teo123 wrote:Maybe not all regulation. But let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose there is a scarcity of salt in some country. Now, a stranger comes and tries to sell salt. But that salt contains less iodine than government regulations prescribe. Do those regulations then do more good or harm?
Now, it's possible that FDA is doing that with drugs.
Brimstonesalad says that we need to empower FDA to end pseudoscience in medicine, but I think that's a violation of free speech.
Furthermore, what when politicians don't do what they promise? If homeopaths should be punished, so should they.
Ok, I think I see what you're saying. You think that the FDA regulating drugs (even if they're fake) is bad, because it's against free speech?
But it's not speech. It's tricking people who need real medicine into spending their money on fake medicine, hurting them economically and health-wise. You can't do deceptive advertising to sell products like that in the United States, because it's harmful.
Also, if we're talking about companies selling the medicine, companies are not people and are not protected by the First Amendment. And they shouldn't be. The reason why we have free speech for people in the United States is to allow the free exchange of ideas, so we can constantly improve as a society. We have to allow bad speech to allow good speech, so people can say almost whatever they want. But companies have no interest in the free exchange of ideas - by definition, companies "want" profit. There is no use to free speech for companies; all "they" are going to "say" is stuff to benefit "themselves" economically.
But it's not free speech, because it involves selling products to people under false pretenses. It's one thing to tell a lie, it's another to sell products based on a lie and harm people.
Now, most of the welfare in mainstream politics appears to be a scam. You know, like laws that tell the unemployed "If you can't make your employer 7$/h, you mustn't apply for a job." or that tell the employers "You must take away x$ every month from the wages of your employees and give them to the ensurance companies." Brimstone thinks that we should do scientific experiments on small towns to determine what's the best welfare system, but I think that's unethical.
If you can't make your employer 7 dollars an hour, you shouldn't apply for a job? What regulation is that?
As for the second one, I might be wrong, but I thought the wages aren't supposed to decrease - the employers just pay more for the healthcare. But maybe in practice that's not how that works. Idk. Is that what happens?
Why do you think that's unethical, because some people might be harmed by bad welfare systems?
That's what happens in the US, ideas are tried on a small scale, and if they work we can apply them to a larger scale. If they don't work, we know what not to do.
Well, there isn't much evidence that it increases literacy, so why bother forcing children to go to public schools?
What? Education by definition increases literacy. ? What.
I just said that putting murderers in prisons, places from which they return with even more psychological problems, which made them murder in the first place, may be doing more harm than good.
Brimstone says that we need courts to resolve the conflicts between people. But I think judges and lawyers generally (not all of them) have no interests in bringing justice and peace to the society, but that they actually want people to argue because, well, that's how they make money.
I agree with you, rehabilitation should be prioritized over punishment. I think that prisoners who have psychological problems should be treated for them, not punished. But for those who don't have psychological problems, then they should go to prison.
? What. How do judges and lawyers make money by having people argue?
Lawyers make money by winning, so they might defend people dishonestly, but that's not true of judges. And what other system is there besides that? Do you not believe in the justice system at all?
I think I am experiencing a bit of political discrimination here. Political discrimination is by far the strongest form of discrimination today, yet people rarely talk about it.
And, no, I don't think I am cherry-picking evidence. In fact, I think that Brimstone is one doing that. Let me explain:
" The level of daily violence [in Somalia] during this period was 'catastrophic' "
Compared to USA, correct. But, if you actually look at the source, you will see that homicide rates in other African countries (which is a fair way to compare) were even higher. You know what Catullus said: Cum aspera dantur, disputationes omnes ad nihilem accumulantur. (When times are hard, violence disappears). In his time, he probably sounded crazy, but today's social sciences confirm that.
"Prior to the fall of the Somali government in the early 1990s, Somalia's life expectancy was approximately equal to neighboring Ethiopia. As of 2014, after a quarter of a century of minimal government, life expectancy in Somalia was 9 years behind Ethiopia. "
Correct, but if you look at the sorce, you'll see that the life expectancy in Somalia actually increased. The question is why it was increasing more slowly than in Ethiopia. It could be because of the health care being private, or it could be because of most of the hospitals having been destroyed in the civil war.
Somalia and North Korea are rated as the most corrupt countries in the entire world.
That's not true, Somalia has less and more intentional homicides depending on what country in Africa you compare it to.
When times are hard, violence disappears?
Yay, this is where I get to talk about history.
Ok, here we go -
Do you know what conflict in history caused the most deaths? WWII. WWII started BECAUSE times were hard.
To resolve WWII, the Treaty of Versailles was established, which mandated that Germany pay extensive economic reparations to the Allied Powers. The treaty also did not give Italy the Adriatic Coast (which would improve Italy's economy), which it was promised by France and Britain when it switched sides to the Allied Powers. Germany and Italy were both economically devastated by the war, and times were very hard. All of the countries were devastated by the war, but those extra harms done to Germany and Italy led to the rise of fascism in those countries.
Then, the Great Depression hit. It began in the United States and quickly spread throughout the world. The US imposed its highest tariffs in its history, blocking imports from other countries to grow business in the United States. Other countries did the same to retaliate. Things got worse and worse.
Italy became fascist mostly because of how they were betrayed by the Allies and didn't get the Adriatic Coast. They were already becoming fascist when the Great Depression hit, because of economic harm to Italy.
Germany became fascist because of the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. The Treaty of Versailles
devastated Germany with its reparations, and then when the Great Depression hit, they could no longer take out loans from the US to pay the reparations (bc of the tariffs). Inflation in Germany went through the roof. People negotiated prices in restaurants before they ate, because by the time they finished dining the inflation could've changed the price dramatically. People got two wages in one day because of the inflation. People could barely afford bread, and they were starving and miserable. The Nazi party exploited this situation, promising the people they would fix Germany's economic problems and restore Germany to the dominant power in Europe that it once was. Whenever a country is economically devastated, it turns to a strong leader who promises to fix the situation, even if that leader is fascist.
Japan became fascist because other countries could no longer afford to buy its high quality luxuries due to the Great Depression. Also, other countries wouldn't buy its oil because of the tariffs. The government of Japan was actually becoming liberal UNTIL the Great Depression, at which point it became a military dictatorship.
These are the three countries that formed together in the Axis of Evil. The people weren't evil, they just wanted food on the table. And in history, whenever times are hard and people are desperate, the door is wide open for fascists who say they'll feed the people. The people don't care about individual rights as long as they can eat. In this time period, that led to WWII, which caused the most amount of deaths in all of history.
So, the idea that violence disappears when the times are hard is not accurate. WWII is just one example. Some others: The Taiping Rebellion in China (which caused tens of millions of deaths), the French Revolution (which led to Napoleon, because people were starving), the Haitian Revolution (which was a great thing, and also an example of how when you oppress people violence RISES), feudal Europe (the Dark Ages), etc. etc. etc.
To reiterate, when the times are hard, violence
increases.
Btw, please don't take any of this as me being rude. I just want to discuss.
