Ray Peat Believes That Libertarian Ideology Is Responsible For The Hatred Of Fructose

[DaveFoster]

When has peat ever hinted at being a socialist instead of a capatalist?

Also I would disagree with the orientation of this high school chart in general. A true representation of poltiical tendencies would have to be linear, because anything to the left would trend towards authoritarianism. For isntance, how do you raise taxes and spread wealth without increasing the size of government?? The right is libertarian, the left is authoritarian, you cannot seperate the two.

It's social and economic individualism/libertarianism; I don't believe Ray Peat is a fan of markets, but I agree with your linear representation of government to some degree.

Communism/socialism is authoritarianism with no in-group preference.
Fascism is authoritarianism with an in-group preference.
Anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism with a legal system that prefers free market economics.
I have an underdeveloped idea of anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-Communism; I believe it's libertarianism that prefers voluntary communal pooling of resources, as with anarcho-primitivism.

 

[sladerunner69]

It's social and economic individualism/libertarianism; I don't believe Ray Peat is a fan of markets, but I agree with your linear representation of government to some degree.

Communism/socialism is authoritarianism with no in-group preference.
Fascism is authoritarianism with an in-group preference.
Anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism with a legal system that prefers free market economics.
I have an underdeveloped idea of anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-Communism; I believe it's libertarianism that prefers voluntary communal pooling of resources, as with anarcho-primitivism.

Well first off, I have to point out that I don't beleive fascism is a right wing ideology at all. I don't know why I am always having this debate with people, but I think academia has cemented this flawed notion that facists and nazis are somehow "right-wingers" when they are very much in fact left-wing. Just look at the classic ww2 fascists: Nazis.

Nazi Germany has a state run economy, 80% tax rate, state run manufacturing and means of production, state run schools, state run healthcare, and of course state censored media full of nationalistic propaganda.

How was that any different from the bolsheviks or stalinists?? Both relied on total state control and propaganda to envigorate the working class. The only difference is that stalinists identified as "communists, russian, workers etc" and nazis identified as "german, aryan, superior etc"

Bolshevism, nazism, stalinism....at the end of the day it's all just fascism with a different flavor.

Personally I dont believe how anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism could ever operate effectively, I don't believe it would support infrastructure like the US built in NY, Chicago, etc because it dimply doesnt provide enough capital.

 

[DaveFoster]

Well first off, I have to point out that I don't beleive fascism is a right wing ideology at all. I don't know why I am always having this debate with people, but I think academia has cemented this flawed notion that facists and nazis are somehow "right-wingers" when they are very much in fact left-wing. Just look at the classic ww2 fascists: Nazis.

Nazi Germany has a state run economy, 80% tax rate, state run manufacturing and means of production, state run schools, state run healthcare, and of course state censored media full of nationalistic propaganda.

How was that any different from the bolsheviks or stalinists?? Both relied on total state control and propaganda to envigorate the working class. The only difference is that stalinists identified as "communists, russian, workers etc" and nazis identified as "german, aryan, superior etc"

Bolshevism, nazism, stalinism....at the end of the day it's all just fascism with a different flavor.

Personally I dont believe how anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism could ever operate effectively, I don't believe it would support infrastructure like the US built in NY, Chicago, etc because it dimply doesnt provide enough capital.

Anarcho-Communism would be a commune of hippies. Fascism has the in-group preference; it doesn't have to be national socialism. The Romans were roughly fascist (where the fasces comes from), and they had fairly low tax rates (around 1% depending on the era, IIRC.)

 

[encerent]

Unless you have some pretty explicit new evidence for that, I'll call it misrepresenting the man and delete it as in breach of the rules.
Possibly you are joking, but could be confusing to readers.

I don't know if he's said outright in public, but he does seem to favor Bernie Sanders. For one, in the "authoritarianism" podcast of ask your herb doctors he said this,

RP:
"Some of those claims were sounding like support for Bernie Sanders. I think his domestic policies are very traditional and actually conservative in one sense of the concept: consverving the standard of living, the quality of life of working people, and so on."

 

[kyle]

Look up anarcho-primitivism.

 

[sladerunner69]

Anarcho-Communism would be a commune of hippies. Fascism has the in-group preference; it doesn't have to be national socialism. The Romans were roughly fascist (where the fasces comes from), and they had fairly low tax rates (around 1% depending on the era, IIRC.)

Im not so certain that's true when it comes to the roots of fascism.

Anyways I'm of two minds when it comes to socialism. The rational self remembers the long hsitory of failed socialist states like the ussr, venezuela, spain, greece, etc etc and thinks socialism is flawed at the core because there is not enough motivation for the workers, the inherent corruptness of government and abuse of power, and the lack of capital investment.

The sensible self beleives socialism could succeed in the right atmosphere with a properly grromed and advanced monoculture, and looks at successful social states like switzerland as an example. The thing about switzerland is that it incorporates conservativism in that it has tight immigration policies, decentralized banking, gun ownership rights, but liberal in other aspects. Remember switzerland is a true monoculture where above 90% fo the population is ancestral swiss and everyone gets along wonderfully. I believe that socialism could work in this context, sure.

 

[ecstatichamster]

If Ray doesn't believe in free markets, then that is sad.

 

[Kyle M]

I think he's referring to the alliance, which I noticed about 5 years ago, between some libertarians and their ideas and some paleo diet people and their ideas. For example, one of my favorite economists Robert Murphy, who is an ancap, published a book (which I highly recommend) on the health care system last year with a medical doctor, for the Marc Sisson Primal publishing house. A minority of libertarians are actually paleo types or rank nutrition high on their priority scale, and a minority of paleo types are libertarians (full libertarians, many of them oppose government when it gets in the way of them getting what they want, like everyone else) or rank libertarian politics high on their priority scale.

For what it's worth, I'm attempting to bring together the Ray Peat science ideas with libertarianism, Murray Rothbard's work on the AMA and others I've read about the history of pharma in this country fit perfectly with the problems Ray talks about in research and with doctors. Ray is probably the most aware person of his age, on the largest number of topics, of anyone I've ever read or heard, but he doesn't know everything. There are different "types" of libertarians, the the Johnson/Weld ticket, for example, is not even considered libertarian by a good many of them. A lot of the young people talking about genetics and ethnicity on the internet, who call themselves libertarians, are really part of the alt right.

 

[jaa]

If Ray doesn't believe in free markets, then that is sad.

What if he believes in free markets with regulations?

Anything else at this point in human history seems like it would have disastrous consequences. Libertarianism is neat in theory, but in practice human's won't take a god's eye view of cooperation which results in a bunch of distinct races to the bottom in which everyone is worse off while the comparative edges remain the same. If humans were all much more intelligent and benevolent super cooperators it would work, but unless some neural lace to AI connections happen our species is a ways from that.

 

[Kyle M]

What if he believes in free markets with regulations?

That's an oxymoron, the regulations are the things free is designating against.

Anything else at this point in human history seems like it would have disastrous consequences. Libertarianism is neat in theory, but in practice human's won't take a god's eye view of cooperation which results in a bunch of distinct races to the bottom in which everyone is worse off while the comparative edges remain the same. If humans were all much more intelligent and benevolent super cooperators it would work, but unless some neural lace to AI connections happen our species is a ways from that.

Based on what evidence? Every time markets have become freer in recorded history, that civilization became richer, producing wealth that went proportionally more towards the poorer sector. The US, as an example, had a falling gap in rich vs. poor until some time in the 20th century when the Federal Reserve, cartelizing regulations and a tax scheme that discourages capital investment conspired to consolidate wealth at the top. Thus the gap is higher now than it was in, say, 1910, which itself was lower than, say, 1810. A clearly U-shaped curve that is inverse the level of central control exerted over individuals.

 

[ecstatichamster]

we don't have a free market in the US or anywhere else for much. Especially in health care. Ray has been a careful critic of Big Pharma since about forever. I hope he isn't disillusioned with free markets as a result of the graft and corruption he has observed. The system is a monopoly with a few special interests in bed with the government, more of a fascist model than a free market.

The supplement field is a fairly free market. And that thrives very nicely. They are always trying to shut it down, but fortunately in the US we still have a semblance of a free market for many supplements.

 

[Kyle M]

Anyways I'm of two minds when it comes to socialism. The rational self remembers the long hsitory of failed socialist states like the ussr, venezuela, spain, greece, etc etc and thinks socialism is flawed at the core because there is not enough motivation for the workers, the inherent corruptness of government and abuse of power, and the lack of capital investment.

There is another argument against socialism, which is the Misesian/Hayekian knowledge problem. Central authority cannot obtain and integrate knowledge competently or fast enough to allocate resources. That's why countries like USSR always had famines from bad weather, or no toilet paper or whatever in a store in a certain region. In a market, prices inform individual actors of relative abundance or lack thereof of difference resources and they change their behavior accordingly. On the buyer side, it causes rationing (less gasoline is bought when the price goes up compared to what would be bought if the price went down) and on the producer side (higher prices bring marginal plants or shippers back into the market, or even incentivize building an entirely knew supply and distribution apparatus). None of this can happen under socialism, since statistics have to be gathered on, say, crop yields from the various regions, then a central plan of how to ship crops from regions with above average yields to those with below, and resources have to be pulled from some other use, which cannot be rationally decided on which other use should be sacrificed first (as there are no prices), and by the time the action is taken, many have already starved.

 

[jaa]

Based on what evidence? Every time markets have become freer in recorded history, that civilization became richer, producing wealth that went proportionally more towards the poorer sector. The US, as an example, had a falling gap in rich vs. poor until some time in the 20th century when the Federal Reserve, cartelizing regulations and a tax scheme that discourages capital investment conspired to consolidate wealth at the top. Thus the gap is higher now than it was in, say, 1910, which itself was lower than, say, 1810. A clearly U-shaped curve that is inverse the level of central control exerted over individuals.

Free markets with regulations may be an oxymoron, but I don't know what else to call what I think is the best system for present day that uses incentives but keeps a lid on things with regulations so that we don't destroy ourselves. At one extreme, I don't think communism works. At the other, I don't think libertarianism works. With the caveat that libertarianism would be best if we could solve the coordination problem, which we can't.

As for the evidence, just look to any tragedy of the commons. From overfishing to carbon emissions, people will exploit resources for their own gain even though it harms society as a whole. If you don't exploit, you fall behind. People see this and everyone who continues exploits the resource more an more to maintain their comparative edge, as the total societal harm piles up and eventually the resource is exhausted, or we pass a tipping point, or whatever. The FAQ below is what changed my mind on libertarianism and I haven't heard a decent rebuttal yet, so please share if you have one!

Why I Hate Your Freedom

In a similar vein (from the same author) Meditations on Moloch is an excellent exploration of the end game for society given those types of multi-polar traps that seem to be a feature of our planet. (Warning: super long)

Meditations On Moloch

 

[Kyle M]

The tragedy of the commons happens when there are no property rights in a given resource, the antithesis of market. Libertarian homesteading theory saved the West from the tragedy of the commons.

Before I read those, have you actually read much about libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or Austrian economics? Because glancing at those links, those points are very basic and have been dealt with by Mises and Rothbard etc. But if you are a scholar of the subject and claim the arguments go deeper, I'll look at it.

 

[jaa]

No I'm not a scholar on the subject, so feel free not to investigate those links deeper, though there is more to the first link than the coordination problem. And I think the second is worth reading just on it's own (it's not a takedown of libertarianism).

Back to coordination, could you briefly explain how would Mises and Rothbard would address carbon emissions?

 

[Kyle M]

Back to coordination, could you briefly explain how would Mises and Rothbard would address carbon emissions?

There's no need to, since CO2 emissions aren't harmful. The planet itself emits and sequesters more carbon than human activity can, so it's a strange position to take that human emissions are subject to legal action. If you want to take misanthropy far enough, you can condemn everyone's existence as a drain on everyone else's, but to my way of thinking that is a psychological condition of self-hatred, not a moral or political stance. On the topic of actual pollution, Rothbard has written extensively, and shows how the common law was taking care of soot emissions from factories until the Federal government got in the way and took individuals right to sue for pollution away, then mandated taller smoke stacks so that the soot would not be a local but rather a diffuse and un-actionable problem. Always look to central power as the source of a problem first, before assuming it's the market.

 

[jaa]

There's no need to, since CO2 emissions aren't harmful. The planet itself emits and sequesters more carbon than human activity can, so it's a strange position to take that human emissions are subject to legal action. If you want to take misanthropy far enough, you can condemn everyone's existence as a drain on everyone else's, but to my way of thinking that is a psychological condition of self-hatred, not a moral or political stance.

My understanding is that while human emissions are an order of magnitude smaller than natural co2 production, and a fraction (~40%) of the human emissions can be absorbed by co2 sinks, the remainder just keeps adding up and that contributes to the climate change. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

I agree it's silly to take misanthropy too far, but climate change is a little different when you look at existing technologies and what the consensus future costs of continuing to mash that explo button because we can't get everyone to agree to just tighten the belts a little for now for everyone's future benefit.

On the topic of actual pollution, Rothbard has written extensively, and shows how the common law was taking care of soot emissions from factories until the Federal government got in the way and took individuals right to sue for pollution away, then mandated taller smoke stacks so that the soot would not be a local but rather a diffuse and un-actionable problem. Always look to central power as the source of a problem first, before assuming it's the market.

That seems like a workable solution at first glance. I'm going to look into it a bit. Thanks for the direction.

 

[jaa]

There's no need to, since CO2 emissions aren't harmful. The planet itself emits and sequesters more carbon than human activity can, so it's a strange position to take that human emissions are subject to legal action. If you want to take misanthropy far enough, you can condemn everyone's existence as a drain on everyone else's, but to my way of thinking that is a psychological condition of self-hatred, not a moral or political stance. On the topic of actual pollution, Rothbard has written extensively, and shows how the common law was taking care of soot emissions from factories until the Federal government got in the way and took individuals right to sue for pollution away, then mandated taller smoke stacks so that the soot would not be a local but rather a diffuse and un-actionable problem. Always look to central power as the source of a problem first, before assuming it's the market.

Let's pretend climate change due to co2 emissions is real, or if you'd like, a large number of polluters hurting people each in small amounts, but totalling up to catastrophic amounts that result in a much lower to zero quality of life for a human living on the planet in 40 years. Can you walk me through the broad strokes of how libertarianism could resolve that?

 

[Kyle M]

Let's pretend climate change due to co2 emissions is real, or if you'd like, a large number of polluters hurting people each in small amounts, but totalling up to catastrophic amounts that result in a much lower to zero quality of life for a human living on the planet in 40 years. Can you walk me through the broad strokes of how libertarianism could resolve that?

No I can't, but I can also assert quite confidently that central power based on the legal monopoly of violence (the state) cannot resolve that either.

These "what if" scenarios are the best thing statists have, because in reality the market helps even those who don't participate it in every documented circumstance. Like the USSR, they were constantly getting cheap goods and even hand outs from the Western, market nations. We didn't have to buy their garbage. Also, you may be surprised to know, governments (mostly militaries) are the greatest polluters any way, not private industry. Most of the pollution in the US is emitted from military-industrial complex activity, and some pharma-state complex activity. Real free markets would compete away those cartels and their immunity from legal action.

What actually happens is that market activity in the now, just like it did in the then, makes the lives of the following generations better by building up the capital stock so that workers are more productive in the future. The reverse process, capital consumption, is probably happening in much of the West now, but it's hard to measure.

Lastly, in a philosophical point, to say that some "system" could ensure that future generations are ok is silly. A meteor could strike the earth, a crazy plague could occur, aliens could attack. A vast number of natural or man made things could happen, in order for a system to be good, does it have to resolve all of those? Our CURRENT system of mixed economy, and the socialist economies of the former and current socialist nations, do not resolve them either, so if that's your only metric, I suppose it can be considered a draw? Although I would put my life, if I could wager it, in a market society during a disaster over a socialism or otherwise centrally planned one. Would you?

 

[Kyle M]

That seems like a workable solution at first glance. I'm going to look into it a bit. Thanks for the direction.

There is a short (unfortunately) history of people bringing suit against factories for putting soot in their air, they would show their clothes hanging outside all sooty, and judges would say the factory had to install soot capturing devices. This quickly ended as the central power decided they wanted to push industrialization at all costs, and rather than go the way of preventing pollution through respecting property rights in the courts, they went the way of centralized regulations. Governments will ALWAYS do this, because the first way grants property owners and dissolute local judges and juries power, the latter grants the central authority more power. The choice, if you're a politician (sociopath) is obvious.