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

[Kyle M]

A lot of people think pollution is a necessary evil of industrialization. This is just how the history books in socialized education teach it. Actually, centrally burning coal, for example, is MUCH cleaner than each house burning coal or wood for heat, which is what they do in China now and why the air is so bad. If you have a central plant, you can sequester emissions much more efficiently and low cost than anyone who is just burning the stuff outside can.
There are many examples of this, and if property rights were respected then technology would progress in a different way. Its not a zero sum game, it only becomes that when the market is cartelized.

 

[jaguar43]

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.

I disagree, you miss the ideological overtones of the typical internet libertarian ideology as Peat puts it. Libertarians like Murray Rothbards advocated Racial theories of intelligence. Guess who also advocated that same type of theory, Konrad Lorenz, the architect of the racial hygiene policy in Nazi Germany. I have seen many libertarians advocate for genetic determinism for intelligence and other factors. Charles Murray, Bryan Caplan, and Stefan Molyneux for example.

*Note: Although Konrad Lorenz (who later received the Nobel Prize) was the architect of the Nazi's policy of "racial hygiene" (extermination of those with unwanted physical, cultural, or political traits which were supposedly determined by "genes") he took his ideas from the leading U.S. geneticists, whose works were published in the main genetics journals. Following the Nazis' defeat, some of these journals were renamed, and the materials on eugenics were often removed from libraries, so that a new historical resume could be presented by the profession.

Eclampsia in the Real Organism: A Paradigm of General Distress Applicable in Infants, Adults, Etc.

If human nature is built on killing, aggression, and the use of violence as is said in the killer ape theory . Then a libertarian society would be a "good" thing since the political arguments made by most libertarians are nothing more than a justification of greed, power and impoverishing others in the capitalist society in the name of "free" markets and limited government. From all the comments you made, you try to make the argument that libertarianism and free markets are good for everyone, regardless of your class or status. Because everyone will succeed and be better off. This is being intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Because thats not what libertarians are arguing.

What people miss is the ideological undertones of certain scientific theories and political ideas that can influence each other. The killer ape theory goes hand in hand with libertarianism because it justifies certain ideas of human nature that seem to justify their political actions.

 

[jaa]

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.

Fair points. I don't think the current multi-state system is the best we can do. But libertarianism does little to alleviate my concerns of coordinating and preventing races to the bottom.

I am also concerned about small relative initial starting advantages leading to huge disparity between equally capable individuals over time, and libertarianism again does nothing to alleviate that. A social safety net seems like the only fair way to attenuate the birth lottery. And putting a floor on the financial bottom people in a society can reach seems like a good for society as a whole. Maybe the best libertarian systems would evolve to include something like that eventually. But as I confessed, I'm not a scholar on the subject, and may just be dipping my feet into an ocean who's trenches you've explored.

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.

I'm all for some form of capitalism. I think pure socialism is a disaster. This incarnation of humans needs incentives to produce the best results. I just don't think we need the maximum incentives libertarians seem to want. I think a little wealth redistribution doesn't cut back much on the incentives (though too much would as outlined in Wealth of Nations), and I think keeping the most unfortunate in society in the game is best for society as a whole. Rising tide and all that.

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?

I'm not making any guarantees. At least I didn't mean to word it in such a way. More like the best chance at surviving the number of possible catastrophic events that could be in our near future. I agree that our current system is in no place to advert such disasters either. A one world government would stand a better chance at adverting those disasters. A one world government deferring to a super AI would be even better.

 

[Kyle M]

I guess I just see things differently and have more faith in diffuse human ability than centralized, violently monopolized power to control everyone. Or AI for that matter.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with someone getting more because they are "better." When Bill Gates released DOS and Windows he created more wealth than the world had previously seen, he barely captured any of it. The world is still reaping those benefits. It's absurd to think we need a pencil pusher with a gun totting cop at his heel to take stuff from that guy and give it to someone else. He helped the world more while CREATING his wealth than he ever will while giving it away. In fact I think a lot of his philanthropy, as non-local philanthropy so often does, does a lot of harm.

Lastly, utilitarianism isn't my ultimate reason here, which you may have picked up on. I can show that historically laissez-faire has caused a higher standard of living for more people than any other system. That's secondary to me. I believe that it is morally wrong to kill, hurt or steal from someone, and that is why I am a libertarian. If I was a surgeon I could probably save 5-7 lives by murdering you under sedation in a hospital and harvesting your organs to give to people on waiting lists. Does that make it ok? By the utilitarian way of thinking you seem to be using (jaa, correct me if I'm wrong) it would absolutely have to be without massive hypocrisy or special pleading.

 

[jaguar43]

Fair points. I don't think the current multi-state system is the best we can do. But libertarianism does little to alleviate my concerns of coordinating and preventing races to the bottom.

I am also concerned about small relative initial starting advantages leading to huge disparity between equally capable individuals over time, and libertarianism again does nothing to alleviate that. A social safety net seems like the only fair way to attenuate the birth lottery. And putting a floor on the financial bottom people in a society can reach seems like a good for society as a whole. Maybe the best libertarian systems would evolve to include something like that eventually. But as I confessed, I'm not a scholar on the subject, and may just be dipping my feet into an ocean who's trenches you've explored.



I'm all for some form of capitalism. I think pure socialism is a disaster. This incarnation of humans needs incentives to produce the best results. I just don't think we need the maximum incentives libertarians seem to want. I think a little wealth redistribution doesn't cut back much on the incentives (though too much would as outlined in Wealth of Nations), and I think keeping the most unfortunate in society in the game is best for society as a whole. Rising tide and all that.



I'm not making any guarantees. At least I didn't mean to word it in such a way. More like the best chance at surviving the number of possible catastrophic events that could be in our near future. I agree that our current system is in no place to advert such disasters either. A one world government would stand a better chance at adverting those disasters. A one world government deferring to a super AI would be even better.

If Ray Peat believes that libertarianism is part of the problem with the hatred of fructose. Then why argue using economics ? I don't really understand that logic.

 

[Kyle M]

I'm convinced, jag, that you A) don't know what libertarianism is, and never will because you won't read an actual book on it and B) that won't stop you from commenting on this topic whenever you see it. Quite boorish really.

 

[jaguar43]

I'm convinced, jag, that you A) don't know what libertarianism is, and never will because you won't read an actual book on it and B) that won't stop you from commenting on this topic whenever you see it. Quite boorish really.

thanks for not responding to any of my points. Was it because I was correct ?

As interesting as it would be to continue this discussion. You miss the entire point, you concentrate all your energy on proving that libertarianism and free markets are better economically. Which isn't really the topic. But how libertarianism is part of the problem of the hatred of fructose.

Unless you believe that Ray Peat is mistaken in the quote, and can provide an argument for it. Then you should stick to the topic.

 

[Kyle M]

My first point, which you disagreed with, dealt with your previous question. There are a dozen or more definitions of libertarianism, and Ray Peat has alternately labeled himself libertarian and criticized some libertarian thinking. It's clear he either doesn't know exactly what it means, or he's using different definitions contextually. I have personally had email correspondence with him on libertarianism and, although he was characteristically short and did not expound much, he had nothing but positive to say. Meanwhile, you will still comment on that which you are ignorant of, the national leftist pass time.

 

[jaguar43]

My first point, which you disagreed with, dealt with your previous question. There are a dozen or more definitions of libertarianism, and Ray Peat has alternately labeled himself libertarian and criticized some libertarian thinking. It's clear he either doesn't know exactly what it means, or he's using different definitions contextually. I have personally had email correspondence with him on libertarianism and, although he was characteristically short and did not expound much, he had nothing but positive to say. Meanwhile, you will still comment on that which you are ignorant of, the national leftist pass time.

If you have email exchanges from Ray Peat on libertarianism. Then why don't you posted them if they support your argument ? If he has spoken positively on libertarianism, then it would be possible that he doesn't believe that the hatred of fructose is caused by the libertarianism .

 

[Kyle M]

It's pretty disgusting that you won't address the points that challenge you. I hate discussions with people like that on the internet, it's very nasty. Libertarianism, like authority and many other political words have myriad meanings. What about that don't you understand?

As far as Ray's emails to me, I understand some people post their exchanges here and other places, but I am not ready to do that yet. My position on privacy, I haven't thought about it much in this case, but if I had hundreds or thousands of people emailing me questions I would perhaps want to be given warning that any and all of my replies could end up posted on any number of websites. It's distasteful to me. Also, I told you the gist of what he said, if you don't want to take my word for it why believe that the message I post here is not just written by me out of whole cloth? Of course what you're really doing is skirting the issue of the straws being grasped at to try and pin down Ray's statements, if there's one thing consistent about Ray it's that he is notoriously difficult to pin down.

 

[jaguar43]

It's pretty disgusting that you won't address the points that challenge you. I hate discussions with people like that on the internet, it's very nasty. Libertarianism, like authority and many other political words have myriad meanings. What about that don't you understand?

Wow, I am now "pretty disgusting" because I ask you to share some emails you have from Peat. And you conclude that I am not addressing the points made by you. Don't you think that's a little excessive ?

I understand that their are different types of libertarianism. But if Ray Peat was willing to say what he said, then he must be referring to something incorporated into the theories and political ideas of libertarianism as a whole. I think his vocabulary, "the typical internet libertarian" pretty much sums up what he refers to. Unless you have emails from him that prove otherwise.

As far as Ray's emails to me, I understand some people post their exchanges here and other places, but I am not ready to do that yet. My position on privacy, I haven't thought about it much in this case, but if I had hundreds or thousands of people emailing me questions I would perhaps want to be given warning that any and all of my replies could end up posted on any number of websites. It's distasteful to me. Also, I told you the gist of what he said, if you don't want to take my word for it why believe that the message I post here is not just written by me out of whole cloth? Of course what you're really doing is skirting the issue of the straws being grasped at to try and pin down Ray's statements, if there's one thing consistent about Ray it's that he is notoriously difficult to pin down.

I am not asking you to post all your questions to him. All I am asking is whether you could post those email exchanges that contradict what he wrote in the OP. I don't see what the big deal is. When I ask someone if they could post the email that they referred to, they usually do it without issue. Just recently I ask a member to post his email exchange which was post # 306.

POLL: Who Are You Voting For In The 2016 Presidential Election?

You asking me to take your word is very suspicious. Because it shows that you are not willing to provide your evidence in which you say exist.

 

[Kyle M]

And how would it be any different from me generating what I want to say and posting that as a Ray Peat email?

Actually the "typical internet libertarian" is exactly what my original point, which you still won't address, talked about. The typical internet libertarian is of the alt right, and some of them still call themselves libertarians. Ray might not be following the trends online as closely as others who are into libertarianism, and just like I said, it's the most likely scenario that he was referring to what most people would call the alt right, such as Stefan Molyneux's crowd (who used to be more libertarian) and others.

And yes, it is disgusting to me when you respond to something over and over on one point and don't acknowledge the others, especially when another point in my posts all but answers what you keep trying to get at.

 

[Kyle M]

The whole communist vibe you always lay on me in these exchanges is very unappealing. To be honest I was hoping, after not responding to you at first, you would stop quoting me here to respond.

 

[DaveFoster]

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.

The key is engineering a system with maximal free choice, as well as maximal individual liability for an action. The problem is with the latter.

"Would the free market hold individuals accountable for zero-sum capitalism?" is the question.

There's a few rebuttals to that point, including an elimination of the commons (which privatizes property and thus contains liability to a singular entity,) as well as dissolution of government subsidies, which would make corporations indebted to their employees and consumers.

Cesar Chavez's boycott of the grape industry is just one piece of evidence for the power of consumer choice, and the disastrous consequences for an entity who refuses to respect its employees/customers (who are the same thing, as both rely on the wealth of the individual who owns the means of production.)

 

[jaa]

I guess I just see things differently and have more faith in diffuse human ability than centralized, violently monopolized power to control everyone. Or AI for that matter.

FWIW I don't have that much faith in AI. And I think government is over-reaching in a lot it's control on citizen's lives. I think people should have the personal freedom to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others. It's when global level diffused harm pops up that I think the only way forward is through global coordination. And I think a one world government has a much better chance at solving those kinds of coordination problems than a patchwork of freemarketeers.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with someone getting more because they are "better." When Bill Gates released DOS and Windows he created more wealth than the world had previously seen, he barely captured any of it. The world is still reaping those benefits. It's absurd to think we need a pencil pusher with a gun totting cop at his heel to take stuff from that guy and give it to someone else. He helped the world more while CREATING his wealth than he ever will while giving it away. In fact I think a lot of his philanthropy, as non-local philanthropy so often does, does a lot of harm.

I agree with a lot of this. I think people should be rewarded for their efforts in correlation with how much value they produce. I also think there should be a societal safety net. How much of Bill Gate's success is attributable to the society in which he grew up? The infrastructure and institutions? Being born to a good family? I think libertarians tend to discount that too much.

I think the state violence stuff that libertarians spout is a little overblown. Especially given how much more violent the places in the world that lack a cohesive state are.

As for Bill Gate's philanthropy, am I right in thinking you mean a live saved in a desolate society is worth less than a live saved in a thriving society? If so, I would agree. The quality of life years would be much higher if you saved someone from a nation with a good social safety net than a poor person in a 3rd world country. On the other hand, human life is still extremely valuable even in desolate conditions, and it's way cheaper to save a life in the 3rd world now than it is to save a life in the 1st world. On a whole, I think it's better to donate your dollars to the third world. I might be missing something and I'm curious as to what harms you think are associated with non-local charities. I have the intuition that you're right.

Lastly, utilitarianism isn't my ultimate reason here, which you may have picked up on. I can show that historically laissez-faire has caused a higher standard of living for more people than any other system. That's secondary to me. I believe that it is morally wrong to kill, hurt or steal from someone, and that is why I am a libertarian. If I was a surgeon I could probably save 5-7 lives by murdering you under sedation in a hospital and harvesting your organs to give to people on waiting lists. Does that make it ok? By the utilitarian way of thinking you seem to be using (jaa, correct me if I'm wrong) it would absolutely have to be without massive hypocrisy or special pleading.

I am a utilitarian. Thanks for clarifying our divergence! (I was slower to pick up on it).

I would not want to live in a society where a standard check up could lead you getting sacrificed to save 7 others either. I don't think anyone would. And I think it's easy to imagine the horrible consequences that would result if we attempted to switch our society to one that performs those cold calculations. There's a lot more to the equation than body count. Deathly fear of doctors visits, and surgical risks for a couple that would skew the equation towards "No we should definitely not do that!"

I don't think it's always morally wrong to kill someone, but it's a great rule of thumb and you'd better have a damn good reason for taking a life if you want to be moral. I can also construct a scenario where you'd be a monster not to kill someone. Say the biggest ***hole the universe has ever seen is going to push a button that blows up the planet killing all life as we know it. If you're a sniper with your laser on that guys forehead you are the second biggest ***hole in the universe if you don't pull the trigger.

 

[jaguar43]

And how would it be any different from me generating what I want to say and posting that as a Ray Peat email?

If you have a quote by Peat then why mention the possibility of generating a quote yourself ? You can not trust a suspicious mind in my opinion.

But again, if you have a quote then you should post it. No need for mind games or anything. If you don't have a quote thats ok too. I understand that you lied to prove your argument. And that we have all done that at some point.

Actually the "typical internet libertarian" is exactly what my original point, which you still won't address, talked about. The typical internet libertarian is of the alt right, and some of them still call themselves libertarians. Ray might not be following the trends online as closely as others who are into libertarianism, and just like I said, it's the most likely scenario that he was referring to what most people would call the alt right, such as Stefan Molyneux's crowd (who used to be more libertarian) and others.

Previously you said in a quote that

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.

Murray Rothbard was influence by holocaust denier Harry Barnes and was label as a historical revisionist. Some argue ( like libertarian historian Ralph Raico) that it was Rothbard who create the trend of holocaust denying in the libertarian movement. He also was a promoter of racial differences in intelligence. I mean, this sounds very alt-right in my opinion. But he died before that movement took place so it's plausible that there are factors of libertarianism that meet with the alt-right. I think the correct word was Paleolibertarianism for people like Rothbard.

But even if your right, Libertarianism is usually referred to the economic ideals. Which is part of the whole concept.

And yes, it is disgusting to me when you respond to something over and over on one point and don't acknowledge the others, especially when another point in my posts all but answers what you keep trying to get at.

Well sorry to hear that.

 

[jaguar43]

The whole communist vibe you always lay on me in these exchanges is very unappealing. To be honest I was hoping, after not responding to you at first, you would stop quoting me here to respond.

Well then I would warned you to steer clear of Mind and Tissue since that may also give you a so call "communist vibe".

 

[Kyle M]

I think the state violence stuff that libertarians spout is a little overblown. Especially given how much more violent the places in the world that lack a cohesive state are.

I think this is wrong, there are a few examples of anarchism in the past and they were relatively peaceful. The largest mass killings have been at the hands of governments, or are you not counting that? Would be strange to not count Hitler, Stalin, Polpot etc. as state violence, and it would be a challenge indeed to get to their numbers of killed by non-state means. Impossible I would say.

As for Bill Gate's philanthropy, am I right in thinking you mean a live saved in a desolate society is worth less than a live saved in a thriving society? If so, I would agree. The quality of life years would be much higher if you saved someone from a nation with a good social safety net than a poor person in a 3rd world country. On the other hand, human life is still extremely valuable even in desolate conditions, and it's way cheaper to save a life in the 3rd world now than it is to save a life in the 1st world. On a whole, I think it's better to donate your dollars to the third world. I might be missing something and I'm curious as to what harms you think are associated with non-local charities. I have the intuition that you're right.

Actually that's not what I meant, but that is an interesting issue. What I meant is that when an innovator makes a bunch of money, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or the ones before like Rockefeller and Carnegie, it's because they brought tremendous value to society. Everyone looks at philanthropy as doing something good, and earning money as doing something bad or perhaps neutral. In a free market, however, every transaction benefits the buyer and seller, as they wouldn't transact if that was not true. The huge amount of transactions that occurred after an innovation like PCs was one of the largest increases in wealth of all time. On top of that, think of the improvements to every other industry. People could work from home, work from another country, keep spread sheet tallies digitally rather than using paper and pencil for everything, robots could be programmed to do deadly jobs that previously killed people, or precise jobs like making microchips or laser eye surgery that humans cannot do. Our conversation right now is largely in part to the innovations Gates brought to the world. People who would have starved to death were able to be fed because computers allowed for more efficient irrigation or shipping technologies for food in the third world. It would take a life time to try and describe what was brought to the world by innovations such as those. So when a Bill Gates type make $10 billion, he is probably bringing $100s of trillions of value into the world over the future decades. The amount he harvested was a drop in the bucket of what the world received.

I would not want to live in a society where a standard check up could lead you getting sacrificed to save 7 others either. I don't think anyone would. And I think it's easy to imagine the horrible consequences that would result if we attempted to switch our society to one that performs those cold calculations. There's a lot more to the equation than body count. Deathly fear of doctors visits, and surgical risks for a couple that would skew the equation towards "No we should definitely not do that!"

I don't think it's always morally wrong to kill someone, but it's a great rule of thumb and you'd better have a damn good reason for taking a life if you want to be moral. I can also construct a scenario where you'd be a monster not to kill someone. Say the biggest ***hole the universe has ever seen is going to push a button that blows up the planet killing all life as we know it. If you're a sniper with your laser on that guys forehead you are the second biggest ***hole in the universe if you don't pull the trigger.

You have just described the difference between positive vs. negative rights. Killing someone who is about to blow up the planet falls under negative rights, as in self-defense, and that is the only form of violence allowed under libertarianism. Killing someone for the life-saving power of their organs, or stealing their money to give it to the poor, falls under positive rights, as in you have the right to someone else's stuff, not just the negative right of being unmolested by others.

 

[Ami]

I have to say I really admire your patience Kyle. I've personally found socialists to be the almost impervious to reason and logic.

 

[kyle]

I think Peat is referring to anarcho-primitivist thought which saw farming as the "origin of evil" so to speak. They argue that prior to farming, man lived happily and freely without interference having sex like bonobos and never experiencing conflict.

It is part of the noble savage concept which came about during the enlightenment and was used to justify the undermining of traditional social structures of the time and foment revolution. It was taken as fact and carried into anthropology which often completely fabricates and distorts the lives of primitive tribes in order to have some political effect.

The facts are, primitive tribes were and are extremely violent and full of sexual taboos. Moreover, the only reason they don't eat more carbs is because they never figured out farming. There is an anthropologist named Napoleon A. Chagnon who was black listed from the "mainstream science community" because he didn't follow this dogma, perhaps traced to Franz Boas who was a sort of culture warrior who aimed to elevate primitive cultures and undermine our own.

Our ancestral past is idealized by leftist anarchists as being eating a raw plant based nut and berry type thing (think- the vegan feminist stereotype). Our anarcho-capitalist friends as Kyle M noted have taken to the Paleo diet, being perhaps more on the masculine side of things but still prone to skepticism of 'state medicine' or what have you.

I think Peat is referring to the leftist types. For them, fructose is political. The right-wing libertarians are just prone to simplified thought systems. The non-aggression principle is similar to 'processed carbs are bad'- a very basic heuristic to base an entire system on.