What do you think about Mike Huemer?

[thebestofenergy]

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?

Police state's usual definition = 'a state where its government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties'

That's a very vague definition that can be applied loosely, e.g. you could say any taxes = an extreme level of control - at which point, any state is a police state.

What is a better (and more useful) definition would be 'a state where its government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties, to the point where it significantly impairs on the happiness and life prospects of people'.

I don't see how the US is a police state. People online that usually call first world countries a 'police state' do so as an hyperbole, to have an impact with what they're saying, without actually knowing what they're talking about.
A good example of a police state is North Korea, where the government acts against the interests of people, and the policies and laws are there to help the few in power while keeping the rest in the dark of information. In the US and other first world countries, instead, at least the significant majority of laws and enforcements are there to further improve quality of life of people and society in general, and it acts in direction (instead of against direction) with what the best interests of people are (e.g. North Korea's government would ask itself: 'how can we further our own interests?', while the US government would ask itself: 'how can we make sure that we make right by people and the future generations?').

You can easily see that with things like officers in the US having to preventing people to do self-harm because it's in their best interests to not harm themselves, while in North Korea if an officer is required to stop a citizen from doing self-harm, if anything, is to have extra work force for the government and not have an opportunity cost with a lost worker.

So, I think you're either lying or not knowing what you're talking about. Somalia is a shit-hole to live in.
I don't think you've ever visited third world countries, so you don't have first-hand experience or you wouldn't even think of going to live in such a place. But even without experience, you can understand things with statistics.
For example, the index of happiness in the US in 2019 is 6.9, while in Somalia it's barely 4.7. That is a huge difference, that is very telling.
You can then look at crime rates, life expectancy, education, and other factors to decide which place is more likely to offer you a happier life.

I don't think the US is the best place to live in the world either, quite the contrary when you consider the healthcare situation. But it's certainly the lesser of evils when compared to any third world country.

You also overlook things such as civil war - you would rather be forced to do what X party wants through violence in a civil war (like in Somalia), than be forced to do what the government wants through legal ramifications, when what the government wants (in the vast majority of cases) is not in direct opposition of your best interests?
Would you rather live in an 'oppressive' country like the US, or in a country where oppressive seems like a paradise in comparison? Where you never feel safe due to civil unrest and crime rates, have no access to basic healthcare and education, and will probably die young either of an infection or some easily preventable disease for which you do not have a way to deal with (and will never achieve a resemblance of safety at any point in your life)?

You're really out of your depth with how bad things are in certain places, maybe visiting them could make you understand how stupid you sound when you say this stuff.

On one hand you have Somalia:
- very poor index of happiness (4.7)
- very poor life expectancy (57 years)
- extremely poor education (literally one of the worst in the world, literacy rate below 38%)
- very high crime rate (and not soft stuff like theft, but terrorism, kidnappings, murders, etc.)
- very poor healthcare (worse situation than the US for sure, with millions constantly being in need of urgent care but not being able to get it)

On the other hand you have the US:
- higher than average index of happiness (6.9)
- pretty good life expectancy (73.5 years)
- good education (high on the index)
- not good for crime (but still much better than Somalia)
- bad situation for people that cannot afford high cost of healthcare (but still much better than Somalia)

So, that leads me to the question: how did you manage to draw the conclusion that life in Somalia is better than the US, with civil wars and terrorism being rampant, basic things such as education and healthcare being a privilege, and a life expectancy that would make anyone run with their tail between their legs?

There are people in Somalia that would kill to be able to get out of it, and go to the US. I haven't seen a case of someone in a first world country escaping to Somalia as a refugee to look for a better life for their families, have you?

You make up your mind when you don't even have the basic knowledge of how things are, and relying on deontological concepts such as 'government = bad, therefore less government = good, and Somalia government < US government, therefore Somalia > US' - even though the facts are saying the exact opposite with the conclusion, you would rather disregard the facts and be willfully ignorant of them and just rely on your preconceived absurd beliefs, stubbornly, when the reality is so different than your conclusions that they seem comedy at best.

Saying living in Somalia is better than the US is beyond absurd, and it's indicative that you're not even willing to do basic research before making up your mind with absurd conclusions.

[mikeminima256]

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.

Oh so you agree me arguing with you is a waste of time?

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.

Yes, it is a double standard. For Christ's sake, the movement for evidence based policy was inspired by the movement to use evidence for medicine. There are objectively good things government does. You're again falling for a personal incredulity.

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.

Where the hell did you read that? That's idiotic.

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...

What are you even talking about? These countries get criticized by other UN members all the time for their human rights issues. In many UN reports of countries, China and the US never top the charts (the US does do much better though).

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).

OK, so now you're showing your complete ignorance of current global politics and governments. Try learning more about countries that aren't Croatia.

Maybe you should GIVE THINGS A TRY FIRST in evidence-based policies? Like we do with effective charities. It is possible, you're just incredibly ignorant and delusional.

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?

Are all laws stupid? I mean I know you're an anarchist, so I know you're stupid, but government breaking laws isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it means if it's at the expense of the citizens.

The most corrupt countries tend to be some of the worst places to live, and the least corrupt tend to be the best.

"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.

Judging by your anecdote, this seems to be exactly what's happening with so many people in your country due to your corrupt government. You met the burden of proof for me, thanks.

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

It is, but the US has the highest GDP in the world, and a MUCH larger population. The GDP Per capita difference isn't that significant at that point since both (75k for Norway and 65k for US) are enough to sustain people. It's a diminishing return in terms of utility. Despite that the US COULD potentially be a better place to live than Norway, but again, the government is incompetent when it comes to spending. Even then, although the Nordic countries have comprehensive welfare systems, there isn't too much of a difference in terms of quality of life for the majority of these citizens. Fully developed countries (which Croatia is not) are still the best places in the world, regardless of which one you're in.

It's much better than Croatia, which has a GDP per capita of 13k.

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

Maybe you should cite a credible scientific source, and not a libertarian think-tank.

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?

Firstly I don't think any school on Earth that isn't in Croatia learns about Jasenovac (maybe in college courses), and that other stuff is just useless, not harmful. Education in most countries is fairly poor since the way stuff if taught is ineffective, but countries with well designed education systems like Finland show us it can be done well and effectively.

I don't see the harm in exposing bad parts about your country's history, and I don't see why you view that as a bad thing. Are you a nationalistic historical revisionist now? You think it's bad that people learn that some country no one cares about had a concentration camp?

Not even the US has this problem in many states. Most middle and high schoolers learn about slavery, trail of tears, internment camps, manifest destiny, etc. This isn't kept secret.

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.

They are still held accountable by other experts, it isn't just one madman running every operation.

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.

Now you're showing your ignorance of US history. It's well known that while Hoover did pursue some policies, he avoided any direct effort from the federal government to fight the depression, and it's wildly credited with exacerbating the depression.

FDR's New Deal policies didn't solve the depression either, but it did help things from getting much worse.

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

Well it's lame and useless and written in Croatia by some guy who doesn't think prisons exist.

Did you even watch the video Red linked?

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 know nothing about this type of science (or any other science for that matter), so if you're going to take a stance that goes against consensus, this is classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

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.

Dumbass, can't you read? The food grown on soy, wheat, etc farms can be eaten by humans, but are given to animals instead.

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.

You know what I mean, idiot. People who use obscure latin phrases to look smart just come across as douchebags.

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

Are you being serious right now?

The meat will just be replaced with vegan products. We have an abundance of food, we just give it to the animals. It won't be an overnight process anyway, as more people go vegan grocery stores will slowly take meat off the shelves since it won't be selling.

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

No it's fucking not. A crude analogy proves nothing.

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

He's not doing science, he's just honest enough to know to defer to the experts. Unlike you, since you fail to see how dumb you are.

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.

No, I assume the papers are wrong because you're wrong about everything else.

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

Learn to fucking read. Red literally said how many of the murders aren't reported, AND also has to do with the fact that it's harder to get a gun in Somalia than the US.

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.

You really are a moron if you're this ignorant and deluded by nationalism to think this.

You're reminding me of this old South Park clip:
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/yo ... an-asshole

The US outperforms Croatia in the HDI, Democracy Index, Education and Healthcare rankings, etc. The US is objectively a better place to live than in Croatia on average.

The US police force has issues, but you are either ignorant of what a police state really is, or are ignorant of what it's like in the US.

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.

And what was the wealth distribution exactly? It was and still is a primary sector economy, which means the country is making lots of money, but that doesn't mean everyone is getting a sustainable cut.

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.

Again, the quality and access of education there is poor. In countries with better, more well funded education systems have lower rates of crime. Also since income inequality is so high, people do more drastic things for money.

Really, think about what you say next time you type it. You don't realize how dumb you're sounding to 99% of people reading.

[Red]

@teo123 Watch this video to see why authoritarian governments can be a reason for so much crime, AND how much of an issue corruption can be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I don't think you really grasp how poorly so many laws are enforced in poor, authoritarian regimes.

That is, if you can understand any of it.

[teo123]

I don't see how the US is a police state.

Seriously? You realize the US has, according to the government statistics, 3% of its population behind bars? That is more than any other country, except possibly North Korea.

A good example of a police state is North Korea, where the government acts against the interests of people, and the policies and laws are there to help the few in power while keeping the rest in the dark of information.

Do you really think the North Korean government does not have good intentions? Do you also think Mao and Stalin did not have good intentions, and were not simply misled?

You can then look at crime rates

And I have. Murder rate is, according to the UN estimate, slightly lower in Somalia than in the US.

Oh so you agree me arguing with you is a waste of time?

I do not know.

For Christ's sake, the movement for evidence based policy was inspired by the movement to use evidence for medicine.

Under an intuitive, but mistaken, belief that all sciences are equal. That just because medicine that is based on evidence is better than medicine which is based on a-priori reasoning, that means that government which tries to base itself on contemporary social sciences will do better than government which bases itself on some core principles.

There are objectively good things government does.

Probably. But we do not (yet) know, with reasonable certainty, what those are.

Where the hell did you read that? That's idiotic.

Well, it used to be written on Wikipedia, I do not know where the anonymous writer of Wikipedia got that from...

Hirschfeld referred to well-documented research about the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, showing that "revolutionary" efforts "can also include such practices as deliberate manipulation of health statistics, aggressive political intrusion into health care decision-making, criminalizing dissent, and other forms of authoritarian policing of the health sector designed to insure health changes reflect the (often utopian) predictions of Marxist theory". But, according to Hirshfeld, "the true extent of these practices was virtually unknown in the West", where "social scientists frequently cited favorable health statistics supplied by [these regimes], without critically looking at the ways these were created and maintained by state power".

These countries get criticized by other UN members all the time for their human rights issues.

Maybe. I am not aware of that.

Maybe you should GIVE THINGS A TRY FIRST in evidence-based policies?

Communism (abolishing private property) was given a try countless times. In monasteries, for example. However, it turned out not to scale, to have disasterous consequences when tried at a large scale.

Like we do with effective charities.

Well, whether or not giving money to charity is good is a complicated topic. If you have a lot of money, it is probably better to invest it wisely to create some jobs, than to give to however-effective charity.

Are all laws stupid?

The vast majority of all possible laws are stupid.

government breaking laws isn't necessarily a good thing

I never claimed it is necessarily a good thing.

The most corrupt countries tend to be some of the worst places to live, and the least corrupt tend to be the best.

OK, so, how do you know corruption is the cause of the problem, and not a symptom? You know, like sweatshops are symptom, rather than the cause, of poverty.

Judging by your anecdote, this seems to be exactly what's happening with so many people in your country due to your corrupt government.

I am not sure what you mean.

Despite that the US COULD potentially be a better place to live than Norway, but again, the government is incompetent when it comes to spending.

Again, I am not sure what you mean. Let's say Norway invests its money optimally for the benefits of its citizens. So, because Norway richness per capita (regardless of how you measure) is higher than that of the USA... that means the USA could not be a better place to live than Norway, regardless of how well the USA invests in welfare.

Maybe you should cite a credible scientific source, and not a libertarian think-tank.

Who is a credible scientific source here, if not a Nobel-prize winning economist that is Milton Friedman?

Firstly I don't think any school on Earth that isn't in Croatia learns about Jasenovac

Schools in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina do teach about Jasenovac. They teach that around 700'000 people died there. In Croatia, we are taught that less than 100'000 people died there, and that anybody citing a higher figure is spreading anti-Croatian propaganda. Which makes no sense. We have lists of the names of the people killed in Jasenovac, there are 150'000 people listed there. And the population of Croatia during that time decreased by around half a million. I asked a few historians, nobody of them thinks it is plausible that less than 150'000 were killed in Jasenovac. The figure of 700'000 is probably an exaggeration. But saying it is less than 100'000 is just denial. And yet we are told in school that almost all historians today agree that less than 100'000 people were killed in Jasenovac. Without a doubt, telling children that hinders them from realizing just how inhumane governments can be. It is damaging to critical thinking.

Education in most countries is fairly poor since the way stuff if taught is ineffective

So why keep those education systems then? The possibility of improving a system does not justify participation in it.

I don't see why you view that as a bad thing.

I see it as a bad thing because children are told what is implausible to be true. It is implausible that less than 100'000 people died in Jasenovac. A much more reasonable estimate is that around 350'000 people died there. And telling children that those claiming that more than 100'000 people died there are supposedly spreading anti-Croatian propaganda... is damaging critical thinking.

They are still held accountable by other experts, it isn't just one madman running every operation.

In other words, we should add tons of checks and balances so that the technocratic government cannot do anything? What is the point of government then?

Now you're showing your ignorance of US history.

My friend, history is so incredibly complicated that, if you think you have learned something from history, you are probably not realizing just how little you know. You know what Hegel said, "The only thing we can learn from history is that we can never learn anything from history."?

it's wildly credited with exacerbating the depression

As far as I understand it, the fact that Hoover was giving tax money to large corporations under the illusion that will create new jobs is widely credited with exacerbating the depression.

FDR's New Deal policies didn't solve the depression either, but it did help things from getting much worse.

Well... it is very complicated. As far as I understand, most economic historians these days think the New Deal had little or no effect. FDR did not really follow mainstream economics. He implemented minimum wage laws, for example, which are widely agreed to have at least slightly increased the unemployment.

Well it's lame and useless and written in Croatia by some guy who doesn't think prisons exist.

It is my experience with linguistics, which is a lot harder science than political science. A very simplistic computer model I made at first convinced me that the probability of some pattern I saw in Croatian toponyms occurring by chance is less than 1/10'000. A slightly more complicated model showed it was around 1/500. The flaw in that model was that it used the Shannon's entropy as a proxy for intrinsic probability, which, as I later found by experimenting, gave wildly incorrect results. A model that takes that fact into account, by estimating the collision entropy first and only then estimating the intrinsic probability, shows the probability of that pattern I noticed in Croatian toponyms to occur by chance to be 5.9%. And, like I have said in my paper, it is possible, if not probable, that my computer model appearing to predict phonological evolution of languages around 17% better than chance is mostly an artifact of an inappropriate control model, because my control model is often "predicting" roots will evolve into obviously unpronounceable words such as "krzkd" or "ghghad".
Dare I suggest it often happens in social sciences, that social scientists often convince themselves the results of some experiment are very unlikely to be due to chance, because they are using simplistic or wrong models, and that, unlike me here, they never notice the error? It just so happened that I noticed the error here, by asking the right question and doing a relevant experiment (during which I ran into some hard-to-diagnose technical problems, hard to diagnose to a computer science student, and which would be even harder to diagnose to somebody educated only in social sciences). But it could have easily happened that I never notice the error, and stay convinced that I have an extremely good p-value, when, actually, I do not.

Did you even watch the video Red linked?

No, but I am planning to. Honestly, I doubt there is much worth reading in the political science, but I may be wrong about that.

if you're going to take a stance that goes against consensus

How do you know I am going against the consensus? How do you know what is the consensus, if you obviously have not studied the issue?

The food grown on soy, wheat, etc farms can be eaten by humans, but are given to animals instead.

That is a very ignorant statement. Most of the grain given to farmed animals cannot actually be eaten by humans. Neither can cows eat a lot of grain suitable for humans, they get constipated if they do because of a lack of fiber in their diet. And that special high-fiber grain that farmed animals can eat is less demanding of the land. Obviously, you have not studied it.

People who use obscure latin phrases to look smart just come across as douchebags.

Prima facie is not an obscure Latin phrase. My guess is that it is about as well-knows as id est or exempli gratia is, something that many people who know no Latin know what it means. Certainly less obscure than ad hoc is.

We have an abundance of food, we just give it to the animals.

That... is a very simplistic statement.

No it's fucking not. A crude analogy proves nothing.

What do you mean by "crude analogy"?

Unlike you, since you fail to see how dumb you are.

Ecology is very complicated and very little is known about it. Everyone today is dumb about it.

I assume the papers are wrong because you're wrong about everything else.

What is that everything else? If you are not aware of most of my work, especially the work that I consider to be the best, you are not really qualified to judge me.

Red literally said how many of the murders aren't reported

Right, which is why I am citing the UN estimate, rather than the government statistics.

also has to do with the fact that it's harder to get a gun in Somalia

How do you know and how is that relevant?

You're reminding me of this old South Park clip:

How did you open it? If I try to open it in Firefox, I get "Access Denied", and, if I try it using Chrome, I get a blank screen.

The US outperforms Croatia in the HDI

What is that? How is it relevant?

Democracy Index

What is that? How is it relevant? As far as I know, social scientists in the west tend to believe democracy leads to a better protection of human rights, but there is not much evidence of that.

Education and Healthcare rankings

What are you talking about? According the the US government estimates, around 14% of people in the USA are illiterate. Life expectancy is almost exactly the same in Croatia and the USA.

or are ignorant of what it's like in the US

Well, I have a friend who worked in New York for some time. And he says he does not want to return there. He says that one must not leave their house after 17h because then the hooligans rule the streets of New York.

And what was the wealth distribution exactly?

As far as I know, the wealth distribution in Venezuela is pretty uniform. Not as much as in Ukraine or Kazakhstan, which are known for having extreme wealth equality, but not far from it.

[thebestofenergy]

I don't see how the US is a police state.

Seriously? You realize the US has, according to the government statistics, 3% of its population behind bars? That is more than any other country, except possibly North Korea.

And? What's your point?
Do you always draw imaginary arbitrary lines to a certain number to declare something is or isn't a certain definition that is completely vague?
What about 2% behind bars? What about 1%?

Do you always rely on arbitrary definitions to determine stuff?
A certain amount of people behind bars does not necessarily equal to police state. Or do you think that certain areas are more police state than others, since there are more inmates? How do you logically work it out? Louisiana is a police state, but Massachusetts isn't, since amount of inmates differs so much?
Or maybe, just maybe, amount of inmates relates to crime rate in the area? What do you think?

A good example of a police state is North Korea, where the government acts against the interests of people, and the policies and laws are there to help the few in power while keeping the rest in the dark of information.

Do you really think the North Korean government does not have good intentions? Do you also think Mao and Stalin did not have good intentions, and were not simply misled?

Yes, as any sane person would, I obviously do not believe the North Korea's government has good intentions.
This has been proven true over and over with them gaining power at the expense of their people, leaving their people in the dark, controlling whatever information gets to them, and in shit, effectively prisoners of their country - all while they gather the fruits of the people's labors for their own monetary and power gain, leaving the majority of people in poverty and with pretty much nothing left.

Whether Stalin or Mao had some good intentions or only bad ones, is irrelevant to the fact that NK government is literally exploiting, manipulating, and abusing its people for own power and wealth gain.

You can then look at crime rates

And I have. Murder rate is, according to the UN estimate, slightly lower in Somalia than in the US.

You're going to start having to be honest, Teo. Or this conversation is over. Seriously, I don't give a fuck about talking to someone that's being dishonest like you here.

Why do you ignore all other crime rates, and cherrypick the one that suits you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Did I say murder rate? Or did I say crime rate (including kidnappings, assassinations, theft, rape, etc.)?

These are 2021 stats:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

US crime rate: 47.7

Somalia's crime rate: 56.04

Which is a bigger number? 56 or 47?

And of course, dishonestly, you also conveniently ignored all the other stats I provided - like the fact that literacy in Somalia is 38% and that the average lifespan is 57 years, or that the index of happiness is so low that Somalia is one of the worst plagued-with-mental-illness places in the world.
Or the healthcare completely failing, or the civil unrest being omnipresent.
These things are inconvenient for you to consider, so you just straight out ignore them - to be able to then try to keep validity to your original ridiculous claim.

Or how about the fact that it's an actual constant warzone, having been at war for 40 years, having endured three famines, and more than 1/3 of the people relying on aid to survive? How can you be so deluded to think it's better to live there than in the US? How can you seriously claim something so astronomically stupid?

Those are facts that I guess you don't consider worth noting, right?
Ignore everything Teo, just cherrypick 1 thing so you can stubbornly believe whatever fantasy you want.

You know that if you're wrong, you can just say so, and move on, and it won't be held against you? You don't have to do this kind of shit, where you make a beyond absurd claim, and then willfully ignore the facts in order to be able to hold your insane conclusion as valid. All it does is show you're too prideful to admit you're wrong, and you'll defend any absurdity to whatever extent you have to.

[teo123]

@teo123 Watch this video to see why authoritarian governments can be a reason for so much crime, AND how much of an issue corruption can be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I don't think you really grasp how poorly so many laws are enforced in poor, authoritarian regimes.

That is, if you can understand any of it.

Oh, I am sorry, but that video appears to explain precisely nothing. Like, how can governments exist in the first place? How can those keys to power exist in the first place, how come are not all people approximately equally powerful?
And what evidence is there that taxes are higher in a dictatorship? The only country without an income tax these days is... North Korea, a country that is almost universally agreed to be a dictatorship. What evidence is there that life is better in a democracy than in a dictatorship? Clearly, not all dictatorships are equal and not all democracies are equal. If those things are even on the same spectrum, which I think is unreasonable to assume (that representative democracy and dictatorship cannot coexist). The Tito's dictatorship in Croatia was not the same as Kim Jong Un dictatorship in North Korea, so much so that many people in Croatia think life was better under the Tito's dictatorship than it is today. As far as I am concerned, this video makes many very counter-intuitive claims without even attempting to prove them. Common sense tells us a dictator needs to please the common people more so than a democratically elected needs to, because, under a dictatorship, people feel the urge to revolt, whereas, under a democracy, people think (unjustified) that the political problems are their fault.
And there is no doubt my work in social sciences is way more scientifically rigorous than that video is.

[Red]

Oh, I am sorry, but that video appears to explain precisely nothing.

How much of the video did you watch exactly? First five minutes? And if you did watch the whole thing, how much of it did you comprehend?

Like, how can governments exist in the first place? How can those keys to power exist in the first place, how come are not all people approximately equally powerful?

From people who are seeking power. It's clear you didn't watch the video all the way through.

And what evidence is there that taxes are higher in a dictatorship?

Again, you didn't watch the video (or rather were too stupid to understand it).
In democracies the poor don't pay income tax, in dictatorships they do, that brings the average tax rate down.

The only country without an income tax these days is... North Korea, a country that is almost universally agreed to be a dictatorship.

And yet it's still a shithole to live in. No official taxes does not mean it isn't a totalitarian regime.

Direct taxes, such as income tax, were officially eliminated in 1974 as "remnants of an antiquated society".[3][6] This action, however, did not have any significant effect on state revenue because the overwhelming proportion of government funds—an average of 98.1 percent during 1961–1970—was from sales taxes such as turnover taxes, deductions from profits paid by state enterprises, and various user fees on machinery and equipment, irrigation facilities, television sets, water, and so on.[6] This is in line with similar practices in other socialist countries.

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

What evidence is there that life is better in a democracy than in a dictatorship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... justed_HDI
Tell me if you see a correlation.

Democracies are better places to live because keeping the people happy keeps the politicians in power, and the economic interests of both parties tend to coincide.

If you're saying shit like this you're obviously ignorant of what life is really like in a dictatorship. Croatia's democracy is mediocre at best, but you really are taking it for granted.

Clearly, not all dictatorships are equal and not all democracies are equal. If those things are even on the same spectrum, which I think is unreasonable to assume (that representative democracy and dictatorship cannot coexist).

No one is saying that dumbass. You obviously misunderstood the video.

The Tito's dictatorship in Croatia was not the same as Kim Jong Un dictatorship in North Korea, so much so that many people in Croatia think life was better under the Tito's dictatorship than it is today. As far as I am concerned, this video makes many very counter-intuitive claims without even attempting to prove them.

That has more to do with Croatians being ignorant traditionalists than a reasonable point of view. Like how many Americans think life under Trump was better.

Common sense tells us a dictator needs to please the common people more so than a democratically elected needs to, because, under a dictatorship, people feel the urge to revolt, whereas, under a democracy, people think (unjustified) that the political problems are their fault.

Teo, this is probably even dumber than your claim that Somalia is a better place to live than the US.

If the dictator really has to please the common people, why are authoritarian regimes throughout history almost always terrible places to live?

If you watch the video, you'll know that, in primary sector economies, the government keeps the people barely alive so they can keep brining wealth, but not stong enough to revolt.

Also you're failing to see how people almost never think of themselves as part of the problem. The overwhelming majority of people put people in office to solve the problems that they (the people) create.

The people who vote morons in ARE the problem. I'd argue ignorant voters are a bigger problem than ignorant politicians.

And there is no doubt my work in social sciences is way more scientifically rigorous than that video is.

Once again the arrogance strikes.
The video is based on a book by political scientists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook

[teo123]

OK, @thebestofenergy, let's say you are right and that violent crime is more common in Somalia than in the USA. Not rape (Rape, by the way, is a lot more common in developed countries than in developing ones, and highest in Nordic countries such as Sweden, presumably because only rich people even think about doing stuff like that.) nor murder, but some other dangerous crimes, such as terrorism. How do you know it is because of anarchism? There are so many other factors. Religion, for example. Muslim countries tend to be a lot more full of terrorism than Christian or secular ones. Or maybe former dictatorships that ruled the country ("scientific socialism") still have a bad effect on violent crime. And so on...

[teo123]

And if you did watch the whole thing, how much of it did you comprehend?

I watched the whole thing. I did not understand everything, as it is English without subtitles.

From people who are seeking power.

But almost everybody is seeking power.

In democracies the poor don't pay income tax, in dictatorships they do, that brings the average tax rate down.

Ummm... no. In the USA, the poor (that is, most of the people) don't pay income tax. That is called progressive tax rate, and is an idea almost exclusive to the USA. Most democracies have a flat tax rate, which means everybody pays taxes, proportional to their income. In Norway, everybody pays around 50% of their income to taxes.

And yet it's still a shithole to live in.

Well, it is hard to tell. We do not know much about what is happening in North Korea.

Tell me if you see a correlation.

Oh, and when I used that argument, Tell me if you see a negative correlation between lockdown strictness and COVID-related mortality (and here are some studies that show there is no such correlation)., that was not a good argument?
Clearly, democracy does not always lead to social and economic freedoms. Democracy creates incentives for spreading misinformation and for censorship. Almost all Internet shutdowns happen at the time of the elections in African democratic countries, in a supposed attempt to prevent the spreading of fake news. And many, if not most of, dictators have been democratically elected.

you really are taking it for granted.

I am not sure what you mean.

Like how many Americans think life under Trump was better.

And maybe it was. The concentration camps in the USA were allegedly a lot less populated during Trump presidency than now.

If the dictator really has to please the common people, why are authoritarian regimes throughout history almost always terrible places to live?

Sorry, I worded it wrongly. I wanted to say that dictatorships probably have a strong incentive to appear to be working in the interest of the common people. Like Belarus organized massive public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, to make its citizens feel like they are freer than people in neighboring countries. Much more so than Croatia did.

primary sector economies

As far as I know, there are almost no primary sector economies these days. That is, only some tribal societies are primary sector economies.

The video is based on a book by political scientists

Well, I hope the book is much more rigorous. The video literally cites no statistics to support its case. If the book is much more rigorous, the author of the video has probably misunderstood the book drastically.

[thebestofenergy]

Rape, by the way, is a lot more common in developed countries than in developing ones, and highest in Nordic countries such as Sweden, presumably because only rich people even think about doing stuff like that.

Hahahaha
You honestly gave me a laugh IRL, not an easy thing to do.

Are you that arrogantly out of your depth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_stat ... s_2012.png Indonesia has 0.7 rapes out of 100'000 people, it's unbelievable, right? While Sweden is 100 times worse. Truly incredible.
To think that out of every person living in Indonesia in 2012 (250 million), there was only a total of 1'750 people that experienced being raped.
Every rape victim of the country put together would barely fill a country-side village! It's almost like a miracle!

Or actually, when you think about it, it's about the recorded and reported criminality. Do you honestly think that in third world countries every rape is reported and every crime persecuted? Who would do that, exactly?

You have every reason to believe that first world countries are much, much better at recording and reporting offences than the pretty-much-non-existent police force in those countries.

Do you honestly think that when a militia group in Somalia attacks a village in the middle of nowhere, and goes on to either murder or rape everyone, there is a police officer hidden in the bushes writing down what's happening and making a head count for who's raped, ready to report it to the government? Or that there is a magical eye-witness that escapes while dodging bullets and running faster than vehicles, with a mission to tell the tale to some officials, so that every no-name victim can be accounted for?
Do you think that when militia groups fight each-other and everyone flees as fast as they can, government officials readily intervene to investigate the situation so they can accurately report what happened?
Do you think someone extremely poor being raped would somehow have the ability to make a police report, and the government have enough manpower to be able to dedicate a team to the victim to verify the validity of the story? When they can't even have access to basic healthcare to begin with?

Most crimes in third world countries are never reported, let alone cared about. People die and are wronged left and right, and the little government that is left is worried about fighting militia groups and terrorism that is trying to take everything down into chaos - and the priority is not accounting for every unknown person with no possessions that is not even in the system that someone might have done something wrong to.
You're so spoiled in your first world country that you have no clue how bad things can be. Travel there, visit around, and stay for a while. Then if you return home alive to tell the tale (although being so stupidly naive I doubt you would survive staying for a decent amount of time), you can maybe understand the abysmal difference between living in Somalia and the US.

https://www.who.int/gender/violence/who ... 2.pdf?ua=1
Oh, look. In fact, when you get into estimated rapes instead of reported ones, the numbers are much different.

'Nearly one third of Ethiopian women reported being physically forced by a partner to have sex against their will within the past 12 months'
'in urban Bangladesh, 48% of 15–19-year-old women reported physical or sexual violence, or both, by a partner within the past 12 months'

Crazy how different the numbers are then.
Maybe you would choose being a young girl living in a third world country rather than in a first world country, and effectively throw a coin every year to decide whether you're going to be raped/sexually abused or not that year?

'Ethiopia had the lowest level of directly reported sexual abuse at less than 1%, but this rose to 7% in the anonymous responses.'

Hmm, wow, I guess the reported crimes are actually really different than the ones that happen.

'Women in Bangladesh were not comfortable marking a piece of paper without their husband’s permission, and so only direct figures were produced' (in regards to anonymously reporting whether they had been subject to sexual abuse)

I wonder why they're not reported.

You can read through the rest if you want to get an idea. Saying that rape is more prevalent in first world countries is another comedic claim that you're making.

'Only rich people even think about doing stuff like that'? Do you hear yourself?
If anything it would be the exact opposite. People that are well-off in a first world country have everything to lose, poor people growing up in a brutal environment have nothing to lose and are less likely to be empathetic.

How do you know it is because of anarchism?

I have never said such a thing? What are you on about?
Are you so defensive of your anarchism BS that you're feeling attacked every time a country with little to no government left is proven to be much worse than one with it?