic scientists to allow us to find the murderers and punish them (I believe in rehabilitation, but anyways), and they had no such thing back in the day.

The Irish Potato Famine probably wouldn't have happened if there were no laws preventing the Catholics from buying larger amounts of land (on which you can cultivate something other than potato).

True, but that doesn't mean getting rid of strong governments would be the solution. You just have to find proper government intervention, which is why we have a system of checks and balances. It's flawed, and can lead to corruption, but this system has led to the least amount of corruption than all of the other systems in history.

We need a stronger educated populace in order to get more adept politicians in office, because ultimately, they determine if this system will work or not.

The Great Chinese Famine, again, wouldn't have been so severe (or occured at all) if, along with the poor weather, there hadn't been poor government policies based primarily on pseudoscientific ideas of Lysenkoism.

It was more due to the fact that the blokes who were in charge of the cities were given rewards if they were able to produce strong yields with their given method of farming. Given human nature, they obviously weren't above adding an extra zero or two, and when the people came by to collect the produce that was made, they would take more than how much they should have, leaving the city people to starve.

The system itself would actually have worked fine. The honors system though is kind of a bitch.

Of course, then there are genocides such as the Holocaust, also caused by politicians being wrong but powerful.

They were powerful because they promised a nation plagued by an economic downturn a better life, which is why Hitler got into power the way he did.

Now, what would happen if there is no government, the only way to really know that is to test it in the real world, and for, as you say, long periods of time.

That'd be pretty difficult to do. You'd need thousands of people where they live to just give up the local, state, and federal government laws and regulations. Or, you can up and move them out on reservations temporarily; just make sure you have their government pensions ready .

But the fear-mongerings about the terrible things that would happen if there were no government sound a lot like the Pascal's Wager to me.

Did you not learn anything from your other thread? And are you still advocating for making murder legal?

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't quite see why radical anarchism would be crazy.

Then you haven't really learned anything yet; you're still doing this.

You need to reflect on your anti-government beliefs. Yes, it's completely crazy. Several people on this forum have spent hours explaining why, and you're still holding on to this. You keep doing this.

Why won't you accept that this is another one of those things you've gotten wrong due to listening to crazy radical anarchists and repeating their nonsense? Or if you think you've "figured it out" yourself, accept that you do more work to be more wrong sometimes, and this is one of those times?

I know it makes you feel good to think you've figured out something that 99% of people don't realize. But you need to consider that there just isn't such a thing.

The desire to be special is a good one, but why not focus on action instead of belief?

Even something like veganism which is uncommon in practice is supported by the beliefs of the educated majority in the developed world (most people in modern progressive countries support animal rights, dietetic organizations overwhelmingly agree it's healthy if properly planned with B-12, etc).

If you want to be unique, don't believe weird things, instead express uncommon dedication in your actions to do good on things most people are too lazy to act on.

You can do meaningful things in the world that are completely unrelated to discovering fringe beliefs.
If you want to be ahead of the curve, just be progressive and put your actions where most people just give lip service. That's how to be unique, not by being crazy but by being dedicated.


With this crazy radical anarchism stuff, don't wait for people to waste hours debunking it until the house of cards comes crashing down. You'll feel a lot better if you learn critical thinking and talk YOURSELF out of anarchism and back into a mainstream love-hate relationship with government; recognizing that it does shitty things, is often incompetent, bad people get elected, etc. but that's it's also important for some things too.

You could even focus on learning ways to improve government -- preferably after taking some political science classes at a university level -- but thinking throwing it all out is the way to go IS crazy talk.

I think right now that I shouldn't have contacted Dubravka Ivsic about my interpretation of the Croatian toponyms. I felt much better when I thought I had actually discovered something.

You'd rather be delusional and happy?
You know it's not an either or. You can believe true things and be happy too. You can gain satisfaction by helping others and doing good in the world. Maybe stop fixating on trying to innovate and have these radical ideas and just focus on dedication to making a difference with important things people already recognize. Basic progressive values like human and animal rights, environment, less government corruption, ending wars, fighting poverty, etc. just normal stuff that progressives already believe in.

[teo123]

I don't really see what's the point of discussing politics here. It's more like a religion than a philosophy or a science. Political beliefs are problematic due to being unfalsifiable and untestable in principle.
When you take a stand on something about linguistics, it's in principle falsifiable. If I claim that, in Illyrian languages, there was a grammar rule saying that in polysyllabic words, each syllable except the last one had to be of equal length, and that that was done by doubling a consonant after a short vowel, I know how to test it. A way to prove it would be to show that it's coherent with all the available data, which is very hard to do. But I do know what would falsify it. If you could find some Illyrian toponyms such as *usa or *una (and one of the basic rules of Proto-Indo-European phonology was that only 'e' and 'o', and later 'a', could be long vowels, and, according to my theory, the diphthongs *ew and *ey monothongised into long 'i' in Illyrian), that would falsify my claim.
The claim that *ew and *ey turned to long *i in Illyrian is also falsifiable. In ancient Croatian hydronyms, the elements such as *pleuta or *leuka don't appear. Instead, you have elements such as *lik, almost certainly from the Indo-European root *lewk (clear), and *plit, almost certainly from *plew (to flow). If you find a hydronym such as *pleuta or *leuka where Illyrian was spoken, you've falsified my claim.
If I claim that *issa~iasa meant "spring" in Illyrian and that it comes from the Indo-European root *yes (boiling, spring), I also know what would falsify it. Admittedly, it's a bit harder to falsify due to the low quality of data we have (Was the ancient name for Dakovo "Certissa" or "Certissia"?), but it's not unfalsifiable in principle. If you find a large river or a mountain whose name contains the element *issa~iasa in modern-day Croatia, you have falsified my theory.
Compare those claims to the claim that the government prevents violence among people. How can we falsify that claim? I don't see it. Me pointing to the nomadic tribes that don't even have words for weapons didn't falsify it. Me pointing to the statistics about democide showing that the governments have, in the 20th century, killed around 10 times more people than murderers did also didn't falsify it. So, what would? Or is it that the claim that the government decreases violence is unfalsifiable and therefore not even wrong? My theory of the Croatian toponyms may be wrong, but it's certainly not a fringe theory. Rather, the claim that the government prevents crime appears to be one.

[teo123]

I mean, seriously, what do you think "social science" means? Science is, as far as I know, usually defined as having something to do with testable explanations. So, why would the claim "Government prevents violence." be scientific? And why would my interpretation of the Croatian toponyms be, as you say, a fringe theory?

And if you will evoke the scientific consensus here, what makes you think there is one? I don't see it.
What makes you think that most of the scientists in the relevant fields agree with Pinker that pre-historic people were more violent? I don't see it. Marija Gimbutas, for example, argued that warfare in Europe started with the introduction of new technologies by the Indo-European speaking people. Of course, she argued for all sorts of things that later proved to be wrong (for example, that Tyrrhenian and Iberian languages were related), but that doesn't negate my point.
What makes you think scientists in the relevant fields agree that laws prevent crime? I don't see it, in fact, I find the exact opposite to be obvious based on what I've read.

I am open to new ideas. If you think I have a wrong conception of what the science is, let me know.

[teo123]

Also, what is "mainstream progressivism"? As far as I can tell, most of the people who call themselves progressives aren't vegans or even vegetarians, but people who fight against sweatshops and nuclear power.

[teo123]

If you don't have anything that makes more sense than "If the Earth is round, how come the horizon rises with you as you climb?", please don't respond.

[Red]

If you don't have anything that makes more sense than "If the Earth is round, how come the horizon rises with you as you climb?", please don't respond.

I assume you're saying this to poke at @brimstoneSalad so you can get a response outta them.

Are you sure you're not a troll?

[brimstoneSalad]

teo, you need to figure this one out for yourself.

I helped explain to you why the Earth isn't flat, then you just jumped onto radical anarchism. If I explain THAT to you, you'll just jump onto something else.

You need to learn how to think critically and stop falling for these extreme ideas. You're mischaracterizing the role of government.

Anti-sweatshop/anti-nuclear people are the worst of the far left. Rational science based progressives can be found in the effective altruism movement which is significant and growing.