What do you think about Mike Huemer?

[teo123]

No, it's just that anarcho-capitalism is not a reasonable position, that's all. There aren't any good arguments for it (though some might be better than others, doesn't mean it's a position grounded in reason).

If governments are like medieval physicians, then anarchy is good. Before the middle of the 19th century, going to the doctor if you are sick was a bad idea. If governments do not base themselves on science (or are basing themselves on proto-science, which is, let's face it, what modern social sciences are) when trying to fix the problems they are trying to solve, then it would be better if governments did not exist.

So why not try basing them on science then? Why not bothering giving that a chance?

That might work. But the possibility of improving a system does not justify the participation in it. What you are saying, is like saying, in response to the arguments against factory farming, something like "Well, why not give the Allan Savory's ideas a chance?". It is red-herring.

[Red]

That might work. But the possibility of improving a system does not justify the participation in it. What you are saying, is like saying, in response to the arguments against factory farming, something like "Well, why not give the Allan Savory's ideas a chance?". It is red-herring.

And how do you know anarchism does work? Why would making such a radical change in society be automatically better, since the current one is flawed?

Alan Savory's arguments have been shown not to work. In science you don't dismiss something that seems plausible until you try it first. We've tried extreme libertarianism (Somalia) and it hasn't worked very well.

[teo123]

And how do you know anarchism does work?

What makes you think veganism would work? How do you know the whole society would not start to crumble if everybody stopped eating meat? You do not really know that, but you realize you do not have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim all that suffering caused by factory farms is somehow necessary.
What makes you think a government that tries to base itself on social sciences would do better than current governments do? Social sciences do not have a stellar track record when trying to predict outcomes of policies.

Why would making such a radical change in society be automatically better, since the current one is flawed?

It is not any more radical than almost everybody going vegan would be radical.

Alan Savory's arguments have been shown not to work.

Well, the science there seems very complicated. New amino-acids indeed only come from clover (Rhizobium bacteria in the roots of the clover plant). However, Rhizobium only produce a few amino-acids, they do not produce all the amino-acids which are essential for other plants to grow. Plants and animals can convert from one amino-acid to another. Cows are particularly well-suited for that, as they need very few essential amino-acids. Furthermore, cows can digest some lignin, a carbohydrate found in many plants which is utterly indigestable by fungis. Cows can thus help the fungis digest the dead plants. As well, hoofed animals make the soil less compact as they walk on it, making it more productive. Like I have said, it is a very complicated and controversial topic.

We've tried extreme libertarianism (Somalia) and it hasn't worked very well.

What do you mean Somalia was a libertarian society? Almost nobody in Somalia ever believed in libertarianism. The vast majority of people there are Muslim fundamentalists, and it has been like that for centuries.
Besides, the Somali government ideology was "scientific socialism". And the Somali government failed miserably. Does that suggest governments which are trying to follow science will fail as miserably? I do not think it does.
Furthermore, it is debatable how much of a failure Somalia really is. Mentioning statelessness in many people invokes fear of murder rate skyrocketing, but Somalia shows us that is not happening. Somalia has lower murder rate than Chicago does.

[Red]

What makes you think veganism would work? How do you know the whole society would not start to crumble if everybody stopped eating meat? You do not really know that, but you realize you do not have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim all that suffering caused by factory farms is somehow necessary.

Are you being serious right now? Like, are you really trying to make this argument?

First of all, you're making a non-sequitur when you assume that since the current government doesn't work perfectly anarchy must be a better solution. This is despite the fact that there are numerous historical and contemporary examples where government has an overall net positive and has improved the lives of many; Look at European countries with strong welfare systems, and they enjoy the highest standards of living on Earth (and even the US despite it's problems boasts some of the highest living standards). You can't just look at all the bad stuff government has done and just assume we'd be better off without it without considering the opportunity.

There are policies we've been testing such as UBI, and it's showing much promise. Since that's a policy that has been experimented with and seems to be shown to work, it would make sense if governments were to greenlight it and institute it. We also know that providing healthcare and education to a country's citizens is helpful (as many countries have already shown us).

If you really want politicians to be more science-based, why not support a technocracy instead? Corporations base themselves on evidence to maximize profits, why can't governments base themselves on evidence to maximize well-being of their citizens.

We KNOW veganism would work, since we know that animal agriculture causes unnecessary animal suffering, is contributing to climate change (which will lead to more social unrest), issues with food security, and antibiotic resistance, all of which we know are bad. If we KNOW something is bad and not contributing any good at all and has no capacity to do so in the modern world, it is not unreasonable to say that we ought to do away with it (in fact, that's the only reasonable response). YOU would have to prove that a vegan society would be harmful, given these problems with animal agriculture.

A shift to veganism overnight would NOT be a good idea. That's why this has to be gradual, where over time as more people go vegan, they breed less and less animals, and eventually, there'll likely be legislation to stop animal breeding until there are only a few thousand animals to be cared for in sanctuaries.

What makes you think a government that tries to base itself on social sciences would do better than current governments do? Social sciences do not have a stellar track record when trying to predict outcomes of policies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvC6kwU3zgA

It is not any more radical than almost everybody going vegan would be radical.

Why?

Alan Savory's arguments have been shown not to work.

Well, the science there seems very complicated.

Come on Teo. Savory's arguments have been debunked. I know you're an imbecile who doesn't understand shit, and that's fine, but don't pretend you know what you're talking about. You know fuckall about linguistics, which is supposed to be your area of expertise, so why should I trust you on anything else?
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ing_method

Savory's arguments are against mainstream consensus. The science is not complicated, you're just a moron.

What do you mean Somalia was a libertarian society? Almost nobody in Somalia ever believed in libertarianism. The vast majority of people there are Muslim fundamentalists, and it has been like that for centuries.

Somalia had no central government. Skim Wikipedia from time to fucking time.

Besides, the Somali government ideology was "scientific socialism". And the Somali government failed miserably.

Yes, and the People's Republic of China is an actual republic.

Furthermore, it is debatable how much of a failure Somalia really is. Mentioning statelessness in many people invokes fear of murder rate skyrocketing, but Somalia shows us that is not happening. Somalia has lower murder rate than Chicago does.

Wow Teo that's totally not cherry-picking.

First of all, that statistic is from 1986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... icide_rate

Secondly, you're just going to ignore all of the other countries with stronger governments that have extremely low homicide rates? Gimme a break.

Thirdly, what is the general state of police and social order in Somalia? Are any crimes actually prosecuted, or criminals removed from society at a rate comparable to Colorado? How do the consequences of murder compare for would-be murderers? What about the fact that it's much easier to get a hold of a firearm in the US than in Somalia?

Whatever Teo. I can't be wasting time with you on stupid bullshit like this. Every second I waste debating with you not only kills more of my brain cells but distracts me from far more important things. I am not responding to you beyond this point.

[teo123]

First of all, you're making a non-sequitur when you assume that since the current government doesn't work perfectly anarchy must be a better solution.

I don't think it is, any more than assuming that, since bloodletting does not work perfectly, we are better off without bloodletting. I will repeat the argument made by Michael Huemer again: Government is in a position of medieval physicians, it has some pre-scientific ideas about how society works, yet it tries to solve the societal ills. And just like medieval physicians, it can, at best, alleviate the symptoms..

This is despite the fact that there are numerous historical and contemporary examples where government has an overall net positive and has improved the lives of many

I am quite sure medieval physicians would have claimed the same for their treatments.

Look at European countries with strong welfare systems

In my opinion, the Croatian welfare system is worse than useless. Here is what I wrote on my blog about the Croatian welfare system:

What happened to me so that I became a libertarian? Well, I realized that the government-backed-up pseudosciences destroyed my childhood and teenage years. After my parents got bitterly divorced, somebody from the social security (and I am quite sure I know exactly who, but I won't name them here) made up a story that my father was a rapist and that I was a witness. Since they were in the government, many people believed them back then, including my mother. Both my parents lost their jobs and gave all the money I was supposed to start my life with to lawyers. That story was well-known, and nobody wanted to be a friend with me. I was lonely (thankfully, I am an only child, so I didn't have to share this little money my parents were able to spend on me with my siblings), and I became a part of a group of vandals and alcoholics. Additionally, my mother ended up in jail for a year. Government might steal money from my fellow citizens and give it to me in compensation, but it cannot give me my childhood and teenage years back. Even today, I sometimes get asked whether there is some truth to that story about my father. Uncomfortable, I answer that there isn't, but that that story, because the government got involved, had very real and devastating consequences. I am no longer an alcoholic and a vandal, and I am relatively respected among the people who know me. But to prevent other people from getting into such situations, I want to send a message: "Don't ascribe superpowers to the people in your government." That means don't believe ridiculous conspiracy theories, but also don't believe that the government can do miracles to protect us.

they enjoy the highest standards of living on Earth

Well, it is hard to explain why Norway is so rich, but I guess it has to do with it being rich in oil, rather than with their policies.

There are policies we've been testing such as UBI, and it's showing much promise.

Scientifically valid tests of government policies are difficult or impossible to do. I mean, how do you make double-blind tests there?

We also know that providing healthcare and education to a country's citizens is helpful (as many countries have already shown us).

Well, I do not know that. Actually, it seems implausible to me. Government intervention in healthcare usually means stuff such as requiring useless and cruel animal testing that delays life-saving treatments. And government schools are places where children are taught to analyze poetry, to speak Latin, and that Jasenovac is anti-Croatian propaganda. Stuff that, taken together, is probably harmful to critical thinking, rather than helping it.

If you really want politicians to be more science-based, why not support a technocracy instead?

Ever watched some tech-distopia science fiction movie? Are not you afraid there could be some truth to that? That, in the modern day of rapidly developing artificial intelligence, technology can turn against us? If there is a non-negligible probability of that happening, technocracy is not a good idea.

why can't governments base themselves on evidence to maximize well-being of their citizens

Because, again, it is hard to properly do social sciences.

is contributing to climate change

Well, it is complicated. There have been some studies using satellite data trying to estimate how much methane indeed comes from cows, and failing to detect any. Of course, there are good reasons to think those studies are not telling the truth (Methane in the atmosphere supposedly coming from the natural gas we use is hardly compatible with the fact that our methane emissions reached their peak in the 1970s, and reached all-time low around 2007, and being only slightly higher today than in 2007, in spite of natural gas usage increasing drastically.). But we do not know for sure whether, for example, replacing meat with rice will lead to less methane emissions.

issues with food security

Well, the science behind that is complicated. Especially with cows. Indeed, very little meat comes from grass-fed cows, but how much meat comes from cows eating grain we cannot eat from land that is not suitable for growing food for humans? It is hard to estimate.

If we KNOW something is bad and not contributing any good at all

Again, science behind that is complicated. For all we know, a switch to veganism could lead to food insecurity. It is far from proven, of course, which is why veganism should be a prima facie position.

YOU would have to prove that a vegan society would be harmful, given these problems with animal agriculture.

I agree with that. Which is also why I am an anarchist. I don't feel like the burden of proof for the claim that governments do more good than harm has been met.

Savory's arguments have been debunked. I know you're an imbecile who doesn't understand shit, and that's fine, but don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

To me it seems you are a victim of the tribal reasoning. You are politicizing the issue of regenerative agriculture (Allan Savory stuff) without even trying to understand it. Similar to how you seem not to be even trying to understand anarcho-capitalism. Like citing Somalia as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society. Hardly any anarcho-capitalist thinks a violent revolution in a society where very few people believe in anarcho-capitalism accomplishes something good.

You know fuckall about linguistics, which is supposed to be your area of expertise, so why should I trust you on anything else?

So, what do you think is wrong about my latest paper about linguistics and why? Here is the abstract in English:

What will the language we speak now look like in the future? To a large extent, that question is impossible to answer. The vocabulary of our language will gain, but also forget (How many young people today know what a floppy disk is, yet alone what a fiacre is?), words related to technology, the development of which is impossible to predict. The vocabulary of our language will also receive words from languages that will be used in international communication, which is dependent on politics, and it is also impossible to predict long-term (If you told somebody in Roman Empire that, one day, a Germanic language will be a global language, and that most of the languages all over the world will have loan-words from it, they will look at you oddly.). Morphology and syntax follow some scientific laws (analytic languages evolve into agglutinative ones, agglutinative ones evolve into fusional languages, and fusional languages evolve into analytic ones.), but those laws are difficult to model computationally and probably full of exceptions (Armenian language, for example, is an agglutinative language that evolved from the fusional Indo-European proto-language, but there is no reason to think there was a time when it was an analytic language.). Morphology and syntax are also probably somewhat influenced by politics (It seems as though languages with many adult learners, such as English or Late Latin, tend to have simpler morphology but more complicated syntax. Similarly, some syntactic structures that recently appeared in the Croatian language are probably an influence of the English language.). Nevertheless, is it possible to predict how the phonology of a language will develop? Here, I have researched exactly that, I have tried to make a computer model of the phonological evolution of languages. Although I was not particularly successful at that, I believe my work can come helpful to others, at least not to repeat the mistakes I have made, because, as far as I know, nobody has done anything like that. I have also researched whether computer models can be used in toponomastics, and, related to that, what effect do different parts of the grammar have on the entropy of human languages. I came to the conclusion that, in the Croatian language, phonology takes away 1.62 bits per symbol of entropy of consonant pairs, that syntax takes away 0.21 bits per symbol, and that morphology takes away 1.57 bits per symbol. Only 5.99 bits per symbol of entropy of pairs of consonants is semantics.

First of all, that statistic is from 1986.

What? It is from 2015. Wikipedia, the page you linked, says that Somalia had murder rate of 4.31 in 2015, whereas the US had the murder rate of 4.96 in 2016. It definitely does not support your notion of Somalia being particularly violent.

Secondly, you're just going to ignore all of the other countries with stronger governments that have extremely low homicide rates?

Are you going to ignore all countries with strong governments, but which have exceptionally high murder rate, such as Venezuela?

[mikeminima256]

@Red requested I respond to you since he doesn't want to waste his time (I guess it's fine if I do). Note that I'm probably not going to go on for more than three posts, judging by our discussions on the discord server and some posts you've made here, you're one of the most frustrating and arrogant individuals I have ever discussed with.

First of all, you're making a non-sequitur when you assume that since the current government doesn't work perfectly anarchy must be a better solution.

I don't think it is, any more than assuming that, since bloodletting does not work perfectly, we are better off without bloodletting. I will repeat the argument made by Michael Huemer again: Government is in a position of medieval physicians, it has some pre-scientific ideas about how society works, yet it tries to solve the societal ills. And just like medieval physicians, it can, at best, alleviate the symptoms..

And medicine started working wonders once we started learning more about science (germs, anesthetics), didn't it? Huemer has to be incredibly delusional to be unable to see this obvious double standard (as are you).

This is despite the fact that there are numerous historical and contemporary examples where government has an overall net positive and has improved the lives of many

I am quite sure medieval physicians would have claimed the same for their treatments.

Yes, and they'd be wrong. You wouldn't expect the get the most reliable results from the people themselves, you'd get it from other parties. It's why we have peer-review in science.

Successful governments can be verified by the standards of living and freedoms of their citizens, and we almost never rely on the governments themselves for these results, at least in the less reputable countries (organizations like the UN do these reports). Similarly, we now know that these "doctors" were incorrect in thinking their treatments worked.

What a dumbass argument.

Look at European countries with strong welfare systems

In my opinion, the Croatian welfare system is worse than useless. Here is what I wrote on my blog about the Croatian welfare system:

What happened to me so that I became a libertarian? Well, I realized that the government-backed-up pseudosciences destroyed my childhood and teenage years. After my parents got bitterly divorced, somebody from the social security (and I am quite sure I know exactly who, but I won't name them here) made up a story that my father was a rapist and that I was a witness. Since they were in the government, many people believed them back then, including my mother. Both my parents lost their jobs and gave all the money I was supposed to start my life with to lawyers. That story was well-known, and nobody wanted to be a friend with me. I was lonely (thankfully, I am an only child, so I didn't have to share this little money my parents were able to spend on me with my siblings), and I became a part of a group of vandals and alcoholics. Additionally, my mother ended up in jail for a year. Government might steal money from my fellow citizens and give it to me in compensation, but it cannot give me my childhood and teenage years back. Even today, I sometimes get asked whether there is some truth to that story about my father. Uncomfortable, I answer that there isn't, but that that story, because the government got involved, had very real and devastating consequences. I am no longer an alcoholic and a vandal, and I am relatively respected among the people who know me. But to prevent other people from getting into such situations, I want to send a message: "Don't ascribe superpowers to the people in your government." That means don't believe ridiculous conspiracy theories, but also don't believe that the government can do miracles to protect us.

That probably has less to do with your country's welfare system and more to do with the backward mentality of the country. Even though your country has free education, given your country being a still developing country and the location (Balkan countries aren't exactly the most egalitarian) that doesn't mean people are properly educated. Also, looking at the corruptions perceptions index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruptio ... ions_Index
It's safe to assume your government is not using it's power for the well-being of the citizens very well (corruption in your country is comparable to China's ).

Red was more referring to examples like in northern Europe (which, as you see, have the lowest corruption rankings). You probably wouldn't see this shit happen in the USA even.

they enjoy the highest standards of living on Earth

Well, it is hard to explain why Norway is so rich, but I guess it has to do with it being rich in oil, rather than with their policies.

It's not just because they're rich, but because their governments are both compotent and base their values on egalitarianism. The USA is richer than Norway, yet it doesn't even have universal healthcare, since it's too busy wasting money on wars and ineffective social programs.

There are policies we've been testing such as UBI, and it's showing much promise.

Scientifically valid tests of government policies are difficult or impossible to do. I mean, how do you make double-blind tests there?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

We also know that providing healthcare and education to a country's citizens is helpful (as many countries have already shown us).

Well, I do not know that. Actually, it seems implausible to me. Government intervention in healthcare usually means stuff such as requiring useless and cruel animal testing that delays life-saving treatments. And government schools are places where children are taught to analyze poetry, to speak Latin, and that Jasenovac is anti-Croatian propaganda. Stuff that, taken together, is probably harmful to critical thinking, rather than helping it.

Do you have any evidence of any of these claims?

If you really want politicians to be more science-based, why not support a technocracy instead?

Ever watched some tech-distopia science fiction movie? Are not you afraid there could be some truth to that? That, in the modern day of rapidly developing artificial intelligence, technology can turn against us? If there is a non-negligible probability of that happening, technocracy is not a good idea.

Is THAT your argument? Science fiction movies? Are you really this dumb? You have to be trolling at this point.

You don't seem to even know what a technocracy even is.

why can't governments base themselves on evidence to maximize well-being of their citizens

Because, again, it is hard to properly do social sciences.

And yet there are numerous examples of this anyway (like in the video Red linked that you probably didn't watch).

is contributing to climate change

Well, it is complicated. There have been some studies using satellite data trying to estimate how much methane indeed comes from cows, and failing to detect any. Of course, there are good reasons to think those studies are not telling the truth (Methane in the atmosphere supposedly coming from the natural gas we use is hardly compatible with the fact that our methane emissions reached their peak in the 1970s, and reached all-time low around 2007, and being only slightly higher today than in 2007, in spite of natural gas usage increasing drastically.). But we do not know for sure whether, for example, replacing meat with rice will lead to less methane emissions.

Teo, you are not an expert in this field (evidently). You are not smarter than the people who have refuted Savory's claims. Stop pulling this shit out of your ass as if you know what you're talking about.

issues with food security

Well, the science behind that is complicated. Especially with cows. Indeed, very little meat comes from grass-fed cows, but how much meat comes from cows eating grain we cannot eat from land that is not suitable for growing food for humans? It is hard to estimate.

The majority of crops on earth are set aside to feed animals instead of humans. Do the math. You are aware that there are wheat farms and such specifically to grow food for animal agriulture right?

If we KNOW something is bad and not contributing any good at all

Again, science behind that is complicated. For all we know, a switch to veganism could lead to food insecurity. It is far from proven, of course, which is why veganism should be a prima facie position.

Oh my God, shut the fuck up. Using Latin phrases does not make you seem smart. Your arrogance is driving me up the wall here.

Why would veganism lead to food insecurity? If you have no reason to believe something, it shouldn't even be considered UNTIL there is reason for it (and there realistically won't be).

YOU would have to prove that a vegan society would be harmful, given these problems with animal agriculture.

I agree with that. Which is also why I am an anarchist. I don't feel like the burden of proof for the claim that governments do more good than harm has been met.

Even granting this asinine claim, YOU ALSO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF TO MEET AS TO WHY NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE BETTER. You ever hear the phrase "better than nothing?"

Savory's arguments have been debunked. I know you're an imbecile who doesn't understand shit, and that's fine, but don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

To me it seems you are a victim of the tribal reasoning.

And you seem to be a victim of retardation.

You are politicizing the issue of regenerative agriculture (Allan Savory stuff) without even trying to understand it.

All Red is doing is saying that Savory's experiments have been discredited by the scientific community at large. These people know far more about this than you ever will Teo. Stop acting like you know anything about it. How the hell is he even trying to politicize it? If anything, he's doing the opposite by bringing in science.

Similar to how you seem not to be even trying to understand anarcho-capitalism. Like citing Somalia as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society. Hardly any anarcho-capitalist thinks a violent revolution in a society where very few people believe in anarcho-capitalism accomplishes something good.

Red is just asking for you to prove anarcho-capitalism to be a good system, and you're just relying on bullshit rhetoric.

You know fuckall about linguistics, which is supposed to be your area of expertise, so why should I trust you on anything else?

So, what do you think is wrong about my latest paper about linguistics and why? Here is the abstract in English:

Given your arrogance I wouldn't be surprised that everything you wrote there is incorrect.

First of all, that statistic is from 1986.

What? It is from 2015. Wikipedia, the page you linked, says that Somalia had murder rate of 4.31 in 2015, whereas the US had the murder rate of 4.96 in 2016. It definitely does not support your notion of Somalia being particularly violent.

Red explained how most crimes aren't even reported since the system is so corrupt and poorly funded. Not to mention even if it weren't violent, would you rather live in the US or Somalia?

Secondly, you're just going to ignore all of the other countries with stronger governments that have extremely low homicide rates?

Are you going to ignore all countries with strong governments, but which have exceptionally high murder rate, such as Venezuela?

Strong, poor, and authoritarian, with little education. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

[teo123]

Red requested I respond to you since he doesn't want to waste his time (I guess it's fine if I do).

So, why are you letting him waste your time that way? I mean, you are in control of your time, not some stranger on the Internet.

Huemer has to be incredibly delusional to be unable to see this obvious double standard (as are you).

I do not think it is a double-standard. Claims about what the government should do in order to cure the ills of the society are, by their very nature, very soft-science claims. Whether or not blood-letting works is a hard science. Furthermore, social sciences clearly do not yet have an answer about what causes the society's ills (racism, economic recessions...). In that sense, we are still in the proto-science state of the development of social sciences, if we will ever get out of it.

we almost never rely on the governments themselves for these results

I thought one of the basic principles of social sciences is not to doubt the government statistics. That is why most social scientists think healthcare in Cuba is superior to that in the USA, even though most non-governmental organizations about it claim otherwise.

organizations like the UN do these reports

Well, the UN is often criticized for being greatly influenced by countries with horrible record of protecting human rights. China, the USA, and, back in the day, the Soviet Union...

Similarly, we now know that these "doctors" were incorrect in thinking their treatments worked.

Sure, now we know that with certainty. It is obvious now, that the medical science has advanced. Back then, it was not obvious. But when (and if) social sciences advance to the degree that we can evaluate the policies that are currently popular... What do you expect? If history of science has taught us anything, the current government policies will be viewed as counter-productive most of the time, and merely alleviating the symptoms at best of times (just like blood-letting).

Also, looking at the corruptions perceptions index:

OK, what do you think is "corruption"? Why do you think it is a bad thing? Corruption is, as far as I am concerned, government breaking its own laws, which is usually a good thing. If laws are stupid, corruption helps, rather than hurts, right?
And if you will say (I hope that is not what you are thinking) "Croatian government does not really care about the wellfare of its citizens, and that is why it is not succeeding at improving it.", you will set up yourself burden of proof that is impossible to meet.

The USA is richer than Norway

What? The GDP per capita is significantly higher in Norway than in the USA, right?

Do you have any evidence of any of these claims?

For what? That FDA is widely agreed to be killing more people than it saves, by requiring useless testing, mostly on animals?

Many economists have studied the FDA. Their diagnosis is well expressed by Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman: “The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process.”

The benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5'000 casualties per decade or 10'000 casualties per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21'000 to 120'000 lives per decade... It seems clear that the costs of regulation are substantial when compared to benefits

And about education? Is not it obvious that government schools are a place where children are taught mostly useless and sometimes even harmful stuff, like analyzing poetry, speaking Latin, and that Jasenovac is anti-Croatian propaganda?

You don't seem to even know what a technocracy even is.

As far as I understand it, technocracy is the rule of the scientists (and other experts), preferably regulating stuff within their fields of study. More-or-less like August Comte was suggesting back in the day (although he did not call it that way back then).
One of the obvious problems with that is that, like the politicians, scientists (and other experts) can be influenced by ideology when making decisions. Net Neutrality seems like an obvious example. Google is strongly for net neutrality, Oracle is strongly against it. Clearly, at least one of them is following ideology, rather than science.
I also think that there is an even bigger, although less obvious, problem with technocracy. When doing engineering, it is usually preferable to do something rather than nothing. In politics, it is the opposite of that. But technocrats will be biased by engineering into doing something rather than nothing. That is probably why Herbert Hoover's policies failed so badly. Hoover tried everything instead of the only thing that might have worked, that is leaving the economy alone. Hoover was an engineer and tried to transfer his experience from engineering into political issues. That does not work well. Under technocracy, any ruler would be like that.

And yet there are numerous examples of this anyway

And what do you think about what I said on my blog and in the paper?

Well, I guess it is always like that in social sciences: If you think you have a good p-value, you are probably calculating something incorrectly.

Teo, you are not an expert in this field

Right, but, unlike Red, I am at least trying to understand it. Red does not seem to. Red simply takes it for granted Allan Savory is wrong, without even knowing what his claims are.

You are aware that there are wheat farms and such specifically to grow food for animal agriulture right?

Right, and much of the land with those farms cannot be used to grow food for humans.

Using Latin phrases does not make you seem smart.

Well, you are also using some Latin words. "Using" is a Latin word. And "phrases" is a Greek word. Sometimes you can express yourself more easily by using Latin words or phrases.

Why would veganism lead to food insecurity?

Obviously, by removing some food that we already have at the grocery stores.

YOU ALSO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF TO MEET AS TO WHY NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE BETTER

Well, the analogy with medieval doctors, if appropriate, is a proof of that.

All Red is doing is saying that Savory's experiments have been discredited by the scientific community at large.

So, Red is not doing science here. Science is not dismissing something without even trying to understand it, like Red is doing.

Given your arrogance I wouldn't be surprised that everything you wrote there is incorrect.

Is not that kind of a circular logic? I mean, you assume I am always wrong about social sciences because my papers are gibberish, and you assume my papers are gibberish because I am always wrong about social sciences.

Red explained how most crimes aren't even reported since the system is so corrupt and poorly funded.

Notice that the murder rate in Somalia I cited is a UN estimate.

Not to mention even if it weren't violent, would you rather live in the US or Somalia?

Well, a tough question. Of course, I think both US and Somalia suck compared to Croatia. However, if I was forced to choose between living in the US and living in Somalia, I think I would chose living in Somalia. I think I would rather live in poverty-struck country that is Somalia than in a police state that is the US. I haven't tried either, though.

Strong, poor, and authoritarian, with little education. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

I am not sure what you mean here. Venezuela was, in the 1970s, the richest country in Latin America, and, even now, it is not exceptionally poor compared to other Latin American countries. My point was that the strength of the governments does not seem to be strongly negatively correlated with murder rate. Venezuelan government is strong, yet it has, by some estimates (by GreenPeace...), the highest murder rate in the world.

[Red]

Well, a tough question. Of course, I think both US and Somalia suck compared to Croatia. However, if I was forced to choose between living in the US and living in Somalia, I think I would chose living in Somalia. I think I would rather live in poverty-struck country that is Somalia than in a police state that is the US. I haven't tried either, though.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.

But I'll let Mike handle it.

[thebestofenergy]

Well, a tough question. Of course, I think both US and Somalia suck compared to Croatia. However, if I was forced to choose between living in the US and living in Somalia, I think I would chose living in Somalia. I think I would rather live in poverty-struck country that is Somalia than in a police state that is the US.

To quote you from 2016:

You spread what we both know are lies, right?

[teo123]

Well, a tough question. Of course, I think both US and Somalia suck compared to Croatia. However, if I was forced to choose between living in the US and living in Somalia, I think I would chose living in Somalia. I think I would rather live in poverty-struck country that is Somalia than in a police state that is the US.

To quote you from 2016:

You spread what we both know are lies, right?

Umm... Why do you think I am lying? Would you rather live in a country which is known as a police state such as the USA, or a poor but not-nearly-as-oppressive country such as Somalia?