The Paleo-Libertarian Connection on LRC

My article, The Paleo-Libertarian Connection, was published today on . Here’s a quick overview: I show that the paleo community is strongly libertarian, and why it is. Then I discuss the parallels between the ideologies. I end by making the case for paleo-libertarian integration. It’s somewhat of a paleo-libertarian manifesto, a flagship article for the Paleo-libertarian group.

About Autor

I’m an undergrad student ultimately aiming for an economics PhD. In a nutshell, I’m an atheist, market anarchist, and paleo health enthusiast. In other words, I reject God, Government, and Grain.
This entry was posted in Health, Libertarian. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Paleo-Libertarian Connection on LRC

  1. jeffersonianideal says:

    As a principled libertarian, I would never impose my nutritional belief system on anyone else. I am nevertheless aware of the detrimental health effects of meat, dairy products, refined sugars processed foods and artificial sweeteners. I have been a vocal opponent of their consumption since 1982, long before I was a libertarian but I would never attempt to legislate their removal or restriction.

    I am also well aware, as all Americans should be, that the so called, "Food Pyramid" (prior to that "The 4 Basic Food Groups") was constructed in typical corporatist fashion with government and the big food companies in synergistic collusion. And one does not need to necessarily be a libertarian to be opposed to FDA regulatory intervention of nutritional supplements and herbal formulas. Since most libertarians agree that all personal liberty depends largely on property rights, as we begin to remove over-intrusive government from our homes, perhaps we should begin by first ridding it from our kitchens and dining room tables.

    • Toban says:

      Regarding meat: conventional meat is not so great; grass-fed/pastured and organic is the way to go. Clean meat is the healthiest food, the original superfood.

      You're spot on about the Pyramid, it wasn't about health, it was about selling grain products.

  2. David Brown says:

    I once asked a political science major for a definition of politics. Her response: Politics is the process of distributing wealth.

    Political philosopher John Stuart Mill notes that government has two functions; to protect the citizenry and to improve its circumstances.

    Thanks to ignorance in general and avarice (a common character trait) in particular, politics at its best will always be problematic but necessary evil.

    My sentiment is that the remedy for the evils of politics is to alleviate the burden of bad ideas that engulfs academia and guides political decision making. This requires educating both politicians and citizenry as to how the real world works.

    The nutritional belief system (Dietary Guidelines for Americans) promoted by the current academic/political/commercial milieu needs to be corrected. At this point it's difficult to tell whether grass roots education efforts by Paleo bloggers, academics, ordinary citizens, and authors, familiar with the scientific research on those components (mainly omega-6 fats and added sugars) that promote the chronic inflammatory diseases, are having much of an impact on the thinking of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. We'll know in a few months as the Guidelines are scheduled for release this Fall.

    Meanwhile, every state is sovereign when it comes to public health policy. Since state lawmakers are ultimately responsible for public health policy in their home states, it makes sense to educate lawmakers about nutritional controversies and issues and help them formulate policies that correct the mistakes at the federal level.

    The raw milk movement is an example of citizenry involvement in formulating food safety regulations at the state level. The governor of Wisconsin recently vetoed a bill passed by both houses that would have permitted personal sales of raw milk off the farm. It was the public health professionals and dairy industry that persuaded him to reject the legislation.

    Admittedly, paleo enthusiasts don't regard dairy as a legitimate healthy food source. But the data show that grass fed beef and grass fed dairy can both be superior sources of nutrition when properly prepared.

    Just my two cents worth.

    • Toban says:

      Necessary evil? What about opt-out solutions like micro-secession or sea-steading? That way we don't need to convince everyone else of our convictions.

      Paleo, as broadly defined, is fine with clean dairy. Kurt Harris, for example, is a staunch defender of dairy and consumes large quantities.

  3. jeffersonianideal says:

    I would slightly amend the definition of the word "politics", at least as the political science scholar defined it and as far as it has been practiced by every President since Grover Cleveland. Politics is the “redistribution” of wealth. I will not attempt to determine whether or not the poli-sci major was a proponent of such a scheme. Even the word “wealth” should be properly changed, to “income” so as to not infer justification of such a practice on the basis of class envy. Perhaps trite semantics on my part but I believe redistribution to be a more accurate term, especially in political environment steeped in collectivism. I would also add that government has only an obligation to protect the citizenry from, (1) fraud perpetrated upon them by other individuals and by government and (2) enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    There is no provision in the Constitution that permits government to meddle in the personal lives of its constituents. Even under the benevolent guise of attempting to preserve their prosperity and liberty by removing those rights in a convoluted attempt to secure them. The best approach, in fact the only approach that government should take, is to leave people alone, free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not deprive another of life, liberty or property without that person’s permission.

    While State legislatures may claim to practice some form of sovereignty as a remedy against an overreaching Federal Government, for the most part, State governments are just as totalitarian, regulatory happy and nanny minded as the central government is. In all 50 Sates, Individual liberties continue to be eroded, there is a perpetual affront to personal freedoms and just like the Feds, there is almost no area of human action which is not restricted or policed by the leviathan.

    A person should never be prosecuted for what they own, believe, read, say and certainly for what they choose to ingest, both intellectually as well as nutritionally or recreationally. Raw milk and raw milk products have been around for thousands of years. According to the Centers For Disease Control, between 1993 and 2006 only two deaths were directly attributed to the consumption of raw milk. This issue may indeed be a tempest in a milk bottle. While no deaths have been attributed to their consumption, according to the FDA, raw sprouts have a made more people ill than raw milk over approximately the same time period. Who is advocating the prohibition of sprouts? What is important to remember is that almost any food product, even ones that government proclaims to regulate and keep its omnipotent eye on, can contain harmful bacteria. Keeping cows clean is the best way to reduce the risk of raw milk becoming contaminated with such microorganisms. It is also noteworthy that raw milk makes up less than 1% of the nation’s total milk production.

    Among humans, only infants require milk and the type of milk that is best for them is the type that comes from their own mother, not the mother of a calf. Based on the fact that hardly any human needs to consume cow’s milk, it should be of little surprise that big milk producers stood with the Governor of Wisconsin on his decision. Got milk? If you don’t, the milk industry will use tact, poise, reason and deception to lure consumers into believing that every body needs some. I am not knocking the free market, just simply stating that consumers have a choice.

    More importantly, dairy products such as milk are known allergens. Nearly 75% percent of the world’s population is lactose intolerant to some degree. Humans are the only species to consume milk following the weaning period. Interestingly enough, studies indicate that raw milk actually produces less asthmatic symptoms in humans compared to pasteurized milk. While I personally believe that humans should not consume cow’s milk of any type, that is only my opinion. I would never be so sanctimonious as to attempt to pass a law prohibiting its manufacture, sale or consumption.

    To libertarians such as myself, no amount of government, corporate or consumer propaganda is powerful enough to persuade us into abandoning the right to control our own body, even if the health effects from such a decision prove to be detrimental. Libertarians are pro-choice about virtually everything, so long as no one else is forced to pay for or clean up after, the regrettable results of another’s decision. Personal responsibility should always be coupled with the freedom to choose.

  4. David Brown says:

    Regarding the fact that "Nearly 75% of the world's population is lactose intolerant," consider epigenetics. Perhaps the reason so many cannot tolerate milk is because their ancestors never had a chance to adapt to milk consumption.

    Where food is concerned, I'm pro choice. Whatever source of nutrients supplies the need is legitimate food.

    "Humans are the only species to consume milk following the weaning period." Humans are the only species that can render lard, bake beans, make ice cream, etc. What's your point?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>