Paleo-Libertarian Connection

[PaleoPhil]

Being a Paleo dieter of libertarian orientation (and former Libertarian USA party member--European libertarianism is different), I found it interesting over the years to notice the high proportion of libertarians within the broad Paleo diet movement. Could my own libertarianism have been part of the reason I was open to this way of eating? Now there's a new forum for people who share this connection...

Announcement of the formation of the Paleo-Libertarian forum: http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/discussion-list-for-liberty-minded-paleos.html

Who's who of paleo-libertarians        
http://groups.google.com/group/paleo-libertarian/web/whos-who-of-paleo-libertarians
      
Kurt G. Harris, MD
www.paleonu.com
Kurt is an Austro-libertarian and a top paleo health blogger.
Richard Nikoley
www.freetheanimal.com
Richard is a libertarian anarchist and a fiery paleo health blogger.
Michael R. Eades, MD
www.proteinpower.com/drmike
Arguably the biggest name in the modern paleo health revival. He and his wife wrote the bestselling book Protein Power. He leans libertarian.
Tom Naughton
www.fathead-movie.com
Tom made the great comedy-documentary Fathead, in which he humbles Morgan Spurlock by eating nothing but fast food for 30 days and losing weight (hint: he goes low-carb).
Karen De Coster
karendecoster.com
A libertarian-anarchist, technically a paleo-paleolibertarian!
Crossfit
www.crossfit.com
The Crossfit community is pretty solidly paleo and generally libertarian.

[These are not fully raw dieters, which is why I posted this in hot topics.]

[SkinnyDevil]

Interesting. I wonder if Mel Gibson & other Hollywood types who have recently embraced paleo-esque eating are becoming more libertarian.

I also wonder if it's paleo to libertarian or libertarian to paleo?

I am extremely libertarian...libertarian-anarchist, as you say, or anarcho-individualist. That said, I'm not certain that eating habits reflect (or direct) political philosophies. But I'm not certain there is no connection at all, either.

[TylerDurden]

Interesting. I wonder if Mel Gibson & other Hollywood types who have recently embraced paleo-esque eating are becoming more libertarian.

I also wonder if it's paleo to libertarian or libertarian to paleo?

I am extremely libertarian...libertarian-anarchist, as you say, or anarcho-individualist. That said, I'm not certain that eating habits reflect (or direct) political philosophies. But I'm not certain there is no connection at all, either.

I don't see any connection between politics and diet. People feature all over the spectrum. As for Mel Gibson, he's a hardline traditionalist Catholic(despite not adhering to his marriage vows but anyway), so is hardly libertarian in his views.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, I'd never heard of the term"paleolibertarian" before. I had however heard vaguely of the term "paleoconservative" at times, which, judging from wikipedia, does seem to reflect  a number of my views, though definitely not all.

[SkinnyDevil]

Tyler,

I think the term "paleo conservative" is meant only to contrast "neo conservative" with no connection to the way the term is used for eating habits or anything else. "Paleo" as in "old"; traditional conservatives.

With a name like Tyler Durden, shouldn't you be embracing anarcho-primitivism anyway? Hahaha!

[TylerDurden]

Tyler,

I think the term "paleo conservative" is meant only to contrast "neo conservative" with no connection to the way the term is used for eating habits or anything else. "Paleo" as in "old"; traditional conservatives.

I'm aware of that, but since paleoconservatives by definition are more interested in much older, traditional values they would be far more likely to be "paleodiet-oriented"(the oldest diet there is) than those from  a more socialist or freedom-related orientation(socialists, by definition, would want to ban all fringe groups and get everyone to eat the same (government-recommended) diet, while libertarians would want everyone to eat whatever they damned well liked , even if it's unhealthy junk-food).

With a name like Tyler Durden, shouldn't you be embracing anarcho-primitivism anyway? Hahaha!

Well, actually anarcho-primitivists have steadily moved away from the traditional "Left-wing" view of anarchism which was  a sort of more benevolent, more honest version of state-controlled Communism.They seem nowadays to be promoting a more authentic, rightwing(dog-eat-dog) kind of anarchy, which is more in line with true Chaos - the latter being more in line with TylerDurden's teachings. And economic freedom which is in the Rightwing camp also seems to endorse the dog-eat-dog/every-man-for-himself anarchist approach.

[PaleoPhil]

I don't see any connection between politics and diet. People feature all over the spectrum. As for Mel Gibson, he's a hardline traditionalist Catholic(despite not adhering to his marriage vows but anyway), so is hardly libertarian in his views.

I don't know Mel Gibson's political views, but libertarianism in the USA tends to lean more socially conservative than in the UK. For example, Howard Ruff calls himself a libertarian despite being a practicing Mormon, opposing legalized abortion and homosexuality, etc. There are some UK-style libertarians here too, though.

[Raw Kyle]

At around the same time I went from being a communist vegetarian to a libertarian or anarco-libertarian raw meat eater. Although not consciously, looking back on it they appear now very strongly correlated in my personal changes. That is to say that the one changing was correlated strongly in time and in changing attitudes with the other, like an idea brought on thinking about politics would make me consider something diet related, or vice versa.

crackpot theory based on my experience - vegetarians are weaker and therefore need to work collectively to survive, while meat eaters or hunter gatherers have the strength to survive as individuals or smaller groups.

[SkinnyDevil]

crackpot theory based on my experience - vegetarians are weaker and therefore need to work collectively to survive, while meat eaters or hunter gatherers have the strength to survive as individuals or smaller groups.

You'd have to do a LOT of research to back that one.

Perhaps folks like Robert Cheeke and Tonya Kay and other raw vegan (or even just vegan or vegetarian) athletes are exceptions rather than the rule. Though I am uninformed with regard to their politics, they are certainly capable of working alone or in small groups.

Conversely, I am sure you could find a fair share of paleo & raw paleo folk who subscribe to some form of collectivism.

That said, you could certainly do an informal poll here and at, say, GITMR and see what you get. The results would be interesting to say the least.

[PaleoPhil]

I predict you'd find that there is a higher percentage of libertarians here than there and a higher percentage of Communists and other far-leftists there than here, though not necessarily a majority in either case--not everyone fits the stereotypes of course.

I think Nassim Taleb might qualify as another prominent Paleo-libertarian, if the below quotes are correct. I know he was trying to follow Art DeVany's version of a Paleo diet, though he must not have been sticking to it strictly the last time I saw his image, because he had added a lot of body fat--though that is very understandable, given his hectic schedule and extensive traveling at the time.

"NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB is a libertarian (and a libertine)... ." The axeman cometh.(The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable)(Book review), National Review | June 25, 2007| Gilder, George, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-164830934.html

"Taleb criticizes Obama specifically and forcefully, and admits publicly to his own Libertarian leanings." http://dailybail.com/home/ratigan-nassim-taleb-on-the-idiocy-of-cash-for-clunkers-and.html

[moises]

Mel Gibson makes antisemitic remarks when drunk. Does this tarnish all paleos or paleolibertarians?

According to Kwasniewski's book, Homo Optimus (p. 77), Frederick Engels, the coauthor of The Communist Manifesto, wrote (in another work):

What, which in the beginning was cultivated exclusively for animal fodder, soon became fodder for the people. Thus, human animals were invented, the slaves.

So, was Engels actually a closet Libertarian?

I adhere to the old-fashioned belief that there is a world that exists independently of our beliefs about it. I further believe that science is able to learn about that world, and that the information that scientists obtain about that world can be assessed independently of the political/religious/social or other beliefs held by those scientists. I happen to be an atheist, but I believe that there is much that I can learn from theists about things nonreligious. To believe otherwise is to fall victim to the ad hominem fallacy. The value of any proposition does not depend on the personal facts about the person who states that proposition. To fall victim to that fallacy is to deny yourself the benefit of much that is valuable.

[PaleoPhil]

Mel Gibson makes antisemitic remarks when drunk.

No one mentioned Gibson's antisemitic remarks. Tyler just referred to Gibsons' particular brand of Catholic views.

Does this tarnish all paleos or paleolibertarians?

Do you believe that because one person says something that it somehow tarnishes anyone who shares the same label?

So, was Engels actually a closet Libertarian?

What do you think?

[moises]

PaleoPhil,

I agree with your comment about Tyler and Gibson.

I agree that dietary beliefs, like most beliefs, can, and usually should, be examined independently from our examination of "anyone who shares the same label."

I think that Engels represents a person who has views that contradict the views of libertarianism, in many respects. That is my political perspective. If you would like, we can discuss why I believe that is so. But, despite Engels's political disagreement with libertarianism he allegedly believes (Kwasniewski gives no citation) that wheat is not fit for human consumption. This is a belief that is consistent with some forms of paleo nutrition.

Since Engels's political beliefs contradict libertarianism and his nutritional beliefs seem to be in harmony with "paleoism," I conclude that we can examine a person's political beliefs independently of our examination of their nutritional beliefs.

Of course, there are cases where my conclusion, stated above, is clearly false. One could establish a Vegetarian Party or a Carnivore Party. And, in fact, diet is political. Some Greens claim that carnivorism is bad for the planet and some carnivores believe that grain-based monoculture is bad for the planet. But I see these politico-nutritional debates as orthogonal to, or independent of, the political conflict between communism and libertarianism. And in fact, both the grain-eaters and carnivores oppose each other nutritionally, while they both claim to adhere to earth-friendly, or Green, values.

I do not think that there is a necessary connection between libertarianism and grain-consumption. Likewise I see no necessary connection between communism and grain consumption.

Of course, I agree with Tyler that it is always interesting to find celebrities who embrace raw paleo and try to make some generalizations about them. But I thought he was suggesting that the connection between their politics and nutrition was not accidental, but, rather that there was something about paleo-raw that leads one to libertarianism, or vice versa. If that is the case, I would like to hear more about that connection. So far, I remain unconvinced. So far, I still think that any connection between politics and nutrition is accidental, not necessary.

One might want to argue that rawism is greener than cookism. It seems that you could make a strong case for that.

Of course, I might be missing something. Your questions have prompted me to think about this in greater depth than I did in my initial post. Thanks.

[PaleoPhil]

...I think that Engels represents a person who has views that contradict the views of libertarianism, in many respects.

I agree

...wheat is not fit for human consumption. This is a belief that is consistent with some forms of paleo nutrition.

I would say it is essentially consistent with all forms of Paleo nutrition I'm aware of. The WAPF disagrees with it, but I've never seen them claim to support Paleo nutrition. They talk instead about "traditional" nutrition.

Since Engels's political beliefs contradict libertarianism and his nutritional beliefs seem to be in harmony with "paleoism," I conclude that we can examine a person's political beliefs independently of our examination of their nutritional beliefs.

I conclude the same, based on the information you provided. This thread is only about an apparent correlation between Paleo dieters and libertarian leanings, not an absolute connection, and I rarely speak in terms of absolutes. To me it seems that science rarely deals with absolutes. When practiced correctly, science avoids absolutism. I haven't drawn any conclusions yet about what this apparent correlation between Paleo dieters and libertarian views means. I'm in the pondering stage at this point.

Of course, I might be missing something. Your questions have prompted me to think about this in greater depth than I did in my initial post. Thanks.

You're welcome. I'll do a poll to put my hypothesis of a correlation to the test. First, I'll get feedback on the poll questions, to make sure they're not loaded. How is this:

Choose your political orientation on the anarchy to totalitarianism scale (please only participate if you consider yourself a Paleo dieter--including both cooked and raw):

anarchist
libertarian purist
libertarian-leaning
moderate/mixed
statist/progressive-leaning
statist/progressive purist
totalitarian

[moises]

I wrote my last post and then went to eat my lunch. While I was eating, some new thoughts relevant to this conversation occurred to me.

Tyler recently made a post (I don't yet know how to link to a specific post on this forum, or I would) about survivorship bias, ZC, and ZIOH, that I thought was dead on. As I was eating my beef ribeye a few minutes ago, I thought that he had some ideas there that were relevant to this thread.

In the other thread Tyler described the ZIOH board as "Stalinist." Having had some experience with Stalinist organizations as well as some slight study of history, I think that Tyler's description is apt. There is no commitment on the ZIOH board to the belief that everyone's ideas are sharpened and improved when they are subject to open criticism. Instead, there is a party line that is not to be broached and there is what might be termed a Stalinist cult of personality centered around the board's owner. Some people were explicitly told by moderators to butt out of threads because they had no business contributing to the discussion.

In the internet age, I think the idea that people can be so rigidly controlled is a pipe-dream. Although I do acknowledge that anyone has the right to create their own forum in accordance with whatever rules they choose. It just strikes me as self-defeating to control tightly permissible and nonpermissible ideas (I do understand the need to establish rules of civility and decorum).

If my ideas are superior, then let me defend them against all comers. If my ideas are flawed, then let others aid me by pointing out the flaws.

I came to this forum after some Googling on A1c lab values. After doing some reading here, I was attracted to the openness I found here, in contrast to the narrowness and rigidity I found at ZIOH.

So there might be some kind of self-selection here. One could argue that this forum's rules of engagement, so to speak, are inherently libertarian, and people, like me, who come to this forum, already have a preexisting bias towards freedom of expression. Thus, it might be the case that a poll would show that many people here are on the libertarian side of the spectrum. If one were a libertarian, I wonder how long one could remain an active member of a forum run along Stalinist principles.

The thing is, I am not sure that most people are very much concerned about the consistency of all their beliefs. From the discussions I read on ZIOH, I would guess that there was more support expressed there for libertarian sociopolitical forms than not. I tolerated the Stalinism there, for a few months, because there was some good information that I wanted to and ZIOH that seemed to be the center for all things ZC. My problem was that I kept running up against the controlling powers, at which point I recognized that I could not, in good conscience, remain a member of a community the principles of which were so antithetical to my own.

As far as your poll goes, does anyone describe herself as totalitarian? I have never met a socialist who would. I never got close to any fascists, but I kind of doubt that they overtly described themselves as totalitarian either.

Your suggested poll has prompted some additional thoughts. I make a distinction between politics and economics. I highly value the free expression of conflicting ideas in the public sphere. I oppose state interventions to limit free speech, assembly, and the like. So, I suppose, by your labels, that makes me a libertarian. But, in the economic sphere, I have no problem with state intervention, with the caveat that the state be democratically controlled. I believe that this democratic control is possible only if there are strict rules in place guaranteeing individuals the freedom to speak and organize. So, am I a statist or a libertarian? I am guessing that you would suggest that I check one of the statist options. If my guess is correct, then it seems to me that you would be concerned not primarily about politics but about economics. If so, I think it would be helpful to make it explicit that the poll as asking about economic beliefs.

[TylerDurden]

Of course, I agree with Tyler that it is always interesting to find celebrities who embrace raw paleo and try to make some generalizations about them. But I thought he was suggesting that the connection between their politics and nutrition was not accidental, but, rather that there was something about paleo-raw that leads one to libertarianism, or vice versa. If that is the case, I would like to hear more about that connection. So far, I remain unconvinced. So far, I still think that any connection between politics and nutrition is accidental, not necessary.

Actually, I said no such thing. What I'd said, originally, was that I didn't think that there was ANY connection between politics and diet - but that even if there really was one, logically, one would assume that socialists would want everyone to follow the same (government-recommended) diet, while freedom-loving Libertarians would actually want everyone to eat whatever they wanted, even if it was junk-food, while paleoConservatives would presumably be more inclined to older styles of eating, such as the palaeolithic diet, given that they like sticking to more ancient traditions, generally.

It was Paleophil who was suggesting a connection between Libertarianism and palaeo diets.

As for mention of celebrities, I think it's important to mention celebrities who've done our kind of diet. While most of us, like me, couldn't care less, a few people who are queasy about the whole raw issue might feel reassured if Madonna or the Pope or whatever practised our kind of diet.

[TylerDurden]

I don't really see how one can define politics these days. I would probably be happy with the very limited standard left-right political spectrum which doesn't necessarily distinguish between freedom and totalitarianism or the Statist/individualist economic approach(there are, after all, rightwing Conservatives in favour of state-controlled economies, leftwing socialists who are in favour of less government control  etc.). On the other hand, I gather Libertarians and others strongly resist this approach and prefer not just 1, but  2 or 3 or even 4 axes of alignment. Up to you.

[PaleoPhil]

....As for mention of celebrities, I think it's important to mention celebrities who've done our kind of diet. While most of us, like me, couldn't care less, a few people who are queasy about the whole raw issue might feel reassured if Madonna or the Pope or whatever practised our kind of diet.

Unfortunately, I think you are spot on here, Tyler. The masses seem to be far more influenced by the opinions and experiences of celebrities like Oprah Winfrey than the results of studies or examinations of Paleolithic remains. You'll know that the RPD has made it into the mainstream when some mega-celebrities that people follow like lemmings adopt it. Mel Gibson is influential, but not nearly to the extent of Oprah or some other celebrities that people seem to more readily imitate. Plus, Oprah recommends diets to people, whereas Mel is generally private about it.

As for the poll, yes I know that the choices are imperfect. I couldn't think of better terms off hand and I'm limited to a single axis by the nature of a simple poll. Trying to add another axis seems to complex to me, but I'm open to suggestions. That's why I solicited feedback. Please suggest alternatives: ______________________

[TylerDurden]

Well, you seem only interested in the libertarian angle so that axis would do for you, I guess. But there are so many different takes on libertarianism/totalitarianism - for example, I might favour a policy of libertarianism as regards the economy or ID-card issues(big thing in the UK, right now) but might prefer a totalitarian approach in which big government forces everyone to go rawpalaeo!

[PaleoPhil]

Well, you seem only interested in the libertarian angle

Correct, that's my focus for the purposes of this poll--the interesting apparently level of libertarian-minded people that seem to exist in Paleo diet circles at a far higher rate than in the general public (where our representation is pretty small, as I recall). This could be just a factor of the Internet, since Web users are well known to include a higher level of liberatarian-oriented people than the general populace, but we can correct for that by conducting the same poll at a vegetarian-oriented site.

Again, suggest any alternatives you wish. I'm more interested in constructive alternatives than naked critiques. I'm not thrilled with the terms I chose but as yet can't think of better ones. Other alternatives I considered, such as liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, etc., only seem to muddle things further.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I had a look at the political spectrum compass, and it pointed out that all such axes have their inherent bias(I pointed out how the same person can be libertarian in some aspects and yet totalitarian on other subjects). I suppose you could for now have a totalitarian/libertarian axis, but it will depend entirely on each person interprets what the axis actually means.

My view would be to simply write down every possible political combination such as free-market conservatives(Milton Friedman-types who favour liberal economic policies but conservative social laws - a contradiction in terms if one is just doing the libertarian/authoritarian axis), leftwing social anarchists,communists, maoists(are they different from communists?), unaligned Libertarians, social democrats, fascists, centrists, old-style paleoConservatives, Neocons  etc. Even the rarer political views, such as those held by religious fundamentalists will invariably fit in with 1 of the 25-30(?) different political alignments on the traditional left-right spectrum(eg:- marxist liberation theology with the marxists, traditional christian churches with the old-style conservatives etc.)

[PaleoPhil]

OK, I can add those categories, though I think this might make things too complex, but perhaps we can still simplify by grouping them and balancing with a few others:

anarchist
leftwing social anarchist
rightwing anarchist

libertarian
free-market conservative
libertine
free market green

centrist/moderate/mixed

Neocon
traditional values conservative (aka old style Paleo-conservative)
social democrat
Green social democrat
progressive

socialist
statist

religious fundamentalist
royalist
authoritarian
fascist
communist
Maoist
totalitarian

(No order will be perfect, of course, but I'm going to have to put them in a linear order for the poll.)

[TylerDurden]

You can leave out the Maoist as an alignment - I should have realised , it's just Marxism with a greater emphasis on the peasants.

Hmm, looking at the current terms, my beliefs could easily apply to several of them - ah well! If you have any other notions re political viewpoints not covered, feel free to mention them - good to see you've cited royalists, as that was one obvious political faction I hadn't thought of(and I should have , given my admiration of Prince Charles by comparison to the decidedly low regard I have for elected UK officials)

[PaleoPhil]

You can leave out the Maoist as an alignment - I should have realised , it's just Marxism with a greater emphasis on the peasants.

Hmm, looking at the current terms, my beliefs could easily apply to several of them - ah well! If you have any other notions re political viewpoints not covered, feel free to mention them - good to see you've cited royalists, as that was one obvious political faction I hadn't thought of(and I should have , given my admiration of Prince Charles by comparison to the decidedly low regard I have for elected UK officials)

OK, I'll try grouping them then.

I'm not a royalist, but I do have to admit that I find myself agreeing with some of Prince Charles' views and architectural tastes.


pure anarchist

leftwing social anarchist, rightwing anarchist

libertarian

free-market conservative, libertine, free market green, Objectivist

centrist/moderate/mixed

Neocon, traditional values conservative (aka old style Paleo-conservative), social democrat, Green social democrat, progressive

socialist, statist

religious fundamentalist, royalist, authoritarian, fascist, communist, Maoist

totalitarian

[TylerDurden]

Still think you should delete Maoists as that would unnecessarily increase options, and I don't think royalists would appreciate being lumped together with fascists, let alone Communists etc.. Better keep them all separate from each other(I believe the polling option allows innumerable choices). When I said that my beliefs seemed all over the place, I meant having both leftwing and rightwing views, both totalitarian and libertarian views etc.