Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleo And Politics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
      Nice pic...
      Last edited by kenn; 01-24-2013, 09:14 AM.
      Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
      Starting Weight: 294 pounds
      Current Weight: 235 pounds
      Goal Weight: 195 pounds

      Comment


      • #63
        I think that at a basic level, personal politics typically reflect an individual's conceptualization of, and relationship to, Risk.

        That's a huge and complicated subject of course, but to make up an example....

        If you have $1,000,000....

        Some people would want to put all of that money in one place because they could then track it closely and defend it strongly.

        Some people would want to put it in 1000, or 10,000, separate locations because the loss if any one location was found/stolen from would be much smaller.

        Some people would want to spend the money on tools and infrastructure that improve their individual safety (a house in a better neighborhood, a work shop with all the tools needed to earn a living even without a job).

        Some people would want to invest it in other companies in order to realize a return on the value of the money, even though there is a chance that the money will be lost.

        On and on.... there are a lot of mutually exclusive but in themselves fully rational approaches to that situation.

        The choice any given person picks says less about the objective reality of the situation than about how the individual conceptualizes (understand), and tolerates (is willing to accept), risk. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that these biases form early in childhood, and some scientific evidence that they may even have a genetic basis. That said, they can also be learned and people can be sensitized to different viewpoints as well.

        Those biases will play out in a lot of ways. Whether and how a person saves money, the types of skills they learn, their political views and vision of an ideal government, ideal society, etc., their views on food safety, and so on. It isn't surprising at all that a deliberate Way Of Eating (a conscious choice, vs. following habit) would attract people with a certain conceptualization of risk, and that it would therefore correlate to political views, religious views, lifestyle choices, et cetera.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by SouthBeachPrimal View Post
          I always find it funny how socialists argue we are too "evil" to be free, yet believe in a political creed which creates a massive police state and gives these same "evil" people absolute control over our lives.
          The "massive police state" is there to protect private property. This protection racket is the "big" in "big government".

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
            Cryptocode, The world you describe sounds a lot like present day Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Russia after the fall of Soviet Union, replete with garrisoned fortresses private armies and monopolies of essential resources.
            A lot of people on the left have held up Somalia as a caution of a nation without government. I think this is the wrong lesson to take from it. In fact Somalia has a government of sorts or precisely governments of sorts -- warlords. The real lesson is that nature abhors a political vaccuum. Dismantle the Federal Government and it will likely be replaced with something far less democratic and accountable.

            Cryptocode says that if I'm innocent, I don't have to worry about private cops and private jails. Really? Who's going to judge my innocence? Private judges and jurors who are being paid by the prosecutor?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by SouthBeachPrimal View Post
              I always find it funny how socialists argue we are too "evil" to be free, yet believe in a political creed which creates a massive police state and gives these same "evil" people absolute control over our lives.
              Looks like you may have jumped to a conclusion, I am neither a fan of government nor a fan of capitalism. Just a free lance thinker here.
              Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                The "massive police state" is there to protect private property. This protection racket is the "big" in "big government".
                Really? Maybe that is what it was designed to do, but in practice, it is there to rob/tax. It actually confiscates private property and gives it to the state. The only thing the massive police state protects is its own interests.

                Income tax, property tax, licensing fees, user fees, traffic fines (especially photo radar and red light cameras), etc, etc, etc......
                "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                  Really?
                  Yes, really. Who do you think cleared the land of Indians?

                  Here's well-known libertarian Albert Nock:

                  This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

                  But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                    Yes, really. Who do you think cleared the land of Indians?

                    Here's well-known libertarian Albert Nock:

                    This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

                    But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus
                    Interesting. And that proves that the "state" protects property rights how? Like I said, that might have been what the state was designed for, but that is a far cry from what is does now.

                    Actually reading your quote, the state didn't "protect" anyone's rights but its own (my arguement in the first place). "The State established one monopoly...." and "...this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little extortion or none...."

                    The state perpetrated the theft, and gave to the landlords. It THEN protected the rights of the new landlords (its friends).

                    If I refuse to pay my income tax, the state will come and take it from me by threat of violence (imprisonment), how does that protect my property rights in any way whatsoever?
                    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                      If I refuse to pay my income tax, the state will come and take it from me by threat of violence (imprisonment), how does that protect my property rights in any way whatsoever?
                      I'm not getting your point. Yes the state does things other than protect private property. The Bureau of Weights and Measures doen't protect private property either.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        This weekend I was able to tip off some guys by the beach selling coconuts that the Code Enforcers were making their way up to their impromptu "stand" and they were able to pack everything up and avoid getting pinched. That made me feel real good.
                        That! You rock!
                        You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.

                        Age 48
                        height 5'3
                        SW 215 lbs
                        CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
                        LW 172 lbs
                        GW 125ish lbs

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I have always had to be different and even here I am I am liberal and what you would probably consider religious though I don't particularly like that word and don't use it to describe myself. I am a follower of Christ, not of Christians. I don't find anything in paleo inconsistent with my beliefs; for me they all fit rather nicely.

                          Originally posted by saturnfan View Post
                          Iím weird in the sense that I have always viewed paleo/primal as being somewhat academic, putting my health on the line to validate scientific concepts that are notoriously under researched and seldom understood.

                          But politically, it seems to make sense that libertarians would flock to paleo due to their extreme anti-governmental views. Similar to the fact that I havenít noticed too many religious people here, who probably stopped reading when the word evolution came up.
                          You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.

                          Age 48
                          height 5'3
                          SW 215 lbs
                          CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
                          LW 172 lbs
                          GW 125ish lbs

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                            I'm not getting your point. Yes the state does things other than protect private property. The Bureau of Weights and Measures doen't protect private property either.
                            Is that true?

                            Most abuses of government can be explained by the economic concepts of "concentrated benefit vs. diffuse harm" and "rent seeking."

                            E.g. occupational licensing, which is almost always described as a public safety benefit and harm to industry, is in fact often requested BY industry. Why? Rent seeking.

                            Similarly, lateral transfers (e.g. farm subsidies) are successfully pushed because they cause diffuse harm (everyone in society is hurt, but only a little) and concentrated benefits (farmers make millions of dollars).

                            However, you will never see a bill described named "rent seeking by the auto industry" or "Causing Harm to American Families for the benefit of Factory Farmers"... Instead, you see the formation of a Bureau of Weights and Measures that goes around putting seals on scales and gas pumps, and in the process keeps small time vendors out of the market by forbidding sales unless you go through the paperwork of and cost of getting one of those seals...which is to the benefit of existing businesses and to the harm of new entrants and quite possibly the general public.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                              I'm not getting your point. Yes the state does things other than protect private property. The Bureau of Weights and Measures doen't protect private property either.
                              You made a blanket statement that "the state protects property rights." I am merely trying to point out that the state ONLY protects the property rights (or any rights for that matter) of the government and its friends. It no longer protects the rights of its citizens - in fact it does quite the opposite.

                              As far as my personal politics go, I vote with my wallet and my behavior. I avoid paying taxes when I can, I try to consume less, I save wealth by buying and holding physical precious metals instead of using the banks, I do not use credit, I eat primal, I am starting a garden, I buy used clothing, I avoid using government services as much as possible, I'm learning to hunt, etc, etc, etc,....

                              Regardless of the style or system of government, their ultimate goal is to manage people. I simply try as hard as I can to stay under their radar - I value freedom, and I can manage my affairs just fine on my own thank you very much.
                              "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                                You made a blanket statement that "the state protects property rights." I am merely trying to point out that the state ONLY protects the property rights (or any rights for that matter) of the government and its friends. It no longer protects the rights of its citizens - in fact it does quite the opposite.
                                It protects all property rights. Police, courts, patents, jails, fire, FEMA are all forms of property protection. In San Francisco, for example, the Sherrif's Office will remove me from my apartment if I don't pay my landlord.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X