I don't see how the "burn it to the ground" solution works, given that the reason why the system has the nature it does, is that people think the way they do, and so it seems inevitable to me that if you "burn it to the ground" it will simply rise from the ashes the very next day, and arguably, in an even worse form.
An admin came in, downvoted all the nested comments of mine in this thread, and then slowbanned me. Or at least, the slowban and the jump down in karma (due to someone downvoting all my posts here) happened at around the same time, so it seems a fair inference.
When I point out the fact that science does not mean "just trust the experts, they are experts", and the scientific method does not mean "peer review by the anointed institutional authorities", the typical reaction is revealing.
The same people who bemoan a failing trust in our scientific institutions are themselves furthering it, by adopting starkly authoritarian anti-science attitudes. They compound the problem by rabidly attacking anyone for daring to question, which is behavior more fitting to a religious dogma than to a science.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
Every time you mention "science" it's always with the tacit assumption that because something has been anointed by government institutions then it's "science."
This is an extremely dangerous attitude. It is of course very prevalent as well.
It boggles the mind how you can't see the relation of regulation to stifling of innovation. At best I could see a sane person thinking "but it's worth it for the sake of safety." I can't see how anyone can fail to see that every cost and barrier you put up is going to keep out something good. From a simple cost standpoint this is obvious. So that's why I didn't spell it out. I just gave you benefit of the doubt where evidently, that wasn't warranted.
Furthermore, the scenario here is where someone is informed of the risks/benefits, and they want to take part of a treatment plan you disapprove of. The first thing you do is dishonestly preemptively categorize it as crankishness, as if being different than the status quo ipso facto makes it nutty. This is revealing in itself. But on top of that is the fact that IT IS NOT YOUR BODY. So not only are you dishonest, you are grossly immoral.
I ask about the case where someone actually does know better than the status quo and you switch the example to a self-serving one. You are blatantly dishonest.
As I said, this is a very complex issue, I can't hope to address all your points here but let me try to address an important one.
You are equating science with government enforcement of majority opinion. Think back to the time of Galileo. Why would you want to make this equation?
You want to think that times are different now, that the majority is wiser than it used to be. Why should that be so, exactly?
Imagine that leaders in the software industry could prescribe what languages were "safe" and what weren't. Imagine what that would do to innovation. Isn't it better to let people decide for themselves?
You fear that lack of regulation would lead to unnecessary harm and death. Yet, what of those who are intelligent enough to know the risks and wish to try new things, knowing the possible consequences? What of the cancer patient who is sure to die in 3 months, who wants to try a new experimental drug, but is legally barred from doing so? How can you justify this tyranny?
You wish to protect the ignorant from their own bad choices, but does this make them more intelligent or less? And what of those who are smarter than you, who know better than you, and who you have banned from doing things to help themselves? What of the future people who would have benefited from what they could have learned, that you prevented them from learning?
These are the types of questions you need to be asking yourself. You also need to stop pretending that fraud is allowed on a free market. It is not.
I don't think you know what scientific rigor is. If you did you'd realize it doesn't operate well under threats of force by bureaucracies.
In any case, this is a complex issue that can be examined and debated from various perspectives, but you're just coming in here to pimp the status quo, as if that's useful. Your kind has already won by a landslide, there's no particular point in bullying people who think you have made a mistake. A person with an actual scientific mindset might be curious about new ideas, not pretend they know everything, and bully anyone who comes to the table with new information.
By the way, you're making various presumptions about my view that are false. I never said anything in support of medical fraud or crackpots. And again, this is the kind of sloppy reasoning I've come to expect from your side of the aisle. Your arguments won't stand up to scrutiny, ergo you fabricate straw men. This in itself demonstrates something to suspect in your viewpoint.
You didn't merely make the bald-faced assertion, you were very rude about it with your snide "ftfy".
I've studied this stuff for years. I understand your status quo view, that thinks that good intentions are a substitute for philosophic rigor. Your view doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny, and it's holding all of mankind back.
Because telcos are in bed with government. We don't really have a free market, it is virtually illegal to compete with the telcos. Some cities have tried and have been sued over it.
Yes the free market should decide, but we just don't have one. Net neutrality is an imperfect remedy at best, but letting the telcos run wild with artificial privilege isn't the answer either.
I always cringe when someone famous gets attacked by the political correctness Nazis -- usually the reaction by them is appeasement, which only makes the general cultural situation worse.
Nothing on that page gives the impression that it's more than proposed feature enhancements (which in themselves may be wonderful of course), as opposed to a fundamentally novel approach to operating systems.
Most innovation is driven by at most a few individuals, but the bar is so high for a viable practical modern operating system that individuals are going to tend to take their innovation elsewhere.
This is not the ideal situation. Ideally, big companies like Microsoft or Apple would enable the right individuals to innovate in this area, unfortunately they are very bad at this. They do not know how to select these individuals, and even more importantly, leaving aside the rare likes of Elon Musk, the notion of radical innovation is rather contradictory to the institution of big business in our era.
" Strict libertarians are all about keeping our nose (and military) out of other people's business."
That depends on whether you're referring to Party Line Libertarian or a "libertarian" who is actually pro-liberty. Regarding the latter, liberty definitely condones coming to the defense of another person's liberty, regardless of borders.