Is Gary Johnson retarded?

[knot]

You're OK with con artists freely preying on the weak and uneducated? And not just to steal grandma's retirement fund, but to cost people their lives with lies?

Well, no, but that happens all the time in many different domains, and the only way to prevent that would be to create some 1984 society. "Healers", hand readers, religious clerics, feminists etc. -- all con artists that promise some kind of worldly or other-worldly salvation, but in reality just waste people's lives at various speeds.

Also: How do you decide what to give an official stamp or approval? Or are there just no such stamps? Do you rely on private companies to offer such stamps, and let people guess which ones to trust and which are frauds, or determine by trial and error based on who is dying more?
Does everybody have to spend all of their free time educating themselves in order to avoid dying from being taken advantage of?

For example, medical doctors have a protected title and a lot of responsibilities that come with it. If someone's willing to buy alternative treatment from some non-doctor, then they know they're buying a leap of faith, and I really don't see why the government needs to rule against it. The non-doctor will also go out of business very quickly if his treatment doesn't work anyway.

They're paying for their trust in others. When social trust breaks down to that degree, you cause all kinds of problems. Consumer confidence is a critical factor in economic strength. You're throwing everybody into the shitter because you don't like a few people taking advantage and a few inefficiencies. It's much worse without government.

I don't see how the free market doesn't solve this. Provide people with what they want --> profit, good reputation. Fail to provide people with what they want --> shitty reputation, bankruptcy.

Or do you think people somehow deserve bad things to happen to them -- that this is morally good as retribution -- for being stupid? What moral framework justifies that for you?

Depends on whether we're talking about pure accidents that could happen to anybody, or simply really stupid conscious choices. For example, I see no reason why taxes should be spent on gastric bypasses or on curing a long-time smoker's lung cancer.

Some people do this, but most do not. They help far more people who need it than people who are taking advantage of them. There will always be people exploiting the systems. Some 1% exploiting them shouldn't be enough to justify dismantling those systems when overall they're doing more good than harm.

Well, it's a lot more than 1%. As an example, 97% of the "refugees" that came to Europe last year are still not working, despite being able-bodied men. Knowing what's required in the manual labor market, I know for a fact that most of those people have no excuse and are just being lazy fucks. But that's the kind of people you attract when you have a very generous (on behalf of others) welfare state. On the other hand, the US attracts all the doctors and engineers.

If you have ideas for a BETTER system, that's great. But it needs to be evidence based to do more good or less harm, not just throw the chips on the flow and let them land how they may. Anarchy and lack of oversight is known to do more harm than good compared to what we have. Obviously it's not perfect and it should be improved, but throwing it out is not the answer.

I don't want to remove the government, it should just be much more limited in scope and focus on basic things like roads, police, military.. etc, and things like the minimum wage, affirmative action and wellfare should be abolished. I do think there's good evidence for why libertarian-ish societies are better in the long run. Psychology tells us people behave better if they are the ones who have to endure the consequences of their own actions, and if these consequences are made immediately clear. It seems to me that many government programs about shielding people from this fundamental principle and transferring the consequences via taxes to other people instead, thus ultimately rewarding irresponsibility. Further, governments and politicians often have really bad incentives, so it makes sense to constrain their power. Example: Obama's race-baiting comments about police shootings. Great for his political career, horrible for the people he pretends to be helping.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, no, but that happens all the time in many different domains, and the only way to prevent that would be to create some 1984 society.

Like veganism, it's not all or nothing. You need to abandon the absolutist mentality.

We should legislate to prevent these abuses UNTIL the legislation causes more harm than the residual abuses that slip through the cracks.

No legislation = very bad
A little legislation = less bad
Goldilocks legislation = least bad
Too much legislation = more bad again
Draconian legislation = very bad again

There's a calculus to everything. A curve in which things get better, and then have diminishing returns, and then even negative returns.
Blindly assigning moral value to things based on extreme extrapolations is not in line with reality, it's just ideology.

"Healers", hand readers, religious clerics, feminists etc. -- all con artists that promise some kind of worldly or other-worldly salvation, but in reality just waste people's lives at various speeds.

And you restrict these harmful things as much as possible without harming society more.
It's just like medicine; there are side effects of medicine, you just have to make sure the treatment isn't worse than the disease.

The non-doctor will also go out of business very quickly if his treatment doesn't work anyway.

That is absolutely untrue. Homeopathy is a thriving industry, and so are alternative cancer "treatments" that don't work. They prey on people's hope and fear through lies.

You're incredibly out of touch with reality, and it's idiotic arguments like that which cause people to be taken advantage of.
You might as well say "If homeopathy didn't work these companies making it would have gone out of business very quickly, but they've been around for decades and make a lot of profit therefore it works!"
Moronic. And harmfully so. Your bad logic is actually promoting pseudoscience here. And for what? Your faith in capitalism to always choose the best and healthiest way forward despite a consumer who is innately ignorant and laws that fail to protect the consumer from false and misleading claims?

For example, medical doctors have a protected title and a lot of responsibilities that come with it.

So do many alternative medicine practitioners. They have protected certifications, thanks to trademark laws. They have their own [terrible] schools and diplomas. To somebody who doesn't intimately understand medicine and science, they look the same.

If someone's willing to buy alternative treatment from some non-doctor, then they know they're buying a leap of faith,

No they don't. They think it works. They've been told things like, "It'll cure your cancer for sure, 100%" They've been pummeled with advertisements and claims left and right, and beautifully designed packaging and charismatic old men in lab coats and glasses.
Unless you are intimately familiar with science and medicine, you can't even do the research because whenever you search this shit the false claims come up front and center, and everything that goes against those is called propaganda from "big pharma" which you are told you shouldn't trust because it will just make you sick and kill you. The voices of frauds drown out legitimate advice, because snake oil is very profitable and all of their expenses go into marketing instead of research.

and I really don't see why the government needs to rule against it.

Because at the end of the day it saves people's lives, and the harm done from this kind of legislation is imperceptible. There's nothing but win there in this kind of regulation, that's a very rare case in politics. This isn't a subjective issue of politics where we need multiple opinions to prevent hegemony and dogma. This is solid science and evidence based medicine; either people get better or they don't. There's no opinion to it. This isn't even like the war on drugs, which has had negative outcomes by raising the prices of drugs and resulting in violence.

Unless you don't care about human lives and suffering at all, then of course you don't see why the government should rule against it.

I don't see how the free market doesn't solve this.

Because you're ignorant and isolated from reality in a bubble of confirming ideology. Do some actual research into alternative medicine, and you'll see the problem with the free market.

Free markets, like democracy, rely on a certain degree of transparency and reliable information. When things are obfuscated and people are ignorant or lied to, it breaks down.

Provide people with what they want --> profit, good reputation. Fail to provide people with what they want --> shitty reputation, bankruptcy.

Lie to people and tell them you can give them what they want, then kill them before they can figure out it's a scam and tell others --> profit and good reputation.

Take an economics 101 class. Capitalism isn't a magical force of karma, it relies on consumer action and consumer knowledge.

For example, I see no reason why taxes should be spent on gastric bypasses or on curing a long-time smoker's lung cancer.

Because it doesn't happen like that. Smokers pay more for health insurance.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-smokers/
There are also insurance discounts for healthier eating.

How about you take a second and ask yourself WHY these things are problems in the first place.
Did it have anything to do with unregulated capitalism, with tobacco companies and the food industry pushing cigarettes and junk food through deceptive and dishonest advertising? Having men in doctor's scrubs on commercials saying they smoke to clean the lungs, marketing junk food to children as healthy with toys and cartoons?

It starts in dishonesty in advertising which creates a misinformed public. The reason there are still so many smokers is because this addictive and carcinogenic product was not regulated sooner, and these companies were permitted to peddle their lies for decades unopposed. They've made a fortune, and far from going bankrupt they're still reaping the rewards of their past efforts, and as these things slowly lose momentum they just diversify. They've never really paid any cost that wasn't just part of doing business, and it's always been good business.

I'm not an anti-capitalist. Regulated capitalism is the best system we have, but regulation is an essential part of that. Preventing monopolies and price fixing, protecting consumers from dangerous products, keeping consumer confidence, and ensuring honesty in advertising. These are essential regulations.

Well, it's a lot more than 1%. As an example, 97% of the "refugees" that came to Europe last year are still not working, despite being able-bodied men. Knowing what's required in the manual labor market, I know for a fact that most of those people have no excuse and are just being lazy fucks. But that's the kind of people you attract when you have a very generous (on behalf of others) welfare state. On the other hand, the US attracts all the doctors and engineers.

You've been wildly wrong on alternative medicine, so I don't really have much confidence in your analysis on this. It's very possible they have had difficulty all finding work given the competition from the influx and poor grasp of the local language. It could take a couple years for the market to absorb them. Long term figures are more meaningful. These people are probably interested in upward mobility.

The US is a highly regulated capitalism, and does have welfare. You could argue that European Welfare has gone too far, and that the U.S. model of more modest welfare is better (or something in between), but do not over correct and advocate for none at all.

I do think there's good evidence for why libertarian-ish societies are better in the long run.

Present it.

Psychology tells us people behave better if they are the ones who have to endure the consequences of their own actions, and if these consequences are made immediately clear.

That's not evidence. It's speculation based on cherry picking from a very soft science.

So far a lot of the evidence (particularly for people in severe poverty) tells us also that people who have basic security (such as with basic income and a safety net of welfare) do better and end up contributing to society in more useful ways that fit their skills and interests because they're more willing to take risks, start businesses, etc. People work better when they do what they enjoy, and contribute more to society overall, but if they're terrified of changing jobs or taking risks they'll stay in their ruts.
That's also in line with predictions based on human psychology, the difference being there's some evidence for it based on limited experimentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#How_will_people_behave.3F_.28Will_they_work_less.3F.29
The worst cases in experiments saw only slight reductions, and mainly for pregnant women and teenagers who were working to support their families (allowing them to be normal teens and focus more on school, presumably).

That said, not all demographics will respond the same way to the same programs.
What we need is experimentation and data, not speculation based on ideology or cherry picked soft science asserted as fact as you are.

It seems to me that many government programs about shielding people from this fundamental principle and transferring the consequences via taxes to other people instead, thus ultimately rewarding irresponsibility.

I know, and you're wrong. That is in accordance with your biased view of reality. That's not what the data says.
You can't just extrapolate from some harebrained hypothesis and dogmatically assert the results. You have to look at how these things work in reality.

Just like we can't say that the refugees will be so grateful that we let them in that they will adopt our values and they won't radicalize and kill us.
It's a reasonable hypothesis. Maybe, maybe not. We have to see what the evidence says after it's tried.

The evidence for welfare when it's applied is generally good, and goes against your assertions. Refugees who have a fundamentally different culture and worldview are an outlier and may not behave as locals do. Or they might behave very well. We don't really know.

Further, governments and politicians often have really bad incentives, so it makes sense to constrain their power.

Constrain their power by making them follow evidence based programs and expert advice, not by restricting government influence to ridiculous minimalism and leaving hundreds of millions of people to suffer the consequences as the wolves are released on them.

[knot]

Fair, I admit I don't know much of anything about alternative medicine, as it would never occur to me to seek out such practices, so I shouldn't have argued over that. If fake doctors are sometimes indistinguishable from real ones, that shouldn't be allowed. Nor should such people be allowed to falsely advertise in ways that no one can see through, as this would result in anarchy.. but if I'm reading you right, you'd prefer the government just ban alternative medicine altogether.

Because at the end of the day it saves people's lives, and the harm done from this kind of legislation is imperceptible. There's nothing but win there in this kind of regulation, that's a very rare case in politics. This isn't a subjective issue of politics where we need multiple opinions to prevent hegemony and dogma. This is solid science and evidence based medicine; either people get better or they don't. There's no opinion to it. This isn't even like the war on drugs, which has had negative outcomes by raising the prices of drugs and resulting in violence.

Unless you don't care about human lives and suffering at all, then of course you don't see why the government should rule against it.

I should preface by saying I'm semi-autistic and chronically low empathy, so this is maybe a case of irreconcilable differences, but what you're saying seems to boil down to the state taking my money and spending it on saving stupid people from willfully doing stupid things to themselves, in which case I don't agree at all. That's assuming the narrow definition of stupid, i.e. someone who lives in a society where there are clear distinctions between real and fake doctors and this information is readily available through the government. Unless there's an argument for why this would negatively impact larger society and lead to anarchy, I see no reason to save truly stupid people from offing themselves, and would even consider that a net positive.

You've been wildly wrong on alternative medicine, so I don't really have much confidence in your analysis on this. It's very possible they have had difficulty all finding work given the competition from the influx and poor grasp of the local language. It could take a couple years for the market to absorb them. Long term figures are more meaningful. These people are probably interested in upward mobility.

Ouch. Nah, they're just entitled assholes who are fine permanently leeching off us inferior kuffars. We have large control groups in the form of e.g. Polaks who come with similar skills and language language abilities but have a completely different level of work participation.

So far a lot of the evidence (particularly for people in severe poverty) tells us also that people who have basic security (such as with basic income and a safety net of welfare) do better and end up contributing to society in more useful ways that fit their skills and interests because they're more willing to take risks, start businesses, etc. People work better when they do what they enjoy, and contribute more to society overall, but if they're terrified of changing jobs or taking risks they'll stay in their ruts.
That's also in line with predictions based on human psychology, the difference being there's some evidence for it based on limited experimentation.

I'd argue there already is a safety net in the form of an abundance of crappy jobs to fall back on. Is the prospect of that which terrifies people into inaction?

American conservatives are pretty harsh on the welfare state, blaming it for most of the social ills in the black community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszQelEQ2KY&t=21s

I wonder if you think there's anything to these arguments or it's just useless correlation.

[brimstoneSalad]

If fake doctors are sometimes indistinguishable from real ones, that shouldn't be allowed. Nor should such people be allowed to falsely advertise in ways that no one can see through, as this would result in anarchy.

They are. As to advertisement, even if this is illegal, it's not really something the government can control. They're allowed to do it because it's impossible to give enough oversight to ban it.
It would be easier just to outright ban the products than to devote the trillions of dollars a year that would be required to properly regulate them.

but if I'm reading you right, you'd prefer the government just ban alternative medicine altogether.

Wouldn't you rather the government save money and lives at the same time, or do you want the government taking money out of your pockets to enable conmen in their trade by allowing it and then spending a fortune on regulation?

I'm not talking about spending billions fighting alt med in the black market. I'm talking about keeping it out of the checkout aisle at Walmart, out of drug stores, etc. The same reason it makes sense to end the war on drugs, but still not just let Walmart sell packets of meth in the check out aisle.

The black market makes up a fraction of a percentage of the total victims. That's a point where the cost benefit doesn't make sense. Although I think it would be a lot easier and cheaper to fight homeopathy in the black market than addictive recreational drugs.

but what you're saying seems to boil down to the state taking my money and spending it on saving stupid people from willfully doing stupid things to themselves, in which case I don't agree at all.

That might be what I was saying if it didn't cost the same amount or MORE to regulate this industry than to just ban it.
The most difficult part of all of this is identifying which things are real or false medicine, establishing tiers of evidence and regulation.
Once you've done this already, it's trivial just to tell companies they can't sell it or they'll be fined into the ground. A law like this could easily pay for itself if the fines are high enough.

You could even generate net revenue by fining people heavily when you catch them.

That's assuming the narrow definition of stupid, i.e. someone who lives in a society where there are clear distinctions between real and fake doctors and this information is readily available through the government.

Not all people trust the government, and that's not always 100% stupid. Even in the US government which has a very low corruption index, look at the USDA with its industry entanglements and massive subsidies paid out on a political basis. The recent Cheddar bailout, for example (which was worse than the bank bailouts, since big Cheese will never pay the government back, that was just free money).

Unless there's an argument for why this would negatively impact larger society and lead to anarchy, I see no reason to save truly stupid people from offing themselves, and would even consider that a net positive.

You're not just saving stupid people. You're saving the naive and the deceived. Everybody is capable of being irrational now and then. You're saving children being given alternative medicine by their parents. You're saving people who never benefited from the education you have to know the difference.

There is no clear line between the stupid and the smart. No delineation in IQ that can predict this reliably, nothing genetic. It mostly comes down to education, which is a failing of the state. Unless you think the government shouldn't educate people, in which case it's a failing of the parents.

Ouch. Nah, they're just entitled assholes who are fine permanently leeching off us inferior kuffars. We have large control groups in the form of e.g. Polaks who come with similar skills and language language abilities but have a completely different level of work participation.

That's not a control. Did they come from a war zone? What percentage are women and children? How many are injured? etc.

This would be an argument to block people with certain ideologies and mindsets, but not to stop welfare altogether if some use it well and some abuse it.

I'd argue there already is a safety net in the form of an abundance of crappy jobs to fall back on. Is the prospect of that which terrifies people into inaction?

That's not a safety net. You can't always do a crappy job. You could be injured or disabled at some point. Or the crappy job may not be enough to pay for your responsibilities or may not provide enough time to keep responsibilities (like if you have a better paying job now and are responsible for children, you can't take any risks).
I suspect you also overestimate the availability of these jobs. Just because you see hiring signs some places doesn't mean the jobs are widely available.

American conservatives are pretty harsh on the welfare state, blaming it for most of the social ills in the black community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszQelEQ2KY&t=21s

I wonder if you think there's anything to these arguments or it's just useless correlation.

I may be able to watch that later, but I've heard the arguments. Most of it is just useless correlation, sometimes outright lies.

There are things called welfare traps, where earning more means making less; those are problems. Which it's why it's better to have things like basic income which are unconditional, and then have a graduated tax system.
There are certainly issues with the way some welfare is implemented, but overall welfare is useful to society by increasing employment and education and reducing crime.

[knot]

I'm not talking about spending billions fighting alt med in the black market...

Oh, dunno why I thought that was what you proposed. The rest makes sense then

Thanks for explaining

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not talking about spending billions fighting alt med in the black market...

Oh, dunno why I thought that was what you proposed. The rest makes sense then

Thanks for explaining

Are you cured of libertarianism then?

There is such a thing as over-regulation, but also under-regulation. There's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, and finding it is a job of science and pragmatism, not ideology.

[knot]

I'm not talking about spending billions fighting alt med in the black market...

Oh, dunno why I thought that was what you proposed. The rest makes sense then

Thanks for explaining

Are you cured of libertarianism then?

There is such a thing as over-regulation, but also under-regulation. There's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, and finding it is a job of science and pragmatism, not ideology.

I'm not sure. I see your point that markets are not based enough on karmic justice to be anywhere near self-governing. I don't know if my wrong intuitions about alternative medicine would be shared by libertarians.. that could be a problem

I should also have made a distinction between hard and soft science, because I don't think libertarians mind restrictions being imposed based on hard science, but they definitely have a hatred (in my opinion, at least somewhat justified) for soft sciences playing a major role in government, as people from these fields tend to want to "fix" society via social justice, which often leads to unintended, horrible outcomes. I'm guessing you think this disdain isn't justified, and that for every abomination, like affirmative action, there are enough good policies to counterbalance it.

I don't think libertarianism as some kind of perfect ideology/blueprint, or that tribalism is a good thing. I just like a lot of their principles, and would probably still vote for a libertarian party, given that I think they're generally the least wrong. According to Jon Haidt's research they also have the highest avg. IQ and lowest empathy in all of politics, and I think that combo leads to the best decision-making. So in a scenario where I knew nothing about the policies of any parties, I'd vote for them based on that.

Do you have some examples of policies proposed by a libertarian party or intellectuals that are classified as libertarian (Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, etc..) that you think are wrong (and consequential)? By the way, from what I can tell most libertarians consider Gary Johson the bane of their existence, so don't use him as example

[brimstoneSalad]

I should also have made a distinction between hard and soft science, because I don't think libertarians mind restrictions being imposed based on hard science, but they definitely have a hatred (in my opinion, at least somewhat justified) for soft sciences playing a major role in government, as people from these fields tend to want to "fix" society via social justice, which often leads to unintended, horrible outcomes. I'm guessing you think this disdain isn't justified, and that for every abomination, like affirmative action, there are enough good policies to counterbalance it.

No, that disdain is fully justified. Social justice is not science.
Science is applying something and looking at the outcome, not basing policies on ideology.

Libertarians mind restrictions based on hard science too, unfortunately. Economics, by the way, is a pretty hard science.

According to Jon Haidt's research they also have the highest avg. IQ and lowest empathy in all of politics, and I think that combo leads to the best decision-making. So in a scenario where I knew nothing about the policies of any parties, I'd vote for them based on that.

If that's all you knew, that would be reasonable. But if you want to be politically active you should probably look into the policies a bit more.

Do you have some examples of policies proposed by a libertarian party or intellectuals that are classified as libertarian (Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, etc..) that you think are wrong (and consequential)? By the way, from what I can tell most libertarians consider Gary Johson the bane of their existence, so don't use him as example

Gary Johnson is actually a better libertarian, because he supports the EPA. Most libertarians hate the EPA.

Policies of libertarians that tend to be good are not intervening in foreign wars. Our meddling often makes things worse.
Free trade. Where our meddling tends to make things better.
Eliminating pork barrel spending and subsidies. Where tax money goes to private industry and distorts the economy and screw up trade.
Freedom of contract and eliminating the minimum wage. If we keep hiking it, none of us will be able to compete with robots; better to work at a lower wage than none.
Support of nuclear power.
Pro-choice.

The problem is that these are outweighed by a desire to dismantle essential regulation and basically privatize everything.
Competition is good for some things, but not everything.

Libertarians are barely better than Republicans, and that's only because of Republicans' social conservatism and libertarians impotence. They mostly vote with Republicans on fiscal issues.

Democrats are wrong too, but less wrong, particularly more recently and in federal office. Obama has made a big deal about trying to follow science based policies. Clinton supports nuclear power, and she's not insane like Sanders; she understands balancing the budget and spending responsibly. She's a bit of a war Hawk, but not as bad Republicans. If not for her sensible positions on healthcare and abortion, she could have run as a Republican and nobody would have blinked (if they didn't know who she was).