dennis_jeeves2

Obviously we should pass a law so that only mosquitoes that have undergone a full medical examination and are certified free of diseases are allowed to bite humans.

>But advancing science should not have to rely on unfunded researchers pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps

This is the case and unfortunately this will continue being the case. Even when research is funded by the govt it will be only projects that their mediocre member ( who are prone to lobbyists, kick back etc.) approve of.

Bang on. You seem to get the spirit of what I'm saying.

>I'm curious as to how you think we should divide up who gets what plots, can you explain how that works?

This is not going to be easy. But it can be done even if it's done imperfectly. For example all the fertile land can be divided equally and the infertile ones equally - so an individual will have multiple plots. There are other issues also - for example what happens if someone decides to have 10 + children. In certain locations around the world people have essentially out bred the land resources that they have.

Of course one might ask why should one bother with all of this complexity I stated above? One has to compare it with the current situation which I think is the greater of the evils:

1) government decides the property tax. In many situations people are edged out of their own properties because they cannot afford the property tax.

2) it goes against the very principle that citizens own their land and not the government. The current state of affairs is the other way around.

3) People do not have ways to live off their own land like they used to in the past, now they have to have jobs. If they do not have jobs then they have to have a social security, which leads to a whole bunch of other issues.

4) tax complications.

Let me phrase the overall problem in another way - how do we prevent government from excessively controlling our lives, and have the citizens truly owning their own land without having to 'rent' it from the government?

Yes, agreed. It's expected, that what the peasant's do, envy the rich and have lots of children.

>Stop the fraud and the corruption and the incompetence and then let's talk about increasing taxes.

Zero taxes is the only right answer. Any talk of taxation means that you have already given in to being exploited, because it's a slippery slope. Let's be realistic - corruption will never end. The only way to reduce it is to starve the beast.

>If we view raw nature as a common inheritance of mankind, then paying a tax on land is how the exclusionary use of it

This will have some of the unfortunate effect of collectivism. We don't want the govt to tax you into poverty.

A simpler overall approach (I've left out the nuances) would be to have an equal amount of land per person completely tax free. Individuals can then rent out their land for others to use as needed. Forests/rivers/conservation lands etc. can be seen as truly a common inheritance of mankind and should generally have the least of commercial activity.

p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.

Very astute observations.

>> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only.

>And if your parents suck? (Mine did.)

What you proposal then?

(for the records: Mine did too, in addition to half of the people I know.)

>But, also, children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too.

Why do you think they deserve, and at who's expense?

>There are probably isolated incidents, and many unproven theories,

Depending on how/what you calculate, cumulative taxation is between 50% to 70% of an average person's income. This is all that you need to know.

>Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

Most organizations are made of of very mediocre (or political) individuals, and when it comes to wrong (or political) decisions individuals cannot be held responsible, that how orgs deflect responsibility.

On the hand when an individual (often wealthy) or a bunch of them decide to fund something (often from his own pocket), they know what they are doing and are personally willing to bear the risk.

>Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

I should have been more nuanced.

Org = generally public orgs where the people in the org do not have a stake beyond their jobs in the org. Example: govt. As an exception to this rule there can be (private) orgs of very competent people who deploy they own money to get things done, including research.

(p.s - I realize that I cannot delve into all all nuances with a few sentences I put here, but hopefully you get the drift)

Seems to rival incarceration or probably is better.

In the true spirit of science this needs to be pursued however outlandish it may seem.

>My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.

A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.

>My take on the self correction is, that later research usually cannot be build on wrong results.

AFIK, it does not seem to happen much with mainstream medicinal research. Many layers of fraud/incompetence/assumptions for centuries with no correction in sight. Of course there are certain sub-areas that may have advanced. In fact it's the modern day religion, having replaced the god centric religion of yesteryears.

Fully concur with you here. Ultimately it boils down to integrity and objectivity of the individuals involved, which IMO is in short supply.

Also my way of phrasing what you said: science = verb, Science™ = noun. George Orwell had a point about the play of words.

>It's a self fulfilling prophecy... while us commoners, or so called "activists" or ethicists ponder and debate on culture, morality, law and ethics... The powerful are just living an alternate life devoid of all these moral qualms and are have clearly distanced themselves from the mundane, have distanced themselves from the guilt or any kind of accountability.

I have been musing, good deeds aren't paying off - heck the peasants don't even notice, or think I'm a loser. I'm tempted to think like the powerful...

>In a generation these drugs are likely going to be seen as a big mistake and a medical scandal.

Of course the next generation will deal with a bunch of other drugs where the side effects are underplayed. The playbook of the mainstream medical industry is a common one.

> I'd rather be sovereign and poorer than whatever kind of second-class "American" status the USA would grant us forcibly annexed Canadians

The biggest 'enemy' of Canada is not America(s). It's the Canadian govt itself. Most Canadians cave into their tribal instinct of 'us versus them' and cannot see past that own manipulative govt.

Canada has not only proportionately significantly more trade restrictions (between countries) compare to US, but it also have significant restrictions to trade and free market within Canada: example quotas on milk, dairy, beef and chicken. There are more taxes at every stage of a transaction with little benefits ( yes people mention 'free' health care but it's another subject). Relatively unaffordable housing mostly due to taxation (For example the tax part of condo in Toronto/Vancouver is cumulatively about 35%) etc.

Just to be clear both govts of US and Canada are tyrannical. Americans on an average distrust their govt more than Canadians - hence they overall do better in keeping their govt overreach in check.

>TRY to get citizenship elsewhere and leave this shithole.

Most of the wisest ones who had the means have already left. My heartfelt sympathies with the one who are still stuck there.

>The craziest thing is, that in spite of the obvious, balatant corruption and supreme incompetence of the US govt, Trump still has around 35% approval rating.

Not to diminish you statement, but you are right.

Something similar can be said about Canada. In your sentence replace:

US with Canada

Trump with Carney/Trudeau/Others

35% with 95%

and the situation can be summarized as significantly worse in Canada.

You understand the word 'average'?

Agreed self-sufficiency isn't the best term. But if I were to rephrase it, let say that self-sufficiency in terms of the quality of life - US would be in much better shape than Canada. Canada has _significantly_ much more to lose than the US.

>Canada is that it’s broadly in a weak negotiating position here.

That's an understatement. Hypothetically if Canada were isolated from the world, it would regress in the quality of life in 10 years. The most capable Canadians have moved out, mostly to the US. The average Canadian has unwarranted sense of nationalistic pride about them (compared to their neighbors).

Isolate US from the world, and assuming that the govt does not meddle too much with local businesses, in 10 years they will bounce back to being more self sufficient than it is now.

>It's incredible this is even in debate.

Show you how people are out of touch with reality. Even something commonsensical like what you mentioned is often countered with - "Show me the data"

You are my hero for the day.

This is the most correct response.

>Also, if you pick the right partner,

For many (75%+ ?) even that is not an option. If they tried, they would be single forever(which is not a bad option in itself)

There are some thinkers (IMHO) who do think it's real possibility. These thinkers are well aware of hallucinations and have accounted for it.