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

[jaa]

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.)

Broadly, how would an entity control the atmosphere? Specifically in relation to c02 emissions assuming for this toy example that they do cause climate change which in 40 years turns to a runaway greenhouse effect and dooms the planet?

 

[Kyle M]

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

Thanks but I don't think I've kept the cool tbh. A system based on violence and disrespect of individual rights gets me heated.

 

[DaveFoster]

Broadly, how would an entity control the atmosphere? Specifically in relation to c02 emissions assuming for this toy example that they do cause climate change which in 40 years turns to a runaway greenhouse effect and dooms the planet?

Assuming that CO2 is a problem in the atmosphere, and I would assert that the massive political support for that narrative is grounds for further investigation, I don't know. That's the job for environmental researchers, of which I know very little.

A better question: Does government do a sufficient job of controlling CO2 emissions? Absolutely not.

Here's a model that's attainable in a realistic sense, but it's not a simplified, "squeaky-clean" explanation that people so desperately seek when dealing with complex issues:

You have a business entity, such as Walmart. You have a volunteer (funded by fundraising) or paid regulatory agency (funded by businesses that it regulates on behalf of consumer demand. The regulatory agency (or multiple agencies, probably the latter) works with its businesses to make annual emissions reports. Based on the results of these reports, companies are given a rating on their efficiency, and this is communicated to consumers (say, an A rating corresponds to first-world emissions controls on cars, for example, while a B or C rating corresponds to Indian cars, which have limited quality control for fuel efficiency.)

The efficiency rating (we could call it a "Green Stamp Rating," for example) could be tied to the manufacturer of a product (food producer, toy-maker, or automobile manufacturer) or also more broadly the the distributor. If Walmart wanted to maintain an "A" Green Stamp Rating, then it would need to buy a corresponding majority of its products from efficient manufacturers. Consumer choice comes into play here; people who care about the environment will buy from the high-rated retailers, and people who don't care about the environment will continue to buy the cheapest product, similar to how some people buy organic and some do not.

Again, this is how regulations can be achieved through third-party regulators without the need for an inefficient, coercive, bureaucratic state; a state that eventually jacks taxes up to 30-75% for its citizenry, wages foreign wars on behalf of domestic arms manufacturers and other special interest groups, and creates a burdensome welfare state for the tax-payer. The poor should be helped, and would be helped in a much more effective way without our current money sink. That aside, I suggested the "Green Stamp Rating" on a whim, and I borrowed a couple concepts from places in my mind; I would not be deciding the system, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done without <insert X current system here>.



This also came to mind; I'm not sure of the legitimacy of the study he cited, but I have heard of the traffic study before Moly covered the topic.

If you find a problem with my argument, then please let me know.

 

[aquaman]

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

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.

I'm not fully sure from your postings on here - are you 100% against ANY government involvement in the market? Fan of zero taxes? Zero government expenditure?

You brushed aside the co2 question like it was childish. Ok, CO2 is debatable, but the general question is interesting.

So what about the release of agreed toxins into the atmosphere - how are these taken into consideration in your market? I'm sure Peat would be for the role of a government to add social cost into the market calculations that inherently the market would not. Call this what you will. That's the problem with labelling anything. You attempting to label socialism earlier paints it like a binary choice - either 1 or 0, nothing in between.

I saw earlier about the trade in ivory. In your world, who would control this? No one? And then what happens when elephants are hunted to extinction by the market? Is that just too bad?

I wouldn't say I'm anywhere near being a socialist, certainly not in the terms of a central, command economy (would even the most staunch "socialist" nowadays even go near suggesting command economy?). But I do believe that humans will always push things too far on an individualist level, and that the profit motive will always lead to social and environmental damage that is not accounted for. It's again back to the binary issue. As mush as possible, I'm for small government. But who builds the roads and the infrastructure. Total zero governance leads to an effective governance because the ones who own the capital in this era dominate largely forever. I'd prefer a more level playing field for when you enter this world rather than luck of the draw determining whether you are born into wealth.

If you're born into a run down community with single parent and your family has no capital and low income, should that mean that you must stay only in that band/class? Should a young child who can't afford college not be able to go to college, even if by having that person educated it would benefit society on a direct (economic) and indirect (a feeling that you have hope no matter where you start from) level?

We need property rights, otherwise you never get any investment from the private sector (look at certain areas of Africa where English-style property law isn't enshrined). The downside is you get an accumulation of ownership in the hands of a few. You paint extremely binary pictures.

 

[aquaman]

You have a business entity, such as Walmart. You have a volunteer (funded by fundraising) or paid regulatory agency (funded by businesses that it regulates on behalf of consumer demand. The regulatory agency (or multiple agencies, probably the latter) works with its businesses to make annual emissions reports.

You're describing a government by another name!

What you're describing is effectively what a government does. It's just extremely challenging, so of course it's never going to 100% correct.

And yet somehow you think that a "volunteer" or "paid regulatory agency" (aka a government) will do better? WHo are these volunteers and "agencies", who governs them, who chooses them - "a democratically chosen group who control things for a finite period"? ..

You're saying that a state is bureaucratic, but that this mysterious, paid central controlling agency [NOT a government of course] can determine all of this better and without any hint of corruption, lack of full knowledge, people trying to cheat the system etc (ie all the things that bring down a government)?

 

[Kyle M]

I'm not fully sure from your postings on here - are you 100% against ANY government involvement in the market? Fan of zero taxes? Zero government expenditure?

Correct, taxes are theft, war is mass murder, and conscription is slavery. When you use the right words for government actions is becomes clear what the morally correct position is towards them.

You brushed aside the co2 question like it was childish. Ok, CO2 is debatable, but the general question is interesting.

So what about the release of agreed toxins into the atmosphere - how are these taken into consideration in your market? I'm sure Peat would be for the role of a government to add social cost into the market calculations that inherently the market would not. Call this what you will. That's the problem with labelling anything. You attempting to label socialism earlier paints it like a binary choice - either 1 or 0, nothing in between.

Like I said earlier, Rothbard has written on air pollution more eloquently than I could repeat his arguments. He uses real case history about how the law evolved and how when the government got involved and removed the ability for average people to sue based on pollution, pollution got worse and a precedent was set for erring on the side of pre-established industrial firms.

I saw earlier about the trade in ivory. In your world, who would control this? No one? And then what happens when elephants are hunted to extinction by the market? Is that just too bad?

The problem with the ivory trade is simple, it's ivory communism. The same problem existed in the 19th century vis a vis whales, who before oil refining was invented were killed en masse for their blubber as the primary source of lamp kerosene. We had "whale communism," where you could not own a particular tract of ocean or school of whales (whatever the technological unit would be, we'll have to leave that to whale biologists) but if you managed to kill a whale, you could keep it. Not unlike logging in public land. The incentive, obviously, is to nab every whale you can because if you don't, the next guy will. If you owned a unit of whales, or fish, or a lake, or a logging forest, your incentive is to maintain the value of your capital stock, a value directly opposed to overuse.

If you're born into a run down community with single parent and your family has no capital and low income, should that mean that you must stay only in that band/class? Should a young child who can't afford college not be able to go to college, even if by having that person educated it would benefit society on a direct (economic) and indirect (a feeling that you have hope no matter where you start from) level?

If you go back far enough, every person was born in a run down community. That would be putting it politely for the majority of human history. What caused some to rise above and have the standard of living we have now? Was it the state, or diffuse individual action? Was it central command, or decentral command? What cultures gained wealth faster, the ones that instituted private property and the rule of law first, or the ones that have yet to institute those reforms? College, btw, is a racket that is impoverishing everyone in society except the professors and other profiteers. It's like welfare, the only welfare it promotes is that of the welfare bureaucrats.

We need property rights, otherwise you never get any investment from the private sector (look at certain areas of Africa where English-style property law isn't enshrined). The downside is you get an accumulation of ownership in the hands of a few. You paint extremely binary pictures.

This is a great example of the difference in our moral approaches. I don't think we need property rights because it encourages this or that good thing, I believe in property rights because saying that someone else has a prior right to your body, mind, or the property obtained thereby is evil. I don't think rape is wrong because it could give the women a psychological complex about sex, it's wrong because she owns her own body and has the right to say who can touch her and who can't. You able to keep whatever in your bank account isn't right because it encourages you to work hard and save and improve the economy through investment, it's right because you have the highest claim to it as compared to anyone else. Same reason for you being allowed to keep your organs, decide what you put in your body, etc.

It is rather binary when you think of it that way.

 

[jaa]

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.

I'm basing it off Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature. He says an individual was much more likely (~9x) to die back in the day by tribal warfare than during the 20th century with all the wars and genocide combined. It's extremely counterintuitive and I would have agreed with you before I read it. It's also my only source so it's not an idea I'm overly attached to and am willing to make big adjustments to my position if presented with good sources to the contrary.

Now those ancient tribes may not have lived up to the libertarian ideal, but these war mongering states do not live up to my state ideal either.

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 mostly agree. I misunderstood you earlier and made the misconnection between Bill Gates and non-local philanthropy. I think where we differ is in how much of a role each of us thinks the state plays in Bill Gates success. If it wasn't for institutions and laws in American society, some adjacent tribe with bigger guns could have swooped in and stole Microsoft right out from under him before he was able to accrue enough wealth to protect himself. Or maybe someone as intelligent as him would have had lesser ambitions because why risk the long shot at big wealth if it's just going to get stolen or worse if you succeed.

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.

Ok so you can kill someone with negative rights. What about someone with positive rights if it's for a greater good? What if you're a sniper on a planet where the guy with the bomb has taken a hostage and the only way to stop the guy from killing everyone is to shoot through the innocent hostage and kill them both?

 

[DaveFoster]

You're describing a government by another name!

What you're describing is effectively what a government does. It's just extremely challenging, so of course it's never going to 100% correct.

And yet somehow you think that a "volunteer" or "paid regulatory agency" (aka a government) will do better? WHo are these volunteers and "agencies", who governs them, who chooses them - "a democratically chosen group who control things for a finite period"? ..

You're saying that a state is bureaucratic, but that this mysterious, paid central controlling agency [NOT a government of course] can determine all of this better and without any hint of corruption, lack of full knowledge, people trying to cheat the system etc (ie all the things that bring down a government)?

A government may be thought of as a large, monoplolistic corporation. I think it's better to think of all people, business, corporations, and governments as broadly "entities" with self-interests.

The consumer chooses the entity. You don't have to shop at Walmart; you can buy from Safeway, Walgreens, a 7-11 convenience store, or Mom and Pap's. If you don't like the organization, don't buy from them. If the regulatory agency behaves badly, two things will happen; 1) Business will be wary to engage in certification under a fradulent agency for fear of losing customers; 2) Competing agencies will not associate with the fradulent agency and discredit it to protect their own credibility. If either associates with the fradulent agency, they will lose customer support, sales, and profits.

Two additional points: 1) The government is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor even remotely competent at anything in existence.

2) Smaller governments would be more efficient; smaller organizations tend to be more efficient. My Communist history teacher from high school recommended me the book
Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered

I will read it one day, but until then, I think the first part of the title encompasses the idea that smaller organizations, whether businesses or governments, will apply the most leverage where it's needed, and will thus achieve greater growth and efficiency in the long-run. It's well-known in the field of business that smaller organizations practice greater innovation, and there's a much smaller delay for efficiency advancements to trickle through the system of operations.

Smaller companies experience greater growth and greater return per dollar invested on aggregate.

 

[jaguar43]

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.

Are you suggesting that Ray Peat doesn't know what libertarianism is ? Thats a little insulting, I think the problem is that people have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that Ray Peat may not be a right-winger after all.

Sure primitive Tribes may have been violent ( just like advance tribes or should I say nation states) . That doesn't mean that those were the conditions in which evolution took place. It's a strange idea to think that a killing aggressive machine was the nature in which allowed humans to evolve. I would think it would be the reverse, that extreme caring giving plenty of food, play, low-stress were responsible for the evolution of homo sapiens.

 

[Kyle M]

I'm basing it off Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature. He says an individual was much more likely (~9x) to die back in the day by tribal warfare than during the 20th century with all the wars and genocide combined. It's extremely counterintuitive and I would have agreed with you before I read it. It's also my only source so it's not an idea I'm overly attached to and am willing to make big adjustments to my position if presented with good sources to the contrary.

Now those ancient tribes may not have lived up to the libertarian ideal, but these war mongering states do not live up to my state ideal either.

Those tribes were not libertarian, they did not respect property rights. It's true, however, that technology has allowed human survivability to go up immensely, but to pin that on the state is a leap that I think untenable. The places with the strongest states, like the far East and (all of the Ethiopian objections notwithstanding) central Africa, they have lagged behind on technology compared to the West. The thing to understand is that the state is a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area, and state's war, so when one tribe where the leader is allowed to kill or take or rape whatever he wants, wars with another tribe of the same description, that is not anarchy. If a bunch of individuals who were not conscripted or in any way forced to, fought each other in the jungle and all killed each other, you could blame that on liberty. But what inevitably happens in that scenario is that free human, when presented with the very real chance of death or lose or property, almost always choose peace if a ruler isn't forcing them with the threat of punishment. In order to get war, you have to create a religion, either a mystical one or one about the state, where it is honorable to die and kill for the state, because people don't like to hurt other people and don't like to be hurt themselves. We recoil from it.

I mostly agree. I misunderstood you earlier and made the misconnection between Bill Gates and non-local philanthropy. I think where we differ is in how much of a role each of us thinks the state plays in Bill Gates success. If it wasn't for institutions and laws in American society, some adjacent tribe with bigger guns could have swooped in and stole Microsoft right out from under him before he was able to accrue enough wealth to protect himself. Or maybe someone as intelligent as him would have had lesser ambitions because why risk the long shot at big wealth if it's just going to get stolen or worse if you succeed.

A high Japanese general said during WWII that the American continent could never be successfully invaded. Why? Was it their military? No, his reasoning was that there would be a gun behind every tree. This is the same reason that Switzerland, despite having basically no military, was never molested during the entire bloody 20th century. It's smack in the middle of Europe. It's also the only country that insists every citizen be armed. Private security, as theorized by Rothbard and more recently Robert Murphy, would do better both domestically and to prevent international threats than does socialized security.

Ok so you can kill someone with negative rights. What about someone with positive rights if it's for a greater good? What if you're a sniper on a planet where the guy with the bomb has taken a hostage and the only way to stop the guy from killing everyone is to shoot through the innocent hostage and kill them both?

Good question, I have to admit that my expertise is not in answering "24-ish" scenario riddles like this. It would be up to the individual to decide, and in a dire situation like that I would probably shoot through the hostage, but I would be legally responsible for that hostages life to an extent. You could, however, make a legal argument that the person using the hostage as a shield holds the full legal responsibility for that life, kind of like someone who pushes a child into a lake, even if no one saves him it's the pusher that killed him, not the people who refused to jump in and perform rescue.

 

[jaguar43]

A high Japanese general said during WWII that the American continent could never be successfully invaded. Why? Was it their military? No, his reasoning was that there would be a gun behind every tree. This is the same reason that Switzerland, despite having basically no military, was never molested during the entire bloody 20th century. It's smack in the middle of Europe. It's also the only country that insists every citizen be armed. Private security, as theorized by Rothbard and more recently Robert Murphy, would do better both domestically and to prevent international threats than does socialized security.

Their private security theories may have been "advance" but unfortunately they were committed to the racial ( genetic ) theory of intelligence. Rothbard holocaust denial and Murphy's closely associations with white nationalism speak for themselves in that regard. In this case Ray Peat has a point in labeling libertarians with Nazism due to the similarities in theories to konrad lorenz.

 

[tyw]

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 a quick aside, I sometimes like to point to the many (many) wars fought in China, which has a good 5,000 year track record of unbroken "Big Government Philosophy", and the insane death tolls that resulted.

Some numbers may be disputed, but the list on Wikipedia basically says that a lot of people consistently died in China over the course of its history -- List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia​

We can debate about the extent of violence which would propagate due to other motivations (eg: religious, tribal), but it definitely takes The State / Central Authority to go to war on the scales which we saw in the East and Eurasia. I would include the Mongol conquests under this umbrella as well.

....

 

[jaa]

Assuming that CO2 is a problem in the atmosphere, and I would assert that the massive political support for that narrative is grounds for further investigation, I don't know. That's the job for environmental researchers, of which I know very little.

A better question: Does government do a sufficient job of controlling CO2 emissions? Absolutely not.

I agree! Right now we have competing state entities and competing businesses who do not wish to sacrifice their comparative advantage for the greater good. It's the coordination problem. Sure a few countries and companies can decide to go green, but they will fall behind until the technology scales. If everyone could coordinate and just scale the damn tech it wouldn't be a problem. But we can't. A one world government could coordinate it. Or even just some coordinating entity that stays out of the way for most issues and only jumps in on these really big issues with disastrous consequences if we can't coordinate on our own which we won't.

Here's a model that's attainable in a realistic sense, but it's not a simplified, "squeaky-clean" explanation that people so desperately seek when dealing with complex issues:

You have a business entity, such as Walmart. You have a volunteer (funded by fundraising) or paid regulatory agency (funded by businesses that it regulates on behalf of consumer demand. The regulatory agency (or multiple agencies, probably the latter) works with its businesses to make annual emissions reports. Based on the results of these reports, companies are given a rating on their efficiency, and this is communicated to consumers (say, an A rating corresponds to first-world emissions controls on cars, for example, while a B or C rating corresponds to Indian cars, which have limited quality control for fuel efficiency.)

The efficiency rating (we could call it a "Green Stamp Rating," for example) could be tied to the manufacturer of a product (food producer, toy-maker, or automobile manufacturer) or also more broadly the the distributor. If Walmart wanted to maintain an "A" Green Stamp Rating, then it would need to buy a corresponding majority of its products from efficient manufacturers. Consumer choice comes into play here; people who care about the environment will buy from the high-rated retailers, and people who don't care about the environment will continue to buy the cheapest product, similar to how some people buy organic and some do not.

Again, this is how regulations can be achieved through third-party regulators without the need for an inefficient, coercive, bureaucratic state; a state that eventually jacks taxes up to 30-75% for its citizenry, wages foreign wars on behalf of domestic arms manufacturers and other special interest groups, and creates a burdensome welfare state for the tax-payer. The poor should be helped, and would be helped in a much more effective way without our current money sink. That aside, I suggested the "Green Stamp Rating" on a whim, and I borrowed a couple concepts from places in my mind; I would not be deciding the system, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done without <insert X current system here>.

I don't see how this resolves the coordination problem. With regards to climate change, we would be about where we are now which is not ideal. A better form of government has a chance at resolving this. I can't figure out how the free market can.

 

[DaveFoster]

Their private security theories may have been "advance" but unfortunately they were committed to the racial ( genetic ) theory of intelligence. Rothbard holocaust denial and Murphy's closely associations with white nationalism speak for themselves in that regard. In this case Ray Peat has a point in labeling libertarians with Nazism due to the similarities in theories to konrad lorenz.

I think name-calling and reductio ad Hitlerum are below the caliber of the conversation.

I agree! Right now we have competing state entities and competing businesses who do not wish to sacrifice their comparative advantage for the greater good. It's the coordination problem. Sure a few countries and companies can decide to go green, but they will fall behind until the technology scales. If everyone could coordinate and just scale the damn tech it wouldn't be a problem. But we can't. A one world government could coordinate it. Or even just some coordinating entity that stays out of the way for most issues and only jumps in on these really big issues with disastrous consequences if we can't coordinate on our own which we won't.



I don't see how this resolves the coordination problem. With regards to climate change, we would be about where we are now which is not ideal. A better form of government has a chance at resolving this. I can't figure out how the free market can.

It's definitely a hard problem; a similar problem lies for criminals. What do we do with violent people?

For the climate change problem, if it is a problem at all, I think you're overestimating the ability of a global government to do anything right. Just look at the United Nations as your model for ridiculous failures. Books can be written of the horrors of waste, corruption, and outright murder (as with the "intervention" in the Balkans) of the UN, but people still pay lip-service to its "honest intent."

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[jaguar43]

I think name-calling and reductio ad Hitlerum are below the caliber of the conversation.

And did not Ray Peat associated Konrad Lorenz with the typical internet libertarian ideology ? Konrad Lorenz was the architect of the racial hygiene plan in Nazi Germany. Read the OP and then readdress your argument. I swear people here don't even read Ray Peat's articles.

 

[DaveFoster]

Obviously he's using force, and the NAP only applies in a non-coercive interaction. Do you even UPB, bro?

 

[DaveFoster]

And did not Ray Peat associated Konrad Lorenz with the typical internet libertarian ideology ? Konrad Lorenz was the architect of the racial hygiene plan in Nazi Germany. Read the OP and then readdress your argument. I swear people here don't even read Ray Peat's articles.

Not all of them. He loosely associated the two; he said that the typical libertarian ideology adopted his teachings. That doesn't mean that Konrad Lorenz is a libertarian. Association fallacy. If Marx cited Aristotle, that doesn't make Aristotle a Communist.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Obviously he's using force, and the NAP only applies in a non-coercive interaction. Do you even UPB, bro?

The road belongs to a third party. Do you cause a chain reaction?

 

[jaguar43]

Not all of them. He loosely associated the two; he said that the typical libertarian ideology adopted his teachings. That doesn't mean that Konrad Lorenz is a libertarian. Association fallacy. If Marx cited Aristotle, that doesn't make Aristotle a Communist.

No, but it does make libertarians Nazis, at least from an anthropological stance.