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

[Hugh Johnson]

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.

Never has there been an ancap that has opposed corporate power. Funny, because the corporate structure is purely a state creation. In your ancap world there would not be corporations, because they are a government creation. You also could not afford a car, because the productivity in a borderland ruled by warlords would be extremely low, barely above subsistence farming. You would have no courts to enforce anything, and the only safety you would have would be as a member of a warband/tribe/whatever you want to call it.

If you would not join one, you would be killed or enslaved. In fact, since I despise ancaps, geography and the state are the only things preventing me from killing you at this very moment.

 

[Kartoffel]

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.

So, you want no government but you want courts/ some sort of judiciary. How exactely would that work?

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Anybody notice the problem with language when talking about these issues?

Say a group of people have some good ideas, or something threatening to the status queue. Seems like they're immediately given a name and then that name is tarnished in many ways, then the name starts to change, and it all gets quite complicated and confusing for all but the most available, healthy, passionate, and intelligent to follow.

 

[Waynish]

Anybody notice the problem with language when talking about these issues?

Say a group of people have some good ideas, or something threatening to the status queue. Seems like they're immediately given a name and then that name is tarnished in many ways, then the name starts to change, and it all gets quite complicated and confusing for all but the most available, healthy, passionate, and intelligent to follow.

Or just a problem with basic reading comprehension and honesty. This whole thread is based off the misreading of, "The typical internet libertarian ideology thinks..." How is 'internet libertarian ideology' the same as 'libertarian ideology' the same as 'libertarianism' the same as 'libertarians'? Everyone just wants to ignore the 'internet' part so they can get right into how RP backs up their world views.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

That's certainly an issue as well. But my point is these ideologies (from my own research and thinking) are all inherently flawed and designed to keep us fighting. If you look at the origins of all of these idealogies, they're not (at least for me) created from where I thought they were (organic thought, revelation, for the betterment of mankind). I've seen direct recent circumstances when language is used to continue to confuse and distract people.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Never has there been an ancap that has opposed corporate power. Funny, because the corporate structure is purely a state creation. In your ancap world there would not be corporations, because they are a government creation. You also could not afford a car, because the productivity in a borderland ruled by warlords would be extremely low, barely above subsistence farming. You would have no courts to enforce anything, and the only safety you would have would be as a member of a warband/tribe/whatever you want to call it.

If you would not join one, you would be killed or enslaved. In fact, since I despise ancaps, geography and the state are the only things preventing me from killing you at this very moment.

I recommend the following:



Also recommended: The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

 

[Waynish]

That's certainly an issue as well. But my point is these ideologies (from my own research and thinking) are all inherently flawed and designed to keep us fighting. If you look at the origins of all of these idealogies, they're not (at least for me) created from where I thought they were (organic thought, revelation, for the betterment of mankind). I've seen direct recent circumstances when language is used to continue to confuse and distract people.

"Ideology" may cause issues of course, but the solution is not to remove your discriminatory faculty. Nor is the tendency or ability to discriminate and label things a root cause for fighting. Debate is good - but it is good to see when one is going in circles. It is important to have a balance between thinking & action. Internet forums often become a place for folks to vent their real life frustrations. You're right that it will take a long time for anyone to get to the root of language, which is why I think we should optimize for communication (speaking simply) instead of debating terms.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I recommend the following:



Also recommended: The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part III – Regulation | naked capitalism

I would recommend this.

All Friedman's policies failed and he supported the tyrant Pinochet. Ancaps are lower than nazis.

 

[tara]

Right wing libertarianism is a self-contradictory ideology anyway. It wants to replace the flawed democratic governance with private tyrannies ruled by plutocrats.

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.

Nice concise summaries. :)

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.

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.

• Who would select the judiciary?
• What criteria would determine the judgements? What counts as hurting other people?
• Were you thinking this freedom and these courts would recognise the cultural construct of 'property rights'? To what extent? Would I be allowed to hoard necessities to the extent that it causes harm to other people? Or, having nothing, would I be permitted to take from someone else's hoard, which is greater than they need, to sustain my own or someone else's life? Where are the limits, or who decides where the limits should be?
• Would neglect of the needs of vulnerable people count as hurting them? Who would be responsible for meeting their needs? What if it required organised support?
• Who would provide schools? Would these only be for the children of those who accumulated more resources, or should there be a decent education for everyone?
• Given that, unregulated, there is a tendency towards accumulation of wealth in fewer hands, eventually towards monolopies, and that this trend tends to be the source of much suffering for the rest of the populace, is there any way in such a system to prevent the hurts caused by the impoverishment of the majority by the minority?
• What enforcement would back up the court and judgements?
• How would corruption in the courts and enforcement system be addressed?
• Where would the resources come from to pay for the courts and enforcement? Would these be paid for and controlled by those who had accumulated the most wealth?

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.

• Who would build and maintain the roads on which the cars run? Who would determine which cars would be permitted to drive on the roads?

• How would the answers to all these questions be arrived at and implemented?
• Would all these decisions be determined with some form of democratic input? (I don't just mean narrowly nominally 'democratic' in the sense of current US electoral system.)
• Would the organisation of this democratic input be, in effect, some kind of government?
• Or, if not democratic, would the enforceable rules arrived at eventually put the control of the courts and enforcement increasingly in the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of people who controlled larger and larger proportions of the (probably shrinking) pool of wealth, and this lead to their trying to change the rules (or enforcement) to further suit themselves?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Rothbard wanted a free market of children and if your child slave can say no is the market really free?

[4] but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children awayfrom parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]​

Your daily reminder that Murray Rothbard, influential libertarianism, advocated selling children

I want to say something clever, but I can't.

 

[Waynish]

Rothbard wanted a free market of children and if your child slave can say no is the market really free?

[4] but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children awayfrom parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]​

Your daily reminder that Murray Rothbard, influential libertarianism, advocated selling children

I want to say something clever, but I can't.

I'm jumping into the conversation without reading the context, but the concept of "free market," is a concept... The concept is based on being free... From being aggressed toward by others (and vice versa). So this free market of child slaves is an oxymoron. It isn't free if it is slavery. Why bend the definition to make its proponents seem silly? That's reductio ad absurdum!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I'm jumping into the conversation without reading the context, but the concept of "free market," is a concept... The concept is based on being free... From being aggressed toward by others (and vice versa). So this free market of child slaves is an oxymoron. It isn't free if it is slavery. Why bend the definition to make its proponents seem silly? That's reductio ad absurdum!

I'm literally posting a quote from one of the most respected right libertarian thinkers.

Just like the Chicago boys would praise Pinochet because he impoverished the population, never mind the murder and the child rape he personally conducted .

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Nice concise summaries. :)

• Who would select the judiciary?
• What criteria would determine the judgements? What counts as hurting other people?
• Were you thinking this freedom and these courts would recognise the cultural construct of 'property rights'? To what extent? Would I be allowed to hoard necessities to the extent that it causes harm to other people? Or, having nothing, would I be permitted to take from someone else's hoard, which is greater than they need, to sustain my own or someone else's life? Where are the limits, or who decides where the limits should be?
• Would neglect of the needs of vulnerable people count as hurting them? Who would be responsible for meeting their needs? What if it required organised support?
• Who would provide schools? Would these only be for the children of those who accumulated more resources, or should there be a decent education for everyone?
• Given that, unregulated, there is a tendency towards accumulation of wealth in fewer hands, eventually towards monolopies, and that this trend tends to be the source of much suffering for the rest of the populace, is there any way in such a system to prevent the hurts caused by the impoverishment of the majority by the minority?
• What enforcement would back up the court and judgements?
• How would corruption in the courts and enforcement system be addressed?
• Where would the resources come from to pay for the courts and enforcement? Would these be paid for and controlled by those who had accumulated the most wealth?

• Who would build and maintain the roads on which the cars run? Who would determine which cars would be permitted to drive on the roads?

• How would the answers to all these questions be arrived at and implemented?
• Would all these decisions be determined with some form of democratic input? (I don't just mean narrowly nominally 'democratic' in the sense of current US electoral system.)
• Would the organisation of this democratic input be, in effect, some kind of government?
• Or, if not democratic, would the enforceable rules arrived at eventually put the control of the courts and enforcement increasingly in the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of people who controlled larger and larger proportions of the (probably shrinking) pool of wealth, and this lead to their trying to change the rules (or enforcement) to further suit themselves?

None of these questions are even slightly problematic in any way whatsoever for anarcho-capitalists, not to mention they've all been answered numerous times by economists such as Bryan Caplan, David Friedman, and Thomas Sowell, along with many others.

 

[Waynish]

I'm literally posting a quote from one of the most respected right libertarian thinkers.

Just like the Chicago boys would praise Pinochet because he impoverished the population, never mind the murder and the child rape he personally conducted .

Ok, so argumentum ad verecundiam, not some demonstrative reasoning...

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Ok, so argumentum ad verecundiam, not some demonstrative reasoning...

Nice job using latin to obfuscate your argument. No, it's not.

To characterize the views of the ancaps accurately, I can quote leading ancap thinkers. That is how it works. Just like you can critique marxism by quoting Marx.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I think Dr. Peat believes that capitalism results in regulatory capture, say by the FDA, by Big Pharma, the marketing of drugs to the public and to doctors that is based upon misinformation and outright fraud.

While this does happen, no doubt, where I don't agree, is saying this is capitalism. It is not. It is the same as fascism, where the means of production is kept in private hands, but favored by government force.

I favor complete ability of a person like you or me to buy and use any chemical we want, whenever we want. I think marketing of drugs is fine, but government shouldn't pay for drugs. It is government fascism, coercion and compulsion, that creates the environment where drugs are wrongly marketed and health affected.

It isn't a lack of government regulation, it's too MUCH regulation that favors powerful interests, as it always will and always must.

 

[Waynish]

Nice job using latin to obfuscate your argument. No, it's not.

To characterize the views of the ancaps accurately, I can quote leading ancap thinkers. That is how it works. Just like you can critique marxism by quoting Marx.

"No, it's not" is your argument? How is quoting someone deemed "influential" without an explanation not just an appeal to authority? Your argument here reinforces my claim that you're using an "argument from authority." If you use a quote from somewhere else to support your argument, then maybe say *why* it is supports your argument. So far as I can see, as I said previously, your quote is a great demonstration of reducing to the absurd ("reductio ad absurdum.") Why is it a reduction to the absurd? Because if the premise for a free market has anything to do with the non-aggression principle, then it follows that a free market of aggressors trading slaves is not a free market at all (unless keeping slaves is not an act of aggression, which I don't see anyone arguing that)! You ended your statement with, "Your daily reminder that Murray Rothbard, influential libertarianism, advocated selling children." I don't know this guy's work, but guilt by association isn't an argument either! For example, you cannot say, "dude x said wrong thing y, and dude x identifies as z - therefore, because you're supporting z, you're wrong too!" I mean, you can say it, but you'd be wrong

 

[Hugh Johnson]

"No, it's not" is your argument? How is quoting someone deemed "influential" without an explanation not just an appeal to authority? Your argument here reinforces my claim that you're using an "argument from authority." If you use a quote from somewhere else to support your argument, then maybe say *why* it is supports your argument. So far as I can see, as I said previously, your quote is a great demonstration of reducing to the absurd ("reductio ad absurdum.") Why is it a reduction to the absurd? Because if the premise for a free market has anything to do with the non-aggression principle, then it follows that a free market of aggressors trading slaves is not a free market at all (unless keeping slaves is not an act of aggression, which I don't see anyone arguing that)! You ended your statement with, "Your daily reminder that Murray Rothbard, influential libertarianism, advocated selling children." I don't know this guy's work, but guilt by association isn't an argument either! For example, you cannot say, "dude x said wrong thing y, and dude x identifies as z - therefore, because you're supporting z, you're wrong too!" I mean, you can say it, but you'd be wrong

Rothbard, and man who spent his life thinking about and advocating right libertarianism can be considered an authority on the subject. I can creadibly defer to such authority, as he has made the argumantation on why there would be child slavery in the ancap utopia. I would be making a fallacious argument if I were to claim without reasoning that ancaps want child slavery, and that some dude claimed so. I was not. I was quoting an argument from an established authority who has thought through what are the implications of right libertarian system.

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).​

I am not misrepresenting anyone. I am quoting a person who advocates for the system, is known to be highly intelligent, and makes the argument. It's not even that you must take his word for it, because he has made an explicit argument for why the right libertarian system will inevitably have child slaves and markets for them. For you to argue against that, you would have to make an argument refuting Rothbard's argument, not whinge about alleged fallacies. Though it is unlikely you can, since you knowledge of libertarianism does not even include some of their most respected thinkers.

I am a quoting an argument in good faith from a respected and intelligent right libertarian explaining how his preferred system would function. You have failed to make a counterargument against his position.

 

[Waynish]

Rothbard, and man who spent his life thinking about and advocating right libertarianism can be considered an authority on the subject. I can creadibly defer to such authority, as he has made the argumantation on why there would be child slavery in the ancap utopia. I would be making a fallacious argument if I were to claim without reasoning that ancaps want child slavery, and that some dude claimed so. I was not. I was quoting an argument from an established authority who has thought through what are the implications of right libertarian system.

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).​

I am not misrepresenting anyone. I am quoting a person who advocates for the system, is known to be highly intelligent, and makes the argument. It's not even that you must take his word for it, because he has made an explicit argument for why the right libertarian system will inevitably have child slaves and markets for them. For you to argue against that, you would have to make an argument refuting Rothbard's argument, not whinge about alleged fallacies. Though it is unlikely you can, since you knowledge of libertarianism does not even include some of their most respected thinkers.

I am a quoting an argument in good faith from a respected and intelligent right libertarian explaining how his preferred system would function. You have failed to make a counterargument against his position.

I don't see any arguments against the one I have posited here. Just more on the idea that he's such a well respected thinker. I don't know the difference between "right libertarianism" and "libertarianism" - but there is nothing requiring me to be for his brand of libertarianism, or for promoting any type of utopia for that matter. My argument stands in favor of the non-aggression principle, which you've still not addressed. And your argument seems to stand in favor of associating all "libertarians" by their supposed political classification, and moreover in sort of authoritarian hierarchy. You have still not addressed my core logical claims. He can be as well respected as you'd like, but child slavery violates the non-aggression principle - and I don't see how bringing "utopia" into this strengthens your argument.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I don't see any arguments against the one I have posited here. Just more on the idea that he's such a well respected thinker. I don't know the difference between "right libertarianism" and "libertarianism" - but there is nothing requiring me to be for his brand of libertarianism, or for promoting any type of utopia for that matter. My argument stands in favor of the non-aggression principle, which you've still not addressed. And your argument seems to stand in favor of associating all "libertarians" by their supposed political classification, and moreover in sort of authoritarian hierarchy. You have still not addressed my core logical claims. He can be as well respected as you'd like, but child slavery violates the non-aggression principle - and I don't see how bringing "utopia" into this strengthens your argument.

NAP is ******* stupid. To prevent child slavery you need aggression from people willing to enforce children's rights, and it must include provisioning the children. With the use of a violent threat. Opposition to child slavery requires one to oppose the NAP.