5

votes

Are Paleos Libertarian?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created May 07, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Is it just me or do Paleos tend to be Libertarian? Perhaps it's easier to accept that the Conventional Wisdom is BS if you already are outside the mainstream politically... What are your thoughts?

0b7c3e7fd96005f0b2dfd781e512fc2e

(1237)

on August 20, 2013
at 02:54 PM

If you follow Stephen Kinsella on facebook, you can see this isn't the case. Dude has a serious bug up his ass about paleo for some reason.

25b139cc1954456d9ea469e40f984cd3

on September 04, 2011
at 09:49 PM

Denise Minger would be a welcome addition, although she shirks labels and her diet is higher in fruit than most paleos...

1ccc0b0b7a756cd42466cef8f450d0cb

(1801)

on July 03, 2011
at 02:37 AM

The problem is cyclical. Big Ag donates money to politicians through lobbying efforts - in turn the politicians reward them with more subsidies and eventually government positions, which ensures the cycle keeps going.

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:54 AM

Incidentally--here's Chomsky on the matter: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm And a more general description from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (my own tendency is "autonomism," described in the Wiki)

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:48 AM

In a way, it's a rather ambiguous question--someone like Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "libertarian socialist." I personally find this position--which is opposed to coercion in the economic as well as the political sphere--to be much more compelling than right-wing libertarianism.

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:45 AM

Why? What does socialism have to do with vegetarianism? What's the point of flippant comments like this?

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:44 AM

"Socialist" does not mean the state should control the means of production. Neither does it mean that cooperation should be mandated by political force. It means workers should control the means of production. Anything else is the result of political force.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 20, 2010
at 05:12 AM

I am amazed that Crossfit leans Libertarian, too.

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 19, 2010
at 06:29 AM

Heh, heh. I *was* careful! :-)

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 18, 2010
at 11:05 PM

Gotta be careful with those political trigger-words! ;)

326ddac1e74e7e2d4dc7d0f4d0aacad0

(80)

on May 18, 2010
at 09:37 PM

I don't know of anyone who is paleo and libertarian, however I am also a paleo, right-leaning libertarian. Also, every vegan/vegetarian that I have met is a hard-core liberal.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on May 18, 2010
at 08:50 PM

Hey, how come I am not on that list :'(

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 09, 2010
at 07:01 PM

A poll would certainly be more ideal than this platform.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 09, 2010
at 06:58 PM

Yet you want the people who are lying to you about health to be in charge and have the authority to prosecute others to achieve your well-being?

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 08, 2010
at 09:43 PM

I think it is reasonable that people may come here because of nutrition, politics aside. If you were leftist and realized grains are bad for you that may have started you down the path to paleo. Their whole world view isn't going to change because of it. I'm sure even the Libertarians and Republicans in Paleo have much disagreement.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on May 08, 2010
at 08:37 PM

and the whole paleo movement is a conspiracy by the meat industry...:P

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 08, 2010
at 04:10 PM

It's amazing to me how many logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) are contained in this question and *all* it's responses (including mine).

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 08, 2010
at 04:08 PM

It's also interesting that people can decide what I am like and what my social and political beliefs are based on a hyphenated quip!

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 08, 2010
at 04:07 PM

It's also interesting that people can decide what I am like and what my social and political beliefs are based on a hyphenated quip!

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 07:25 PM

Give me a single example of a society that thrived with a free market in actual reality.... The truth is society and justice in this country is leaps ahead of most of human history. We have a huge level of personal freedom. You can complain all you want about some pie in sky world we should be living in, but the truth is we need to build on what we currently have and make it better. Like breaking ties between government and corporations. This will allow us to subsidize organic farmers, healthy school lunches, and renewable energy. Which is desparately needed to start changing things.

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 07, 2010
at 07:10 PM

Heh, heh. Maybe I should say "communalist" or "communitarian"? It's really hard using perfectly good terms that have been corrupted by misuse (which, being that it's language and all, actually redefines it). I say that as someone who supports the reclaiming of the word "witch" to mean wise person (usually female) and not something that it often spelled with a capital "B".

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:42 PM

And you say small farms can't compete with large corporations with cheap ingredients. Well those corporations got large in the first place because of gov't intervention, and their crappy food is so cheap because the gov't subsidizes them so that they can sell it below the cost of production! Small domestic and 3rd world farmers get driven out of business and everyone blames the non-existent free market while crying to the gov't to save us from a problem it knowingly created. Makes sense, right? Now there's NAIS and the Food Safety bill to contend with. But thank God for government involvement!

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:18 PM

"Always" does not imply "ought." And I'm sorry, but yes, IF ONLY we had free markets. Central banking+income taxes+corporate subsidies+intellectual property enforcement+regulations which kill small business do not equal free market. That does not even come close. I agree that some people will act immorally if given the opportunity unchecked--one need only observe our government "protectors" for evidence of that--but Monsanto's and the banks' crimes are ENABLED by government regulation, not by some imaginary lack thereof. They're not unchecked, it's that government checks don't work.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:36 PM

And when the socialists fully take over, you'll be a vegetarian yet again!

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:18 PM

There will ALWAYS be government involvement to some degree. The libertarian battle cry is IF ONLY we had free markets. They look very nice in graphs and textbooks, but it simply doesn't transfer to reality. Why? Because people will act immorally if given the opportunity unchecked. Look at Standard Oil, Monsanto, and the banking system. You're right subsidies play a part, but those aside, there is no way small farms can compete on price points with large corporations that have cheap ingredients and economies of scale. So healthy, local food will always lose in a capitalistic environment.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:16 PM

I think you're confusing "libertarian" with "libertine." The message isn't "all the sex and drugs you want." It's simply, "sex and drugs, when participated in without aggression against another, are not crimes." Because there's no aggression involved, there's no justification for using aggression (the force of law) to stop it. But certainly it remains your right to refuse to associate with these kinds of people if you disapprove of them. Non-violent sex and drug use should be legal, according to libertarians, but it hardly follows that we all consider this necessary or moral behavior.

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:57 PM

And I for one, as someone considerably to your right, welcome you here Flag Gal. As I would anyone of of any political persuasion.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:55 PM

Mark is absolutely right. Our "food system" is as horrible as it is because of government intervention. Anyone calling for still more government intervention is shooting us all in the foot, because the government is doing everything in its power to exterminate small scale farms while consolidating total control of the food supply in the hands of a few multinational cronies. Anyone who thinks there is anything remotely "free market" about contemporary American agriculture has no clue as to what the term actually means.

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:54 PM

I made the definition vague because there has been lots of hoo-hah in the US press about what "socialism" is lately.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 07, 2010
at 02:48 PM

No, it means he believes that the state should control the means of production. You're describing authoritarianism, a feature of all governments.

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:56 PM

No, that just means you like to use political force to mandate "cooperation".

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:49 PM

It's government intervention and regulation that cause the problems you cite, not capitalism. Small local farms are being regulated out of existence, while big agribusiness gets subsidies from the government.

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:11 PM

If he could find a solution, I'd be happy for him to go right ahead and destroy it. I'm simply saying the free market doesn't work for this system and government intervention is necessary to some degree.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:59 AM

Here's the link to Diana Hsieh's Objectivist paleo blog: http://blog.modernpaleo.com/

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:45 AM

Milton Friedman would, I'm certain, devastate your straw man argument in short order.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:49 AM

I haven't been engaged in too many activities where Libertarians were prominent. There is even an Objectivist Paleo website.

  • A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

    asked by

    (699)
  • Views
    3.8K
  • Last Activity
    1262D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

28 Answers

9
8e75344356f4a455185ee52da0b90bf2

on May 07, 2010
at 12:38 PM

I'm a right-leaning Libertarian, myself. I have noticed that there seem to be more Libertarians in the Paleo community. I think it's that both Paleos and Libertarians tend to question the status quo whilst maintaining a good grasp on reality.

I also have noticed that every single vegan and most vegetarians that I have ever known were frothing liberals.

326ddac1e74e7e2d4dc7d0f4d0aacad0

(80)

on May 18, 2010
at 09:37 PM

I don't know of anyone who is paleo and libertarian, however I am also a paleo, right-leaning libertarian. Also, every vegan/vegetarian that I have met is a hard-core liberal.

8
C56bdadbc180bfd11b15eea1964825f7

on May 07, 2010
at 03:07 PM

I'm an f-ing pinko (or maybe "social democrat," with a degree in economics), not that I'm spoiling for a political debate, 'cause I'm not.

I think making generalizations of political philosophy based on how much meat I eat and how bloody I like it is just as misguided as making assumptions of what a crunchy granola eater believes.

The high profile libertarian-leaners in the paleo blog community are a serious turn-off for me. (My eyes got a few extra revolutions during the health care fiasco, but again, not spoiling for a fight.) But I'm able to keep my politics very separate from my diet and exercise, and I don't need one umbrella "philosophy of everything" to govern my entire life.

In short, is there a paleo-friendly translation for "get your chocolate out of my peanut butter?"

8
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on May 07, 2010
at 12:24 PM

I tend to vary politically based on issue and overall favor localized deregulated economies.

I find the general homogenization in public schools disturbing and even more so given the amount of flour and sugar shoved down our children's throats in the name of cheap lunch. I find the idea of sharing a health care plan with the large majority of people who seem to think that's OK...disturbing, but it's largely not their fault.

I also did my senior thesis in agricultural economics on the regulatory obstacles to local food, which are many, and keep us from healthy raw milk and pastured meat from small farms...while allowing large corporations free rein. Food regulation should be for situations where we can't examine things ourselves, not for small local farms.

I suggest everyone interested in local food and regulation check out Everything I Want to Do is Illegal.

7
6869a1f2294b3a717a53645589a91d18

(1689)

on May 08, 2010
at 01:33 AM

I think believing the entire government nutrition scheme to be almost completely backwards would incline one to see government as incapable, incompetent, dangerous and possibly corrupt (in the case of grain lobbying influence on gov nutrition recommendations and whatnot). which are values that would probably incline one towards desiring an unpowerful government (libertarianism).

7
Bee1be034ef8da3e1e5cf9587b8bb690

on May 07, 2010
at 03:04 AM

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I think there's a few Libertarian-leaning bloggers who get lots of attention, so that could make it seem like most paleo types are Libertarian.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:49 AM

I haven't been engaged in too many activities where Libertarians were prominent. There is even an Objectivist Paleo website.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:59 AM

Here's the link to Diana Hsieh's Objectivist paleo blog: http://blog.modernpaleo.com/

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:57 PM

And I for one, as someone considerably to your right, welcome you here Flag Gal. As I would anyone of of any political persuasion.

6
1c4ada15ca0635582c77dbd9b1317dbf

(2614)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:41 AM

I'm not a libertarian, but I am definitely a contrarian. I think the ability to challenge conventional wisdom in any field is extremely important. I just try and challenge every piece of information that comes my way, especially so when I sense lots of people and organisations with their own interests at heart feverishly defending a point.

6
703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

on May 07, 2010
at 05:06 AM

Becoming paleo has actually shaken my whole view of free markets. I was a libertarian economics major in college, but after studying the food system, I don't know how anyone in their right mind could agree that pure capitalism (if that exists) is a way to govern the global market for food. Whether it even should be global is another discussion entirely.

Read Raj Patel's Value of Nothing or check out this lecture for a nice dose of his humor and brilliance on the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfuwTPCmqE

If left to the devices of profit-motivated, outside the box thinking, corporate genius when it comes to the free market food system, we get....exactly what we have today. Huge efficiencies in production in terms of dollars, huge inefficiencies in terms of environmental impact. Huge profit efficiencies for corporations, huge inefficiencies for public health, health care, and overall welfare of the nation and world.

This particular system is broken and I'm curious how Milton Friedman would respond to it.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:45 AM

Milton Friedman would, I'm certain, devastate your straw man argument in short order.

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 07:25 PM

Give me a single example of a society that thrived with a free market in actual reality.... The truth is society and justice in this country is leaps ahead of most of human history. We have a huge level of personal freedom. You can complain all you want about some pie in sky world we should be living in, but the truth is we need to build on what we currently have and make it better. Like breaking ties between government and corporations. This will allow us to subsidize organic farmers, healthy school lunches, and renewable energy. Which is desparately needed to start changing things.

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:11 PM

If he could find a solution, I'd be happy for him to go right ahead and destroy it. I'm simply saying the free market doesn't work for this system and government intervention is necessary to some degree.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:55 PM

Mark is absolutely right. Our "food system" is as horrible as it is because of government intervention. Anyone calling for still more government intervention is shooting us all in the foot, because the government is doing everything in its power to exterminate small scale farms while consolidating total control of the food supply in the hands of a few multinational cronies. Anyone who thinks there is anything remotely "free market" about contemporary American agriculture has no clue as to what the term actually means.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:42 PM

And you say small farms can't compete with large corporations with cheap ingredients. Well those corporations got large in the first place because of gov't intervention, and their crappy food is so cheap because the gov't subsidizes them so that they can sell it below the cost of production! Small domestic and 3rd world farmers get driven out of business and everyone blames the non-existent free market while crying to the gov't to save us from a problem it knowingly created. Makes sense, right? Now there's NAIS and the Food Safety bill to contend with. But thank God for government involvement!

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:49 PM

It's government intervention and regulation that cause the problems you cite, not capitalism. Small local farms are being regulated out of existence, while big agribusiness gets subsidies from the government.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:18 PM

"Always" does not imply "ought." And I'm sorry, but yes, IF ONLY we had free markets. Central banking+income taxes+corporate subsidies+intellectual property enforcement+regulations which kill small business do not equal free market. That does not even come close. I agree that some people will act immorally if given the opportunity unchecked--one need only observe our government "protectors" for evidence of that--but Monsanto's and the banks' crimes are ENABLED by government regulation, not by some imaginary lack thereof. They're not unchecked, it's that government checks don't work.

703331bec3d551d21d2178f60c9963c1

(587)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:18 PM

There will ALWAYS be government involvement to some degree. The libertarian battle cry is IF ONLY we had free markets. They look very nice in graphs and textbooks, but it simply doesn't transfer to reality. Why? Because people will act immorally if given the opportunity unchecked. Look at Standard Oil, Monsanto, and the banking system. You're right subsidies play a part, but those aside, there is no way small farms can compete on price points with large corporations that have cheap ingredients and economies of scale. So healthy, local food will always lose in a capitalistic environment.

1ccc0b0b7a756cd42466cef8f450d0cb

(1801)

on July 03, 2011
at 02:37 AM

The problem is cyclical. Big Ag donates money to politicians through lobbying efforts - in turn the politicians reward them with more subsidies and eventually government positions, which ensures the cycle keeps going.

5
5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:28 AM

I'm a paleo-socialist. I like to cooperate with my fellow tribe members. :-)

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 07, 2010
at 07:10 PM

Heh, heh. Maybe I should say "communalist" or "communitarian"? It's really hard using perfectly good terms that have been corrupted by misuse (which, being that it's language and all, actually redefines it). I say that as someone who supports the reclaiming of the word "witch" to mean wise person (usually female) and not something that it often spelled with a capital "B".

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 04:54 PM

I made the definition vague because there has been lots of hoo-hah in the US press about what "socialism" is lately.

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 08, 2010
at 04:07 PM

It's also interesting that people can decide what I am like and what my social and political beliefs are based on a hyphenated quip!

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 08, 2010
at 04:08 PM

It's also interesting that people can decide what I am like and what my social and political beliefs are based on a hyphenated quip!

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 07, 2010
at 02:48 PM

No, it means he believes that the state should control the means of production. You're describing authoritarianism, a feature of all governments.

6f0efd477208f51d145bea6d7272256e

(627)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:56 PM

No, that just means you like to use political force to mandate "cooperation".

5841391284e7af8c495c54bd90d3a795

(2764)

on May 19, 2010
at 06:29 AM

Heh, heh. I *was* careful! :-)

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 18, 2010
at 11:05 PM

Gotta be careful with those political trigger-words! ;)

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:44 AM

"Socialist" does not mean the state should control the means of production. Neither does it mean that cooperation should be mandated by political force. It means workers should control the means of production. Anything else is the result of political force.

3
485bcefe7f1f7a6df1a293a826bf6137

on May 08, 2010
at 08:09 PM

I am conservative/libertarian and have found in my perusing message boards, that the paleo/zero carb crowd tend to lean that way and that vegetarians tend to be leftist. Virtually all veg. message boards have a section on global warming. Not so on Paleo/ZC. Very surprised at all the leftist paleos here. There's a disconnect there. I find it odd that people who can accept fact in one aspect of life continue to cling to fantasy in another--unless it's just a matter of being uninformed. I have always been a seeker of truth and have no problem rejecting any previously held agenda or paradigm if it can be proven incorrect or false.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 08, 2010
at 09:43 PM

I think it is reasonable that people may come here because of nutrition, politics aside. If you were leftist and realized grains are bad for you that may have started you down the path to paleo. Their whole world view isn't going to change because of it. I'm sure even the Libertarians and Republicans in Paleo have much disagreement.

3
71e732506be8f4c11426f35278417db9

(110)

on May 08, 2010
at 01:23 AM

My politics are social democrat. Too bad that party doesn't exist in the U.S.A. Anyway political attitudes have nothing to do with nutrition.

3
9f990e19ed2b5730278e33695df188e3

(149)

on May 07, 2010
at 06:45 PM

Researching nutrition led me to paleo/WAP led me to sustainable farming led me to Joel Salatin led me to libertarianism. The less government involved in our lives, telling us what to eat and what we can do on our own land, the better.

3
6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on May 07, 2010
at 01:55 PM

Since the paleo diet/lifestyle is not mainstream, the only way to learn about it is to read books and blogs. This means that the people who adopt it are intellectually curious, and probably have a contrarian bent as well. Since curious people come from all walks of life, I think that paleos would run the gamut of political persuasions. It would be interesting to test this with a poll of paleos.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 09, 2010
at 07:01 PM

A poll would certainly be more ideal than this platform.

3
38a5533adf905879c79cc3d7e3fb2aa0

on May 07, 2010
at 01:48 PM

I was a libertarian vegetarian and am now a socialist omnivore.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:36 PM

And when the socialists fully take over, you'll be a vegetarian yet again!

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 03, 2011
at 01:45 AM

Why? What does socialism have to do with vegetarianism? What's the point of flippant comments like this?

2
B25a8cb2c182fd259b95ac0cba88b0d6

on July 03, 2011
at 12:33 AM

Controversial, but maybe (just a thought) paleo diet leads to clearer thought, leads to libertarianism? I've suggested, half in jest, that we'll never fix our politics until we fix our blood sugar.

2
2ac40062935f569c9a86493f7177d2a0

on May 19, 2010
at 01:48 PM

While I typically hate this argument, I believe our neolithic ancestors were not of a political party nor cared about politics. They were too busy focusing on hunting, caring for families, shelter, etc. Seems I'm falling into this category more and more...

2
56e8e22796618ea3b817d4aae19c6e33

(474)

on May 18, 2010
at 08:16 PM

Yes, many paleos are pro-freedom, especially the big bloggers. Check out this list of prominent paleo-libertarians. And yes, it is definitely easier to abandon the conventional wisdom once you've already done it in economics and politics. Austro-libertarianism FTW!

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 20, 2010
at 05:12 AM

I am amazed that Crossfit leans Libertarian, too.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on May 18, 2010
at 08:50 PM

Hey, how come I am not on that list :'(

25b139cc1954456d9ea469e40f984cd3

on September 04, 2011
at 09:49 PM

Denise Minger would be a welcome addition, although she shirks labels and her diet is higher in fruit than most paleos...

2
D738a5b2a67f3c36518a2ac9f32d27af

on May 08, 2010
at 06:18 PM

I'm not interested in debating politics while looking for dietary advice, but for the record, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal treehugger. The political compass places me slightly to the left of Ghandi.

2
3f61ba25dff05b513c7769a22408169a

on May 07, 2010
at 03:33 PM

I'm a Conservative Republican with Libertarian leanings. A big believer in personal responsibility. Let me make my own decisions and I will deal with the consequences of those decisions, good or bad. I believe that is the essence of freedom. I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the presidential primary but I do vote for him in the congressional elections as my representative.

1
E86c378ce430bce31051765b04e8bf52

on July 31, 2013
at 09:08 PM

I'm a right-wing Libertarian (i.e. I value high rights - free speech, freedom of association, etc. over low rights - recreational drug use, sex perversion, etc.). I'm paleo all the way: Paleocon and Paleovore.

I think the previous poster was correct that the paleo diet appeals to Libertarian minded people because it questions the herd mentality but bases itself on reality.

I posit that all vegans are liberals. It's because one must be stuck-on-stupid to believe that humans should adopt this diet. Veganism has a creepy cult-like aspect to it, just as all liberal causes do.

The large majority of vegetarians are liberals or left-leaning centrists. A few conservatives are vegetarians are conservatives (perhaps due to concern over animal pain, or by their believing their moron doctors who push this diet). Another completely unnatural diet.

The SAD diet people are mostly conservatives because we have been eating this way for a long time, and conservatives, by default, will go with the old tried and true. The sad thing is that the saddest part of the SAD diet (never talked about in the msm) is the artificial chemicals and not the food itself. Bacon isn't bad for you; the nasty artificial chemicals in the bacon are bad for you.

A survey of ~5000 paleo dieters found that ~3/4 had bachelor's or graduate degrees, and almost all the rest had been to college. For such a "dumb" diet, a lot of smart people adhere to it. Smart people question things, observe reality, and change their opinions when facts dictate they should. You will never find a dumb Ron Paul supporter, and you will never find a dumb Paleovore.

1
C53665c3f012fa1ede91033b08a8a6e7

(2269)

on May 09, 2010
at 06:25 PM

I'd say I'm a libertarian liberal, if that makes any sense: the former because much government meddling is completely unnecessary and the latter because some lack of the former often leads to complete failure of the social contract; witness Thursday's market blow-up which was completely engineered by Wall St to scare the bejesus out of the Feds and retail investors (if there are any of those left). In other words, some regulation is essential: when it comes to the economy, our health, and well-being, I want someone in charge with the power to prosecute and punish.

I don't want gov't taking over my personal responsibility, on the other hand. I can take care of myself. Going primal really reinforced the notion that we're all being lied to, to a greater or lesser extent, by those who have a vested interest in retaining power and/or wealth, and usually both.

National US food policy was ruined by Earl Butz in the early 1970s (under Nixon). Both parties earn a big FAIL on this as they both perpetuate the bloat and poison of Big Ag. USDA and FDA have both lost their way; they're supposed to protect us from bad food, but they perpetuate the food-pyramid nonsense which only benefits Big Ag and aren't interested in regulation that benefits the rest of us.

A1a4882d31414600b2cab395a5b17161

(699)

on May 09, 2010
at 06:58 PM

Yet you want the people who are lying to you about health to be in charge and have the authority to prosecute others to achieve your well-being?

1
03aeff8d87a3b53a449b5b8e9158da98

(3268)

on May 07, 2010
at 02:02 AM

I think you are on to something.

I'm a conservative Republican... but sympathetic to Libertarians. My main complaint is that they tend to throw the baby out with the bong-water, so to speak. I'm definitely down with the free markets, limited government, and individual freedom. Not so much when libertarians argue that "freedom" means all the sex and drugs you want. This comes too close to what Plato described as "the city of pigs."

I think that compared to the massive control the government has over our lives today, Abe Lincoln and James Madison are pretty "libertarian"--but without equating liberty with amoral hedonism.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 07, 2010
at 05:16 PM

I think you're confusing "libertarian" with "libertine." The message isn't "all the sex and drugs you want." It's simply, "sex and drugs, when participated in without aggression against another, are not crimes." Because there's no aggression involved, there's no justification for using aggression (the force of law) to stop it. But certainly it remains your right to refuse to associate with these kinds of people if you disapprove of them. Non-violent sex and drug use should be legal, according to libertarians, but it hardly follows that we all consider this necessary or moral behavior.

0
08ce57b1bbb3bda8e384234389c36d94

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

I believe the ruling class has conspired to feed us false information about nutrition, national politics and world events.

They don't care about us other than how they can exploit us for their own materialistic gain.

The push in the late 60's and early 70's to demonize saturated fat was a calculated effort by the multi-national agricultural industries and the people who profit from them to induce the population to consume ungodly amounts of cheap manufactured grains, sugars and highly processed and profitable food like substances. They knew very well such a scheme would make us morbidly obese and chronically ill. Enter Big Pharma, medicine and insurance to scoop up even more dollars at the expense of our misery.

P.S. War is a racket, JFK was not assassinated by a lone gunman, I have my doubts about the moon landings and 9/11 was an orchestrated inside job. You can take that to the bank.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on May 08, 2010
at 08:37 PM

and the whole paleo movement is a conspiracy by the meat industry...:P

0
229faa9f9cb551cbf9d1d766b84cf8f5

on August 12, 2013
at 04:30 PM

Yes, the libertarian party was founded in 100,000 B.C.E, where Ardipithecus ramidus founded the party and mandated that all future generations who pretend to eat the same way as their ancestors be associated with it.

0
6fece842bd1bcf5724f458a302a2156e

on August 12, 2013
at 08:07 AM

I think the thread shows you cannot generalise like that as people differ. I call myself a libertarian feminist capitalist which means in the UK there tends to be very few people who share all my views. I do not think how I eat relates to my politics or other views, however. It is simply the result of (a) how I was as a teenager - into being natural, wild, desert islands etc etc... and (b) my reading since and (c ) how good I feel when I eat and my long standing sugar addiction which will always be there even now I don't eat sugar.

0
F1df35298ab5706c55cdfe0488c6f859

on August 12, 2013
at 07:57 AM

Not wild about labels in either case but the connection I see is the way of thinking. Thinking about human affairs from the starting point of human nature tends to lead towards something approaching libertarianism - no coercion, voluntary interaction and mutually beneficial transactions between essentially equal individuals. Other doctrines tend to work back from a vision of how it's proponents believe things should be and work back from tuere, removing perceived obstacles to equality, piety, military might or whatever the doctrine desires.

Similarly if you think about human diet and exercise from a rational start point then it's simply logical to attempt an approximation of how our ancestors lived for most of human history. Conversely at it's most simplistic if you start with the desire to be thinner then not eating fat seems like an obvious course of action.

0
80907be4d1d36c3d89ed339986a07411

on July 31, 2013
at 09:24 PM

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. (Unfortuantely my state NY went with Obama instead).

0
Bfddc0ab925c8ea0e0c2e87198514907

on July 31, 2013
at 09:15 PM

I think you can argue that civilisation has always been about the few pulling the wool over the eyes of the many

0
Ce0b5fd94b1034e96cf710b6f138c29d

on May 07, 2010
at 07:07 PM

I used to vote Green (for lack of a decent Canadian trout supremacist party) until they came out in support of a handgun ban in cities and in support of Canada`s firearms registry.

I suppose that if you locked up the Libertarians, Greens, anarchists, and progressives up in a room and didn't let them out until they'd hammered out a common party platform you might get something approaching my politics.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!