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

[Kyle M]

jag, have you read any economics books? Even Marx's original writings? To simply state that socialism is better for the workers, because the writers that advocate it say so, is highly naive. This has never been demonstrated so, and even countries like Sweden, which built up it's capital and became wealthy under laissez-faire https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich, lost it's rankings in income and wealth under welfarism and has been slowly rolling those policies back since the 1990s. The wealth experienced in the here and now is an outcome of the policies of the recent and mid term past, so often a wealthy nation like Sweden and now the USA embarks on socialist policies that seem to help people, but in reality simply consume the capital stock and borrow for consumption today against consumption in the future (national debt). These are basic economic tenets that you seem altogether ignorant of, simply spouting off socialist rhetoric that it's better for the workers. Anyone can simply say their system is better for the workers, or the whoever, it's a meaningless, content-free assertion. The wealthiest workers have always and will always be the ones living under the most laissez-faire systems.

 

[Drareg]

Every tribe, civilisation or group of humans in history has had a central group which takes actions on behalf of the wider group. Whether that's in small or large civilisations. You're in total fantasy world where you start from time zero again.

Name some examples in history where non-governmental action successfully started building major infrastructure projects for example. Kicked things off.

Your fantasy land may as well say that human impulses and bad actions are taken away, and we have peace on Earth. How would you undo 1000s of years of history and development? Where would you start from?



Who sets the rules (law) in your fictional world? A central body aka a government? Who funds them? Who elects them?



Again back to your "very simple" outcomes. Remove government and everything would be fixed etc. Would you scrap all property and start again? If not, then you're not starting from a level playing field since the governments would have been hugely responsible over the last 200-3000 years in determining who got private ownership of certain capital.

Ivory communism? WTF are you talking about. There's a value that people place on Ivory in one country, there's a limited supply of them, the value alive is not equated to the value of them dead and shorn of their tusks, so the profit motive exists to hunt them to extinction. Only some central organisation that can take into account non-economic costs can have an impact here.



As above, major advances were led by a centralised group acting on behalf of the people. Your'e also back on your binary examples - either Rule of Law or Not Rule of Law, like it's not a sliding scale, and subject to change. Also, centralised governments instituted rule of law. The US provided a totally unique example of a genuine clean slate - time zero - but being able to use the history of learnings from 1000s of years of European development right back from Rome to the English system of law. And yet look back on the amount of blood shed and illegal action over capital acquisition. Your binary fantasy world can never exist.



You're confused between capital and cash. Your link between property rights and rape is bizarre in the least. The whole point with owning capital is that you advance far ahead of those without the capital. It's flawed, but necessary. I'm not arguing remotely against capital ownership, I've spent a lot of time in Africa and seen first hand what happens without property rights, but giving absolute advantage to those who happen to come first and stake a claim makes it harder and harder for those to catch up.

I've sort of given up even trying to form sentences in response to your comments, they're so randomly written down without any link to reality.

Statements like "it's clear that...", "it's simple...", "it's obvious..", "taxes are theft" don't help to make your point, they weaken your points. You're 1 or 0 on incredibly broad areas.

Nothing in the world of humans is clear, obvious or simple. Everything is nuanced and grey (gray).

Kyle M has been creating strawmans since he started on this forum, it's regurgitation from others work that fits his projective need. He is reading too much and needs to spew the information so he makes up things you didn't say.
He never starts a thread on these views just hijacks other threads with mainly strawmans.
He has in the past claimed their is evidence for women and the downfall of civilisation yet provided no evidence.
I believe he is also part of the IQ heritability brigade on here that do not provide good evidence nor start any thread on this topic.

He takes the tone of superiority when his lack of logic is put to him and will ignore you thereafter.

He constantly try's to hammer home capitalist government are violent etc yet does not acknowledge that it's an individual or small group who are writing the legislation ,let's call them psychopaths.
The force used by the cops is because of the legislation written,no force is being used for cannabis use in Colorado as the legislation was re-written,many examples and potentials like this.
Does Kyle M believe psychopaths go away in his believe/rule system,the rule being libertarian? It is still a rule?
Does Kyle M believe in his system humans will do good and not be psychopaths?
Kyle M is essentially a capitilst looking for less rules,the failed capitalist mentality surfaces again,not surprising you mention stefan molyneaux.

He is stuck in the past regurgitating systems that will also fail at some point,probably last a touch longer than capitalist or communist but still fails.

Overall this regurgitation of historic ideas as the way forward is a sign of the lack of creativity and ideas for a new way forward.

 

[Drareg]

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

I like your response here,it creates the illusion of wink wink superiority without any depth to back it up.
You have spent time reading said projected socialist posts yet have no courage to engage and refute the points made.

I just had to say.....

 

[Drareg]

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.

Hi Dave,
In relation to this video I have a few questions-
It's a road he speaks which implies it has several areas to cross being a road and all, is it likely that removal of traffic lights and pedestrian crossings caused people to stop crossing the road because they deemed less safe without predetermined crossing or traffic lights?

Did somebody count the average amount of people crossing said roads before and after removal of CAPITILST STATIST RULING SYTEMSSSS!!!!!!! perhaps less people would cross in those areas because they are dangerous and took the long way round so to speak.

Could it not have been acknowledged that they could have found a better spot for said pedestrian crossings and traffic lights?

More collisions in those areas he says no? He brushes over this and using the said planners quote to say that they should be encouraged?
This guy molyneaux does the following beahvior a lot,criticises traffic planners then praises them,same system the praised guys are in that molyneaux loathes, it's the evil capitalist system that allowed them to change the road planning to reduce deaths yet molyneaux twists it's as an argument against government of anykind.

The fact that so many road accidents happened in 2002-2003 means more people were aware of issues in this area,it's likely many other things like police presence was there along with possibly advertising campaigns to slow down. People become more aware perceptions change.Pattern Formations.
This can also account for less deaths along with traffic lights.


A lot of these junctions were designed for younger children at the age of going to school on their own particularly in small towns. Just because a few planners lacking creativity messed up some areas doesn't mean these ideas have no merit,living in a busy area without traffic lights will make driving more stress full.

Drivers drive more dangerously with seat belts? When ever his argument/points lack logic or depth he uses hyperbole and poor metaphor.
He then in the same breath say the seatbelt a reduce the danger.
He says seatbelt wearing drivers don't injure themselves as much but injure other drivers more? The other drivers wear setabelts? The impression he is trying to convey with this hyperbole is a manic with a seatbelt on smashing to death another car because where a seatbelt turns you into a Maniac,how to you deduce this in a study?

He says since the introduction of seat belts pedestrians have been killed in higher numbers, the seatbelt was invented in 1959 I think? This is generation of baby boomers where all the manic consumption started,consumption which included cars,cars,cars everywhere,more cars Stefan faster then the roads could take or adjust,this road issue was the governments fault in his eyes I'm sure.
More cars will increase the likelyhood of more accidents,why can't he see this?
He then at the end of this claims things aren't as simple as they seem or we wouldn't need philosophy? This is his stream of consciousness in that sentence,makes terrible arguments and metaphor then alludes/associates with philosophy for his superior reasoning capacity,something tell me he is a Nietzsche "fan".

In relation to his pregnancy classes he claimed nobody will do classes privately while the government give it away for free,these private classes are present and he is exaggerating this point to suit his agenda.

He said he quit his career to focus on educating the poor,he says the email guy thanked him because this stuff is waking his brain as he didn't go to college ,by molyneaux logic not going to government college should make this guy more intelligent and not need molyneaux!
Molyneaux logic then is the people help the poor,not government,the people,let's say that again the people help the government help the poor,the government contain streams of pathological power mad conciousness like Stefan molyneaux creating policy for educating the poor. Stefan Molyneaux wants to govern your education poor man, what is difference with the above?
With the internet people can choose what they want for education,many homes have Internet and it's coming everywhere soon,the Internet came from the system molyneaux loathes.

He gives it away for free,podcasts for free free free, and then throws in come to my talk in Philadelphia,keep in mind he also takes donations.
The taking of donations is the rise of the new internet YouTube ,blogger charlatan,some already using Peats work for this.

This guy is Another failed capitalist turned intellectual imo, all regurgitation for the sake of his ego which is desperate to feel good after capitalist dreams slumbered by the wayside.There is more to capitalist dreams than claims of selling a software company.
He is full of rage hiding under the mask of intellectualism.

Turn off the sound in his videos and view his manner from a biological perspective,his irritability and rage are nauseating. Post any video on this guy and I will take the time to highlight his pathological spiel ,he is a conman.

 

[aquaman]

Turn off the sound in his videos and view his manner from a biological perspective,his irritability and rage are nauseating. Post any video on this guy and I will take the time to highlight his pathological spiel ,he is a conman.

I was genuinely interested in other's thoughts on Molyneux's physical characteristics.

I believe that as humans we have the ability to pick on up people through seeing their actions. You get good and bad feelings about people.

I remember from the first time I read and heard Peat, I just had this extremely positive feeling from the way he writes and speaks.

From the very first time I saw Molyneux, I had this feeling of wanting to be sick and punch him in the face. He just *looks* to me like a total slimeball in every mannerism. It seems Drareg sees this, but others have spoken positively on here. So I wonder if my thoughts on him were clouded by what he was saying (about black people being genetically presdisposed to being murderers, thieves, violent etc). But I think it took me a while to realise what he was saying, and the sick I feeling I got came instantly. He's so disgustingly arrogant and yet insecure at the same time.

ps he's probably made a quarter of a million bucks off his YouTube channel - by total views and a range of CPMs, I think I calculated a wide range from 100k-500k

 

[Ami]

I like your response here,it creates the illusion of wink wink superiority without any depth to back it up.
You have spent time reading said projected socialist posts yet have no courage to engage and refute the points made.

I just had to say.....

Kyle has done an excellent job with "depth to back it up" and that didn't stop the socialists here from refusing to see the inherent violence of their position.
I don't see what I can add to make any difference. As I said I simply lack the patience for all the back and forth when I know I'm just wasting my time.

 

[AJC]

Kyle M has been creating strawmans since he started on this forum, it's regurgitation from others work that fits his projective need. He is reading too much and needs to spew the information so he makes up things you didn't say.
He never starts a thread on these views just hijacks other threads with mainly strawmans.
He has in the past claimed their is evidence for women and the downfall of civilisation yet provided no evidence.
I believe he is also part of the IQ heritability brigade on here that do not provide good evidence nor start any thread on this topic.

He takes the tone of superiority when his lack of logic is put to him and will ignore you thereafter.

He constantly try's to hammer home capitalist government are violent etc yet does not acknowledge that it's an individual or small group who are writing the legislation ,let's call them psychopaths.
The force used by the cops is because of the legislation written,no force is being used for cannabis use in Colorado as the legislation was re-written,many examples and potentials like this.
Does Kyle M believe psychopaths go away in his believe/rule system,the rule being libertarian? It is still a rule?
Does Kyle M believe in his system humans will do good and not be psychopaths?
Kyle M is essentially a capitilst looking for less rules,the failed capitalist mentality surfaces again,not surprising you mention stefan molyneaux.

He is stuck in the past regurgitating systems that will also fail at some point,probably last a touch longer than capitalist or communist but still fails.

Overall this regurgitation of historic ideas as the way forward is a sign of the lack of creativity and ideas for a new way forward.

Hey Drareg, could you provide some examples of Kyle M's "strawmen"? I looked up the definition after seeing it used so much on this forum, and honestly I've never really felt that the accusations of "strawman!" was warranted. It'd be nice to know the context you're using it so it can be kept in mind in the future conversations.

 

[Ami]

Kyle M has been creating strawmans since he started on this forum, it's regurgitation from others work that fits his projective need. He is reading too much and needs to spew the information so he makes up things you didn't say.
He never starts a thread on these views just hijacks other threads with mainly strawmans.
He has in the past claimed their is evidence for women and the downfall of civilisation yet provided no evidence.
I believe he is also part of the IQ heritability brigade on here that do not provide good evidence nor start any thread on this topic.

He takes the tone of superiority when his lack of logic is put to him and will ignore you thereafter.

He constantly try's to hammer home capitalist government are violent etc yet does not acknowledge that it's an individual or small group who are writing the legislation ,let's call them psychopaths.
The force used by the cops is because of the legislation written,no force is being used for cannabis use in Colorado as the legislation was re-written,many examples and potentials like this.
Does Kyle M believe psychopaths go away in his believe/rule system,the rule being libertarian? It is still a rule?
Does Kyle M believe in his system humans will do good and not be psychopaths?
Kyle M is essentially a capitilst looking for less rules,the failed capitalist mentality surfaces again,not surprising you mention stefan molyneaux.

He is stuck in the past regurgitating systems that will also fail at some point,probably last a touch longer than capitalist or communist but still fails.

Overall this regurgitation of historic ideas as the way forward is a sign of the lack of creativity and ideas for a new way forward.

Wow. Quite a few false assumptions here.

1) You think our economy or government is capatalist...LOL..please pick up a real econ book, not some government mandated Keynesian crap.
2) You talk about cannabis legislation but ignore the fact that the federal government ignores this legislation at their discretion. Are you saying you never heard of all the raids that go on in states that have approved it's use?
3) No one said psychopath go away. You are being dishonest here. It is you that want to give psychopaths power over others.
4) I don't want to speak for Kyle but your description of Kyle's "system" shows you have either very poor reading comprehension skills or you are just a close-minded fool.

 

[Drareg]

Hey Drareg, could you provide some examples of Kyle M's "strawmen"? I looked up the definition after seeing it used so much on this forum, and honestly I've never really felt that the accusations of "strawman!" was warranted. It'd be nice to know the context you're using it so it can be kept in mind in the future conversations.

Just read through the brexit thread for many,re read this thread also where others are putting it to him and he ignores it. Nobody has an issue with discussing the merits of any political ideology,the problem is his system he keeps regurgitating from is as flawed as the ones he criticises,he should start a thread on it and let us question it.

Having no rules is a rule.

I was pointing out the behaviour to aquaman as he is seeing it as others have.

I'm not sure where you feel strawman is not merited,point it out the next time you see it.
Just to clarify I'm not rigid on the rules of argumentation,using strawman term is a shortcut.

 

[Drareg]

Wow. Quite a few false assumptions here.

1) You think our economy or government is capatalist...LOL..please pick up a real econ book, not some government mandated Keynesian crap.
2) You talk about cannabis legislation but ignore the fact that the federal government ignores this legislation at their discretion. Are you saying you never heard of all the raids that go on in states that have approved it's use?
3) No one said psychopath go away. You are being dishonest here. It is you that want to give psychopaths power over others.
4) I don't want to speak for Kyle but your description of Kyle's "system" shows you have either very poor reading comprehension skills or you are just a close-minded fool.

You don't need books to see through BS.
This is my overall point,he never clarifys what he is saying,never starts a thread on it,if he understood said topics he could explain simply within a thread and put them to the test.

This is an example of strawman @AJC IMO, point 1 makes the claim is -I believe the USA government is capitalist ,read what I posted and ask where I am claiming this is my personal opinion? Notice then how ami tries to make it seem she/he is refuting me and then resorts to ad hominem on top of a strawman,also using point 1 creates an illusion of sincere issue.

Point 2 is a strawman, I gave an example of how legislation can be changed,it's controversial legislation so the transition will have ups and downs,cannabis medical cards is a better example.

@AJC point 3 is another good example of a straw man if you read my sentence on psychopaths,I ask a question,nowhere do I imply I want yo give psychopaths power over other people.

Point 4 is ad hominem and strawman, it's impossible to have a description for Kyle m system as he gives no description,just hijacking threads with information from books currently with no clear narrative of his own,read this,read that,the answer is here,but if you truly understood it you can give a metaphor for it in a short essay or few words.

I understand now why you decided to comment in the way you initially did,you can't clearly explain your preferred system either,just wanted to to create the illusion of superiority and intellect.

No rules is a rule.

 

[Waynish]

RP:
"I keep thinking about doing a newsletter about fructose, but I think the ideology behind the hatred of fructose is the real issue. The typical internet libertarian ideology thinks the killer ape doctrine of Konrad Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, and Desmond Morris is the essence of anthropology. For most of these people, hunter-gatherers were just hunters who found some seeds occasionally."

Always interesting to see how people parse Peat! :) I didn't bother reading past the first post of this thread... To me, it looks like a knock on the libertarians for not seeing the political and life circumstances that could bias Lorez. Not a knock on the virtues of libertarianism, but a knock on libertarians who can't see how they've been led astray despite their virtues.

 

[Kartoffel]

Always interesting to see how people parse Peat! :) I didn't bother reading past the first post of this thread... To me, it looks like a knock on the libertarians for not seeing the political and life circumstances that could bias Lorez. Not a knock on the virtues of libertarianism, but a knock on libertarians who can't see how they've been led astray despite their virtues.

Of course it's a knock in the virtues of libertarianism. It's a very simply sentence with unambiguous syntax. It's no coincidence that the Carnivore diet and low-carbing are so popular among Libertarians. It's a direct projocetion of their idea of what humans are, and their survival of the fittest ideology that they apply to everything from politics, economics, education, to nutrition. It's pathetic how some people still try to frame Ray as a Libertarian or Right-wing ideologist. If you want to get an idea of Peat's ideas on politics, read Kroptokin

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Of course it's a knock in the virtues of libertarianism. It's a very simply sentence with unambiguous syntax. It's no coincidence that the Carnivore diet and low-carbing are so popular among Libertarians. It's a direct projocetion of their idea of what humans are, and their survival of the fittest ideology that they apply to everything from politics, economics, education, to nutrition. It's pathetic how some people still try to frame Ray as a Libertarian or Right-wing ideologist. If you want to get an idea of Peat's ideas on politics, read Kroptokin

Right wing libertarianism is a self-contradictory ideology anyway. It wants to replace the flawed democratic governance with private tyrannies ruled by plutocrats. Peat's ideas do seem to have some commonalities with Libertarian Socialism, seeing as he has heavily critiqued both large corporations, their influence on government agencies and the governments themselves.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

 

[Kartoffel]

Right wing libertarianism is a self-contradictory ideology anyway. It wants to replace the flawed democratic governance with private tyrannies ruled by plutocrats. Peat's ideas do seem to have some commonalities with Libertarian Socialism, seeing as he has heavily critiqued both large corporations, their influence on government agencies and the governments themselves.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

That's true, I think libertarian socialism is a concept that agrees with a lot of Peat's ideas. I was referring to what Peat calls "they typical internet libertarian". You might just as well say the typical American libertarian. Those don't want less government, they just want lower top income taxes and fewer environmental and health restrictions.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

That's true, I think libertarian socialism is a concept that agrees with a lot of Peat's ideas. I was referring to what Peat calls "they typical internet libertarian". You might just as well say the typical American libertarian. Those don't want less government, they just want lower top income taxes and fewer environmental and health restrictions.

International socialism for the rich, social darwinist capitalism for the rest of us. Banks play "Heads I win, tails taxpayer loses" and they get trillions in subsidies.

Neoliberalism is neither new, nor liberal. It is the same old ***t Hayek and Milton Friedman pushed. It is only about moving money and power away from the general population towards the rich.

 

[Kartoffel]

International socialism for the rich, social darwinist capitalism for the rest of us. Banks play "Heads I win, tails taxpayer loses" and they get trillions in subsidies.

Neoliberalism is neither new, nor liberal. It is the same old ***t Hayek and Milton Friedman pushed. It is only about moving money and power away from the general population towards the rich.

Pretty much. When you are rich/powerful enough you automatically become "systemically relevant" and apply for government bailouts. Current "free-market" capitalist systems don't contain even a trace of a free market. Every aspect of every market on this planet is highly regulated and tightly controlled by institutionalized systems of complex rules and laws.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Pretty much. When you are rich/powerful enough you automatically become "systemically relevant" and apply for government bailouts. Current "free-market" capitalist systems don't contain even a trace of a free market. Every aspect of every market on this planet is highly regulated and tightly controlled by institutionalized systems of complex rules and laws.

"Free market" is an interesting term btw. Classical economists, who were conserved with forming a rich, powerful society, defined it as a market free of unearned income, such as monopoly power or increased property value due to state infrastucture development or dumping externatlities liek pollution on the populace. Now it is defined as market free of regulations that benefit the general public. Of course, the regulations that benefit the rich, such as corporations, state enforcement of debt, money, bailouts etc. are a natural God-given part of the "Free Market.".

 

[ecstatichamster]

True libertarians believe in maximal freedom consistent with the Non Aggression Principle: do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting other people.

Most "Libertarian" labels, like Anarchist labels, is a sloppy use of the term. Often it means a certain type of fascism that is often mis-labeled as "capitalism" when it is not.

Dr. Peat seems to equate freedom with fascism. If Big Pharma are subsidized, and doctors are controlled by them, and medical school curricula are dictated by them, that is a form of fascism, not a form of capitalism and certainly not libertarianism.

What all left and right wing thinkers believe is in greater government control over our lives. They just differ in a few of the details.

What real libertarians think (often they are called anarcho-capitalists) is that we should be free from government entirely, and able to do what we want. If we hurt others, they can go to some sort of court and get a judgment against us. There are various ideas for creating this framework of courts and judgments, but they are largely voluntary associations. And they have worked in the past and will work again in the future.

For instance, your auto insurance company has an interest in your driving safely and driving in a safe vehicle. In a truly free world, to get auto insurance from a reputable company you need to be a good driver and have a safe car. No government edicts needed to assure that. It's all voluntary.

That's the world that I want.

 

[lvysaur]

RP:
"I keep thinking about doing a newsletter about fructose, but I think the ideology behind the hatred of fructose is the real issue. The typical internet libertarian ideology thinks the killer ape doctrine of Konrad Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, and Desmond Morris is the essence of anthropology

People who spend more time online will feel more hated by others and feel more hatred for others. Thus, their political and even dietary worldview will be shifted to one of violence, moreso than it has to be.

 

[Waynish]

Of course it's a knock in the virtues of libertarianism. It's a very simply sentence with unambiguous syntax. It's no coincidence that the Carnivore diet and low-carbing are so popular among Libertarians. It's a direct projocetion of their idea of what humans are, and their survival of the fittest ideology that they apply to everything from politics, economics, education, to nutrition. It's pathetic how some people still try to frame Ray as a Libertarian or Right-wing ideologist. If you want to get an idea of Peat's ideas on politics, read Kroptokin

See, I don't read it that way. I doubt RP would imply that libertarians must be low carb carnivores. That's silly! Libertarians are for your liberty to eat as many carbs as you want! They would say, if they were anti-carb, that they just wouldn't want to pay your medical bills for your choice to do so. Again, you're telling people what they are. Peat doesn't tend to do this. I'm not framing Peat as libertarian or right wing, but you're adding a lot to his words.