Article ideas: The paleo-libertarian connection

[Toban Wiebe]

I'm working on an article about the paleo-libertarian connection which I hope I can get published on LRC (if you know of any other good venues to publish this, let me know). It will be targeted to libertarians and Austrians, with the goal of furthering the integration (mainly getting paleo ideas into the libertarian community). I've worked out the general ideas, let me know if I missed anything. Suggestions are most welcome.

• Personal benefits (Misesian/Hayekian longevity)
• paleolithic principle: the obvious solution—incorporate elements of the paleolithic lifestyle to live the life your genes are optimized for: paleo diet, sun, exercise, sleep

• Libertarians need to be functioning at their optimum to combat statism; mental energy = high productivity; longer & healthier lives = more time spent battling statism. Health and wealth (healthcare costs).
• Rothbard died of a heart attack at 68: clearly would have lived at least 10 more years with proper nutrition, probably 20 (struck down by a DoC)
• Paternalism
• Government indoctrination: food guide, pyramid — the "fat is evil" religion.
• Opposing government paternalism
• Individual responsibility: Encouraging individuals to think for themselves; your health is your responsibility, not the government's.
• Opposing government parasites (public choice)
• Grain and dairy lobbies = special interests; boycotting government privileged industries.
• by far, most subsidies go to grain and soy (not meat, and especially not clean meat)
• regulations hinder healthy foods
• tax funded "scientists"
• Austrian/German connection: both Austrian econ and lipophilia-obesity research were driven underground by anti-german sentiment after WW2
• government distorts science in pursuing its own goals, spreading confusion in the field of health
• Butos
• paleos should oppose all government involvement in science because of its inevitable distortions
• similarities:
• logic of spontaneous order applies to markets and evolved biological organisms
• paleo is the laissez-faire lifestyle—not trying to improve on the success of evolution
• both advocate a simple principle, based on recognition and understanding of spontaneous order, as the solution to a huge array of problems (and for maximizing benefits: wealth and health)
• libertarians: NAP as solution to practically all social problems, and ultimately all problems (progress of knowledge, culture through markets), and the key to prosperity
• paleos: PP as solution to all health problems and for optimal health
• paleo-libertarian common ground
• state intervention in public health is bad
• free market promotes good health: lower health insurance premiums reward good health (incentives), expansion of healthy (paleo) food market, competition in food and science
• FDA and USDA suck!

[Toban Wiebe]

Here's the completed draft. Any suggestions, no matter how broad or narrow, would be great. I tried to keep it as concise as possible (1200 words) while touching on all the important points. Do you think it would be received well by the LRC readers?

The Paleo-Libertarian Connection

As a libertarian who discovered the paleo approach to health a couple of years ago, I've been pleasantly surprised to find a solid contingent of libertarians in the paleo community. I've come to call such people paleo-libertarians (the hyphen distinguishes us from the paleolibertarians). Even some of the big names in the paleo movement are principled anti-statists, including Kurt Harris, Richard Nikoley, and Don Matesz. With the paleo movement expanding rapidly, there are a growing number of paleo-libertarians.

Paleos Against the State

In fact, the paleo health community is astonishingly libertarian, if only unconsciously so. Paleos generally reserve a special hatred for the state. After all, the state is spreading deadly health advice that is responsible for the bulk of disease and obesity in industrial societies, and it continues to do so in the face of a growing mountain of evidence contradicting it. It should have been obvious from the start that the state's advice was bogus—it totally contradicts evolutionary biology. The conventional recommendation to avoid red meat and animal fat, for example, flies in the face of over 2 million years of evolutionary adaptation to eating animals (the whole animal, including all of the fat). The recommendation to eat grains and vegetable oils is also suspect—grains were only introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, and vegetable oils haven't even existed for more than a century. So not only did the state get it wrong, it got it completely backwards. That makes it responsible for an unfathomable amount of misery and death. For paleos, this elicits a deep mistrust in the state—how can they trust that the state doesn't screw up this badly in anything else it does?

Government As Usual

In his paradigm-shifting book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes explains how government involvement in the field of public health distorted the science to the point that it can hardly be called science anymore. In the 1970s, government agencies driven by political motives began promoting low-fat diets on the basis of very weak evidence. Researchers soon found it difficult to receive government funding if they challenged the official position. This spawned the low-fat mania that is still with us today, despite being an utter dead-end. Taubes then shows that the low-fat diet was a complete failure, providing zero benefits and causing substantial harm. He stresses that the diseases of civilization—heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, and many more—are practically non-existent in primitive populations and in people eating such diets. This means that the diseases of civilization are largely diet-related. Considering the high incidence of these diseases in western societies, something is horribly wrong with western nutrition. The state shoulders a lot of responsibility for this, as it has been a major force in discouraging people from eating healthy animal foods while promoting such health hazards as grains and vegetable oils (in addition to distorting the science in this direction). Chris Masterjohn's article about cholesterol and the state is a good case study of the tragedy of government involvement in matters of personal health.

This is precisely what libertarian theory would predict—government interventions having unintended negative consequences. Libertarians are well aware that scientists are fallible and that science can be distorted by politics—economics and climatology are two clear examples. William Butos has developed an economic analysis of government interventions in science. He concludes that government activity disrupts the spontaneous order of the academic community to the detriment of the science. So there is every reason to expect that the science of public health, which has been deeply infested with government involvement, will be riddled with errors. Taubes, an acclaimed science writer, scathingly concludes that "the study of nutrition, chronic disease, and obesity" has become "an enterprise...that purports to be a science and yet functions like a religion."

Ideological Parallels

There are several interesting connections between paleo health and libertarianism. What I call the "Austrian connection" was uncovered by Gary Taubes in his research on the study of obesity. He found that the Austrian-German researchers had worked out the science of fat metabolism prior to WW2. But the war broke up their research community, and the negative associations with Austria and Germany after the war swept their research out of favor in the international community. From there, the American researchers started from scratch but were led astray by the simplistic caloric balance hypothesis. To this day, the pre-war Austrian-German theories on fat metabolism remain superior to the mainstream theories. The parallel with Austrian economics is striking: it too was driven underground by the war, and it too remains superior to mainstream neoclassical economics.

Paleo and libertarianism also share similarities on the theoretical level. Both are based on the logic of spontaneous or unplanned order. Paleos recognize that humans are products of evolution and are adapted to the conditions of the evolutionary environment. Libertarians recognize that markets are a far superior means to government for bringing about social cooperation. Both emphasize that we deviate from these complex orders at our peril. As a result, both hold simple principles—based on an understanding of spontaneous order—as the solutions to entire categories of problems. Paleos hold the Paleolithic Principle as the solution to virtually all health problems and as the key to optimal health. Libertarians hold the Non-Aggression Principle as the solution to virtually all social problems and as the key to prosperity.

Finally, paleo and libertarianism share a common bond in individualism. Both value personal responsibility and oppose government paternalism, wanting nothing from the government except to be left alone. Both recognize that nothing good can come from using the political means to further their cause.

Why Paleo Matters

The paleo health movement is growing at a spectacular pace, mainly because it's soundly rooted in common sense and because it works so well. People with all sorts of ailments are "going paleo" to cure what their doctors have failed to treat with medications. As the state invades and destroys the healthcare market, it's becoming ever more important to stay healthy. For those libertarians who want to live to see a free society, paleo health offers the surest way to achieve Misesian longevity. It saddens many paleo-libertarians that Murray Rothbard was struck down by a disease of civilization at only 68. It's important that libertarians do their best to avoid such a fate—the libertarian cause is just too important.

Paleo-Libertarian Integration

Given the many connections between the two, I think there is much to gain from paleo-libertarian integration. Paleos gain a theoretical understanding of how the "experts" can all be wrong when science becomes politicized. More importantly, they gain an understanding of the root cause of the problem—government—and the ultimate solution—liberty. Paleos would also greatly benefit from free markets: insurance companies would offer incentives for staying healthy (and people would have to bear the full costs of their lifestyle), and there would be no subsidies propping up harmful foods nor regulations hindering healthy foods. Libertarians gain personally in terms of health and longevity. They also add another potent argument to their already formidable case against the state. And of course, both benefit by expanding their sphere of influence. Here's to paleo-libertarianism: no grains, no government!

[Richard Nikoley]

Toban:

Can I get first dibs on publishing this as a guest blog at FTA?

I say that without reading the whole thing but I have zero doubt we can reach acord. 

Let's get this article 10,000 reads +. 

--

Richard Nikoley

http://www.freetheanimal.com

- Sent from my iPhone

[Richard Nikoley]

Now I've read the whole thing. 

Offer...still stands. 

--

Richard Nikoley

http://www.freetheanimal.com

- Sent from my iPhone

On May 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chris Gabel]

Toban, I think you did an excellent job of zeroing in on the primary
issues & producing an interesting & informative piece. When I saw
your original outline, I was concerned you were going to hit on too
many issues & it might have been a bit overwhelming and rambling.

One suggestion I might make is the part about the government getting
it wrong. Government doesn't tend to get things wrong just because
they're the government. In this case, let's be honest, it's the
corrupt relationship between the food industry and the FDA & Dept of
Agriculture. I think you could add that without adding length - it's
not like those concepts require elaboration in the LRC community.

Just a thought. But thanks for doing this - great job.

Chris Gabel

On Apr 27, 8:31 am, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm working on an article about the paleo-libertarian connection which I
> hope I can get published on LRC (if you know of any other good venues to
> publish this, let me know). It will be targeted to libertarians and
> Austrians, with the goal of furthering the integration (mainly getting paleo
> ideas into the libertarian community). I've worked out the general ideas,
> let me know if I missed anything. Suggestions are most welcome.
>

>    - Personal benefits (Misesian/Hayekian longevity)
>       - paleolithic principle: the obvious solution—incorporate elements of

>       the paleolithic lifestyle to live the life your genes are optimized for:
>       paleo diet, sun, exercise, sleep
>

>    - Libertarians need to be functioning at their optimum to combat statism;

>          mental energy = high productivity; longer & healthier lives =
> more time
>          spent battling statism. Health and wealth (healthcare costs).

>             - Rothbard died of a heart attack at 68: clearly would have

>             lived at least 10 more years with proper nutrition,
> probably 20 (struck down
>             by a DoC)

>          - Paternalism
>       - Government indoctrination: food guide, pyramid — the "fat is evil"
>       religion.
>          - Opposing government paternalism
>          - Individual responsibility: Encouraging individuals to think for

>          themselves; your health is your responsibility, not the government's.

>       - Opposing government parasites (public choice)
>       - Grain and dairy lobbies = special interests; boycotting government
>       privileged industries.
>       - by far, most subsidies go to grain and soy (not meat, and especially
>       not clean meat)
>       - regulations hinder healthy foods
>       - tax funded "scientists"
>    - Austrian/German connection: both Austrian econ and lipophilia-obesity

>    research were driven underground by anti-german sentiment after WW2

>    - government distorts science in pursuing its own goals, spreading

>    confusion in the field of health

>       - Butos
>       - paleos should oppose all government involvement in science because
>       of its inevitable distortions
>    - similarities:
>       - logic of spontaneous order applies to markets and evolved biological
>       organisms
>       - paleo is the laissez-faire lifestyle—not trying to improve on the
>       success of evolution
>       - both advocate a simple principle, based on recognition and

>       understanding of spontaneous order, as the solution to a huge array of
>       problems (and for maximizing benefits: wealth and health)

>          - libertarians: NAP as solution to practically all social problems,

>          and ultimately all problems (progress of knowledge, culture through
>          markets), and the key to prosperity

>          - paleos: PP as solution to all health problems and for optimal
>          health
>       - paleo-libertarian common ground
>       - state intervention in public health is bad
>       - free market promotes good health: lower health insurance premiums

>       reward good health (incentives), expansion of healthy (paleo)
> food market,
>       competition in food and science

>       - FDA and USDA suck!
>
> --
> Subscription settings:http://groups.google.com/group/paleo-libertarian/subscribe?hl=en

[NickH]

Toban,

Very nicely done. Chris' comment is also correct, but I think the
article would be well received by the LRC readers and maybe even give
Taubes a nice bump. Keep it up and let us know when it hits the
street!

Nick

On May 6, 2:18 pm, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the completed draft. Any suggestions, no matter how broad or narrow,
> would be great. I tried to keep it as concise as possible (1200 words) while
> touching on all the important points. Do you think it would be received well
> by the LRC readers?
>
> The Paleo-Libertarian Connection
>
> As a libertarian who discovered the paleo approach to

> health<http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/> a

> couple of years ago, I've been pleasantly surprised to find a solid
> contingent of libertarians in the paleo community. I've come to call such
> people paleo-libertarians (the hyphen distinguishes us from the
> paleolibertarians). Even some of the big names in the paleo movement are
> principled anti-statists, including Kurt Harris

> <http://www.paleonu.com/>, Richard
> Nikoley <http://freetheanimal.com/>, and Don
> Matesz<http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/>.

> With the paleo movement expanding rapidly, there are a growing number of

> paleo-libertarians<http://groups.google.com/group/paleo-libertarian/web/whos-who-of-pale...>
> .

> Paleos Against the State
>
> In fact, the paleo health community is astonishingly libertarian, if only
> unconsciously so. Paleos generally reserve a special hatred for the state.
> After all, the state is spreading deadly health advice that is responsible
> for the bulk of disease and obesity in industrial societies, and it
> continues to do so in the face of a growing mountain of evidence
> contradicting it. It should have been obvious from the start that the
> state's advice was bogus—it totally contradicts evolutionary biology. The
> conventional recommendation to avoid red meat and animal fat, for example,
> flies in the face of over 2 million years of evolutionary adaptation to
> eating animals (the whole animal, including all of the fat). The
> recommendation to eat grains and vegetable oils is also suspect—grains were
> only introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, and vegetable

> oils haven't even *existed* for more than a century. So not only did the

> state get it wrong, it got it completely backwards. That makes it
> responsible for an unfathomable amount of misery and death. For paleos, this
> elicits a deep mistrust in the state—how can they trust that the state
> doesn't screw up this badly in anything else it does?
> Government As Usual
>
> In his paradigm-shifting book, Good Calories, Bad

> Calories<http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400...>,

> Gary Taubes explains how government involvement in the field of public
> health distorted the science to the point that it can hardly be called
> science anymore. In the 1970s, government agencies driven by political
> motives began promoting low-fat diets on the basis of very weak evidence.
> Researchers soon found it difficult to receive government funding if they
> challenged the official position. This spawned the low-fat mania that is
> still with us today, despite being an utter dead-end. Taubes then shows that
> the low-fat diet was a complete failure, providing zero benefits and causing
> substantial harm. He stresses that the diseases of civilization—heart
> disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, and many more—are
> practically non-existent in primitive populations and in people eating such
> diets. This means that the diseases of civilization are largely
> diet-related. Considering the high incidence of these diseases in western
> societies, something is horribly wrong with western nutrition. The state
> shoulders a lot of responsibility for this, as it has been a major force in
> discouraging people from eating healthy animal foods while promoting such
> health hazards as grains and vegetable oils (in addition to distorting the
> science in this direction). Chris Masterjohn's

> article<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn1.html> about

> cholesterol and the state is a good case study of the tragedy of government
> involvement in matters of personal health.
>
> This is precisely what libertarian theory would predict—government
> interventions having unintended negative consequences. Libertarians are well
> aware that scientists are fallible and that science can be distorted by
> politics—economics and climatology are two clear examples. William Butos has
> developed an economic

> analysis<http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_02_butos.pdf> of

> Principle<http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster173.html> as

> the solution to virtually all health problems and as the key to optimal
> health. Libertarians hold the Non-Aggression Principle as the solution to
> virtually all social problems and as the key to prosperity.
>
> Finally, paleo and libertarianism share a common bond in individualism. Both
> value personal responsibility and oppose government paternalism, wanting
> nothing from the government except to be left alone. Both recognize that
> nothing good can come from using the political means to further their cause.
> Why Paleo Matters
>
> The paleo health movement is growing at a spectacular pace, mainly because
> it's soundly rooted in common sense and because it works so well. People
> with all sorts of ailments are "going paleo" to cure what their doctors
> have failed to treat with

> medications<http://freetheanimal.com/2010/02/real-results-dad.html>.

> As the state invades and destroys the healthcare market, it's becoming ever
> more important to stay healthy. For those libertarians who want to live to
> see a free society, paleo health offers the surest way to achieve Misesian
> longevity. It saddens many paleo-libertarians that Murray Rothbard was
> struck down by a disease of civilization at only 68. It's important that
> libertarians do their best to avoid such a fate—the libertarian cause is
> just too important.

> Paleo-Libertarian IntegrationGiven the many connections between the two, I

> think there is much to gain from paleo-libertarian integration. Paleos gain
> a theoretical understanding of how the "experts" can all be wrong when
> science becomes politicized. More importantly, they gain an understanding of
> the root cause of the problem—government—and the ultimate solution—liberty.
> Paleos would also greatly

> benefit<http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j23.html> from

> free markets: insurance companies would offer incentives for staying healthy
> (and people would have to bear the full costs of their lifestyle), and there
> would be no subsidies propping up harmful foods nor regulations hindering
> healthy foods. Libertarians gain personally in terms of health and
> longevity. They also add another potent argument to their already formidable
> case against the state. And of course, both benefit by expanding their
> sphere of influence. Here's to paleo-libertarianism: no grains, no
> government!
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on an article about the paleo-libertarian connection which I
> > hope I can get published on LRC (if you know of any other good venues to
> > publish this, let me know). It will be targeted to libertarians and
> > Austrians, with the goal of furthering the integration (mainly getting paleo
> > ideas into the libertarian community). I've worked out the general ideas,
> > let me know if I missed anything. Suggestions are most welcome.
>

> >    - Personal benefits (Misesian/Hayekian longevity)

> >       - paleolithic principle: the obvious solution—incorporate elements

> >       of the paleolithic lifestyle to live the life your genes are optimized for:
> >       paleo diet, sun, exercise, sleep
>

> >    - Libertarians need to be functioning at their optimum to combat

> >          statism; mental energy = high productivity; longer & healthier lives = more
> >          time spent battling statism. Health and wealth (healthcare costs).

> >             - Rothbard died of a heart attack at 68: clearly would have
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Don Matesz]

Toban,

I like it overall and agree with Chris's suggestion for clarification.  Thanks also for mentioning me/my blog!  I like Richard's idea of 10K readers, and would also like to see it on LRC.

Don

[Toban Wiebe]

Richard: that's a very tempting offer, but LRC is my top pick. Nothing against FTA, it's just that I wrote the article with the goal of getting libertarians interested in paleo. If you want, I'd be happy to write a sister article that aims to get paleos interested in libertarianism. It would focus less on paleo theory and more on libertarian theory, in contrast to the present article.

Thanks for the comments everyone. On Chris's suggestion, I've changed the wording of the sentence so as not to imply that it was solely the governments doing: "The state's health advice is not only wrong, but directly harmful to health."

Or do you think I should be more explicit in implicating the other players (industry, academia)? I left that out for brevity, but it might be worthwhile to add.

[Richard Nikoley]

Toban:

Yea, sorry for talking out of turn. I see now that I wasn't paying close enough attention to your objectives back when you were developing this and of course, LRC is a perfect target.

I'd be happy for a sister article. My suggestion, rather that aiming to get paleos interested in libertarianism would be to outline why it is that so many already are.

kind of instead of: "join the club," "look how many are already members."

Now I'll have to talk Don into a guest post on why so many are nonbelievers in a deity. :)

Richard Nikoley

rnik...@gmail.com

[Joshua Katz]

This isn't a big issue, but I do wonder how some of the evolutionary
arguments will be accepted by LRC readers. Perhaps there is some way
to temper them?

Overall, great article. I liked it a lot.

On May 6, 8:18 pm, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the completed draft. Any suggestions, no matter how broad or narrow,
> would be great. I tried to keep it as concise as possible (1200 words) while
> touching on all the important points. Do you think it would be received well
> by the LRC readers?
>
> The Paleo-Libertarian Connection
>
> As a libertarian who discovered the paleo approach to

> health<http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/> a

> couple of years ago, I've been pleasantly surprised to find a solid
> contingent of libertarians in the paleo community. I've come to call such
> people paleo-libertarians (the hyphen distinguishes us from the
> paleolibertarians). Even some of the big names in the paleo movement are

> principled anti-statists, including Kurt Harris
> <http://www.paleonu.com/>, Richard
> Nikoley <http://freetheanimal.com/>, and Don
> Matesz<http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/>.

> With the paleo movement expanding rapidly, there are a growing number of

> paleo-libertarians<http://groups.google.com/group/paleo-libertarian/web/whos-who-of-pale...>
> .

> Paleos Against the State
>
> In fact, the paleo health community is astonishingly libertarian, if only
> unconsciously so. Paleos generally reserve a special hatred for the state.
> After all, the state is spreading deadly health advice that is responsible
> for the bulk of disease and obesity in industrial societies, and it
> continues to do so in the face of a growing mountain of evidence
> contradicting it. It should have been obvious from the start that the
> state's advice was bogus—it totally contradicts evolutionary biology. The
> conventional recommendation to avoid red meat and animal fat, for example,
> flies in the face of over 2 million years of evolutionary adaptation to
> eating animals (the whole animal, including all of the fat). The
> recommendation to eat grains and vegetable oils is also suspect—grains were
> only introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, and vegetable

> oils haven't even *existed* for more than a century. So not only did the

> state get it wrong, it got it completely backwards. That makes it
> responsible for an unfathomable amount of misery and death. For paleos, this
> elicits a deep mistrust in the state—how can they trust that the state
> doesn't screw up this badly in anything else it does?
> Government As Usual
>
> In his paradigm-shifting book, Good Calories, Bad

> Calories<http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400...>,

> Gary Taubes explains how government involvement in the field of public
> health distorted the science to the point that it can hardly be called
> science anymore. In the 1970s, government agencies driven by political
> motives began promoting low-fat diets on the basis of very weak evidence.
> Researchers soon found it difficult to receive government funding if they
> challenged the official position. This spawned the low-fat mania that is
> still with us today, despite being an utter dead-end. Taubes then shows that
> the low-fat diet was a complete failure, providing zero benefits and causing
> substantial harm. He stresses that the diseases of civilization—heart
> disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, and many more—are
> practically non-existent in primitive populations and in people eating such
> diets. This means that the diseases of civilization are largely
> diet-related. Considering the high incidence of these diseases in western
> societies, something is horribly wrong with western nutrition. The state
> shoulders a lot of responsibility for this, as it has been a major force in
> discouraging people from eating healthy animal foods while promoting such
> health hazards as grains and vegetable oils (in addition to distorting the
> science in this direction). Chris Masterjohn's

> article<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn1.html> about

> cholesterol and the state is a good case study of the tragedy of government
> involvement in matters of personal health.
>
> This is precisely what libertarian theory would predict—government
> interventions having unintended negative consequences. Libertarians are well
> aware that scientists are fallible and that science can be distorted by
> politics—economics and climatology are two clear examples. William Butos has
> developed an economic

> analysis<http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_02_butos.pdf> of

> Principle<http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster173.html> as

> the solution to virtually all health problems and as the key to optimal
> health. Libertarians hold the Non-Aggression Principle as the solution to
> virtually all social problems and as the key to prosperity.
>
> Finally, paleo and libertarianism share a common bond in individualism. Both
> value personal responsibility and oppose government paternalism, wanting
> nothing from the government except to be left alone. Both recognize that
> nothing good can come from using the political means to further their cause.
> Why Paleo Matters
>
> The paleo health movement is growing at a spectacular pace, mainly because
> it's soundly rooted in common sense and because it works so well. People
> with all sorts of ailments are "going paleo" to cure what their doctors
> have failed to treat with

> medications<http://freetheanimal.com/2010/02/real-results-dad.html>.

> As the state invades and destroys the healthcare market, it's becoming ever
> more important to stay healthy. For those libertarians who want to live to
> see a free society, paleo health offers the surest way to achieve Misesian
> longevity. It saddens many paleo-libertarians that Murray Rothbard was
> struck down by a disease of civilization at only 68. It's important that
> libertarians do their best to avoid such a fate—the libertarian cause is
> just too important.

> Paleo-Libertarian IntegrationGiven the many connections between the two, I

> think there is much to gain from paleo-libertarian integration. Paleos gain
> a theoretical understanding of how the "experts" can all be wrong when
> science becomes politicized. More importantly, they gain an understanding of
> the root cause of the problem—government—and the ultimate solution—liberty.
> Paleos would also greatly

> benefit<http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j23.html> from

> free markets: insurance companies would offer incentives for staying healthy
> (and people would have to bear the full costs of their lifestyle), and there
> would be no subsidies propping up harmful foods nor regulations hindering
> healthy foods. Libertarians gain personally in terms of health and
> longevity. They also add another potent argument to their already formidable
> case against the state. And of course, both benefit by expanding their
> sphere of influence. Here's to paleo-libertarianism: no grains, no
> government!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on an article about the paleo-libertarian connection which I
> > hope I can get published on LRC (if you know of any other good venues to
> > publish this, let me know). It will be targeted to libertarians and
> > Austrians, with the goal of furthering the integration (mainly getting paleo
> > ideas into the libertarian community). I've worked out the general ideas,
> > let me know if I missed anything. Suggestions are most welcome.
>

> >    - Personal benefits (Misesian/Hayekian longevity)

> >       - paleolithic principle: the obvious solution—incorporate elements

> >       of the paleolithic lifestyle to live the life your genes are optimized for:
> >       paleo diet, sun, exercise, sleep
>

> >    - Libertarians need to be functioning at their optimum to combat

> >          statism; mental energy = high productivity; longer & healthier lives = more
> >          time spent battling statism. Health and wealth (healthcare costs).

> >             - Rothbard died of a heart attack at 68: clearly would have
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Corey Haun]

If it is true then why would there be a need to "temper" anything? Tempering facts is what caused the problems in the first place.

--
Corey Haun

[Chris Gabel]

I'd say just lay it out there - the minority who might be "young-earth
creationist" types can just deal with it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joshua Katz]

I ask because, in my opinion, the truth of paleo need not depend on
evolutionary arguments. I happen to believe in evolution, but if I
didn't, it would still be worth showing me in other ways (I
particularly like the spontaneous order parts) that paleo is correct

> ...
>
> read more »

[PK Aeryn]

It may be worthwhile mentioning. A bit of my history-- I grew up in a conservative (in all ways) Lutheran family, and like most who do, used to believe in a God, well into my late 20s. I always had believed in evolution, however, having had decided in my teens that evolutionary arguments were too strong and obviously visible to ignore, though I'd had some sad Creationism education in grade school. I thought that while Creationism was stupid and a literal, fundamentalist take on the Bible was even more so, I sunscribed to the idea that the Judeo-Christian God could have started the big bang in motion. Even so, what officially converted me once I realized that God probably didn't exist at all, what concerted me from apathetic agnosticism to genuine atheism was the fact that I couldn't reconcile a God purposely providing to and instructing his subjects to eat something destructive to their bodies (manna and Communion respectively).

So, though the mission isn't to dissuade anyone of their faith, I know libetarianism didn't make me doubtful of religion... It was learning about paleoanthropology and food... And it's exeptionally difficult to separate paleo from evolution, in my opinion... Otherwise there's always the argument of, "Well, we should have a higher regard and consciousness about eating animals because we're above that." And bringing up evolution and perhaps taxonomy proves, NO, we're not... Not really. We may have the compassion to kill and raise our food as humanely as we can, but there is yet no truly perfect and sustainable substitute for meat. Our biology is so deeply entrenched in the need for animal food that I feel leaving out evolution weaknes the paleo necessity argument. I think most who have not learned much about paleoanthropology don't understand that B-12 pills and plant protein combining is not the same nor adequate for health.

My tangent about religion may seem irrelevant, but my point is this: those who are truly receptive to new information and have an open mind will likely not be dissuaded by a mention of evolution. People deeply set in values who have no interest in questioning the world and the status quo aren't likely to be persuaded anyway... But for those who ARE, more complete information will only make a stronger, more convincing argument, and thus minds that are receptive will likely not dismiss something immediately because of the mention of something they're not sure about.

[Todd S.]

On May 6, 8:18 pm, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the completed draft. Any suggestions, no matter how broad or narrow,
> would be great. I tried to keep it as concise as possible (1200 words) while
> touching on all the important points. Do you think it would be received well
> by the LRC readers?

-snip-


Coming in late to the program here, but excellent work. It fully
describes something that I noticed myself after first finding FTA from
a link from MDA (and personally, I find Sisson to be at least lib-
leaning but I can't really speak to his actual views as he doesn't
really talk about his politics).

I've been tossing around the idea of writing a book for a while, and
I've got a few ideas. Having come "unto the fold" so to speak of true
libertarianism (what I call "true", being Austrian-based, Misesian-
Rothbardian in outlook), and combining my interest in the paleo/primal
lifestyle, I'd like to focus on the connection between the state,
agricultural subsidization of grains, and the decline of
civilizations. Maybe "Wheat is Murder" as a working title.

That's in the future though. For right now, I've more pressing
matters.

[Lewis Ballard]

I like the idea, Todd.  Nice play on the traditional "Meat is murder" (or as some of my friends like to say, "Meat is murder, and murder is yummy!").  Keying off both this and your previous post, do you think it's possible to be paleo and NOT be a libertarian?  (Absent, I mean, some sort of mass cognitive dissonance?)

--
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.  ---Seneca

[Todd S.]

On May 20, 8:13 pm, Lewis Ballard <lewis.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea, Todd.  Nice play on the traditional "Meat is murder" (or as
> some of my friends like to say, "Meat is murder, and murder is yummy!").
> Keying off both this and your previous post, do you think it's possible to
> be paleo and NOT be a libertarian?  (Absent, I mean, some sort of mass
> cognitive dissonance?)

Well, I don't think that one has to reject the state to reject the
state's proclamations. I've not read Lierre Keith's book, but I
understand that she gets into some collectivist ideology towards the
end of it. I would have to say though that espousing a paleo approach
at the very least demonstrates that you are capable of independent
thought and value your own ideas of "what is right" over the state's
ideas. At least in the US. Other countries may not have the state
trying to dictate what they put in their mouths.

[Toban Wiebe]

Todd, here's an idea for the cover of your book. That's a great book idea by the way. I was so impressed when I first found all the libertarians in the paleosphere, but now I'm surprised to see how readily the libertarians are adopting paleo ideas. I couldn't be more pleased with the situation (well, maybe I could, but it's still awesome).

P.S. to update you all on the article, I made some more revisions and submitted to LRC. I'm pretty happy with how it turned out and can't wait to see it go live.

[D. Saul Weiner]

I look forward to seeing this column on LRC. I have thought of
writing something along these lines, but was not aware of the Austrian
connection. Here are a few comments:

Certainly evolution and spontaneous order played a major role in
Hayek's thinking, but the connection to libertarianism in general may
be more tenuous. I think that human nature may be more of a common
denominator here.

The libertarian position would also include being able to go to the
type of doctor one chooses and to use the type of healing modalities
one prefers. I think that most paleos would also subscribe to these
views.

On a semantic level, these days I use the term state versus
government, in the context above. Libertarians do not really object
to government per se but the monopolization of certain functions that
coercive governments have typically taken over. Using the term state
also eliminates the kneejerk repulsion of the individual who equates
anarchy with chaos.

The connection between grains and governments is an interesting one.
I have read that agriculture led to the accumulation of wealth (i.e.
an economy that went beyond subsistence) which led to the state, since
things reached the point where there was "stuff" for the predatory
groups to steal (originally in raids, but eventually systematically
via tribute, and now taxation). So in that sense there is a very real
historical connection between these two developments.

On May 6, 7:18 pm, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the completed draft. Any suggestions, no matter how broad or narrow,
> would be great. I tried to keep it as concise as possible (1200 words) while
> touching on all the important points. Do you think it would be received well
> by the LRC readers?
>
> The Paleo-Libertarian Connection
>
> As a libertarian who discovered the paleo approach to

> health<http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/> a

> couple of years ago, I've been pleasantly surprised to find a solid
> contingent of libertarians in the paleo community. I've come to call such
> people paleo-libertarians (the hyphen distinguishes us from the
> paleolibertarians). Even some of the big names in the paleo movement are

> principled anti-statists, including Kurt Harris
> <http://www.paleonu.com/>, Richard
> Nikoley <http://freetheanimal.com/>, and Don
> Matesz<http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/>.

> With the paleo movement expanding rapidly, there are a growing number of

> paleo-libertarians<http://groups.google.com/group/paleo-libertarian/web/whos-who-of-pale...>
> .

> Paleos Against the State
>
> In fact, the paleo health community is astonishingly libertarian, if only
> unconsciously so. Paleos generally reserve a special hatred for the state.
> After all, the state is spreading deadly health advice that is responsible
> for the bulk of disease and obesity in industrial societies, and it
> continues to do so in the face of a growing mountain of evidence
> contradicting it. It should have been obvious from the start that the
> state's advice was bogus—it totally contradicts evolutionary biology. The
> conventional recommendation to avoid red meat and animal fat, for example,
> flies in the face of over 2 million years of evolutionary adaptation to
> eating animals (the whole animal, including all of the fat). The
> recommendation to eat grains and vegetable oils is also suspect—grains were
> only introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, and vegetable

> oils haven't even *existed* for more than a century. So not only did the

> state get it wrong, it got it completely backwards. That makes it
> responsible for an unfathomable amount of misery and death. For paleos, this
> elicits a deep mistrust in the state—how can they trust that the state
> doesn't screw up this badly in anything else it does?
> Government As Usual
>
> In his paradigm-shifting book, Good Calories, Bad

> Calories<http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400...>,

> Gary Taubes explains how government involvement in the field of public
> health distorted the science to the point that it can hardly be called
> science anymore. In the 1970s, government agencies driven by political
> motives began promoting low-fat diets on the basis of very weak evidence.
> Researchers soon found it difficult to receive government funding if they
> challenged the official position. This spawned the low-fat mania that is
> still with us today, despite being an utter dead-end. Taubes then shows that
> the low-fat diet was a complete failure, providing zero benefits and causing
> substantial harm. He stresses that the diseases of civilization—heart
> disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, and many more—are
> practically non-existent in primitive populations and in people eating such
> diets. This means that the diseases of civilization are largely
> diet-related. Considering the high incidence of these diseases in western
> societies, something is horribly wrong with western nutrition. The state
> shoulders a lot of responsibility for this, as it has been a major force in
> discouraging people from eating healthy animal foods while promoting such
> health hazards as grains and vegetable oils (in addition to distorting the
> science in this direction). Chris Masterjohn's

> article<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn1.html> about

> cholesterol and the state is a good case study of the tragedy of government
> involvement in matters of personal health.
>
> This is precisely what libertarian theory would predict—government
> interventions having unintended negative consequences. Libertarians are well
> aware that scientists are fallible and that science can be distorted by
> politics—economics and climatology are two clear examples. William Butos has
> developed an economic

> analysis<http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_02_butos.pdf> of

> Principle<http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster173.html> as

> the solution to virtually all health problems and as the key to optimal
> health. Libertarians hold the Non-Aggression Principle as the solution to
> virtually all social problems and as the key to prosperity.
>
> Finally, paleo and libertarianism share a common bond in individualism. Both
> value personal responsibility and oppose government paternalism, wanting
> nothing from the government except to be left alone. Both recognize that
> nothing good can come from using the political means to further their cause.
> Why Paleo Matters
>
> The paleo health movement is growing at a spectacular pace, mainly because
> it's soundly rooted in common sense and because it works so well. People
> with all sorts of ailments are "going paleo" to cure what their doctors
> have failed to treat with

> medications<http://freetheanimal.com/2010/02/real-results-dad.html>.

> As the state invades and destroys the healthcare market, it's becoming ever
> more important to stay healthy. For those libertarians who want to live to
> see a free society, paleo health offers the surest way to achieve Misesian
> longevity. It saddens many paleo-libertarians that Murray Rothbard was
> struck down by a disease of civilization at only 68. It's important that
> libertarians do their best to avoid such a fate—the libertarian cause is
> just too important.

> Paleo-Libertarian IntegrationGiven the many connections between the two, I

> think there is much to gain from paleo-libertarian integration. Paleos gain
> a theoretical understanding of how the "experts" can all be wrong when
> science becomes politicized. More importantly, they gain an understanding of
> the root cause of the problem—government—and the ultimate solution—liberty.
> Paleos would also greatly

> benefit<http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j23.html> from

> free markets: insurance companies would offer incentives for staying healthy
> (and people would have to bear the full costs of their lifestyle), and there
> would be no subsidies propping up harmful foods nor regulations hindering
> healthy foods. Libertarians gain personally in terms of health and
> longevity. They also add another potent argument to their already formidable
> case against the state. And of course, both benefit by expanding their
> sphere of influence. Here's to paleo-libertarianism: no grains, no
> government!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Toban Wiebe <tob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on an article about the paleo-libertarian connection which I
> > hope I can get published on LRC (if you know of any other good venues to
> > publish this, let me know). It will be targeted to libertarians and
> > Austrians, with the goal of furthering the integration (mainly getting paleo
> > ideas into the libertarian community). I've worked out the general ideas,
> > let me know if I missed anything. Suggestions are most welcome.
>

> >    - Personal benefits (Misesian/Hayekian longevity)

> >       - paleolithic principle: the obvious solution—incorporate elements

> >       of the paleolithic lifestyle to live the life your genes are optimized for:
> >       paleo diet, sun, exercise, sleep
>

> >    - Libertarians need to be functioning at their optimum to combat

> >          statism; mental energy = high productivity; longer & healthier lives = more
> >          time spent battling statism. Health and wealth (healthcare costs).

> >             - Rothbard died of a heart attack at 68: clearly would have
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -