Watch now (51 mins) | EP:9 Austin Petersen joins Kurt Wallace to challenge the Libertarian narratives: Health vs Junk Food, Anti-War and (NAP) Non-Aggression Principle.
Of course people should be free to eat toxic garbage if they want. But they have to be informed that what they are eating is, in fact, toxic garbage. Everyone knows soda is bad for you. Most don't know that the HFCS used as a sweetener severely compromises their immune systems. For example. Informed consent has been lost. We need to get it back. Libertarians should understand that better than anybody.
RFK has already said what he wants to do - produce good science at NIH and CDC, publish the results, and let the lawyers have at it when it's found that manufacturers are putting toxins in our food. Harming people for profit will no longer be consequence free. I think everyone can agree that this is how it should be.
I don't "know" that HFCS severely compromises immune systems. Would you care to cite the medical journal articles that document it? All I have seen is whispered innunendos... the kind the anti-vaxx crowd believes on principle. Note that "it's found" does not mean "popularly condemned by whispered innuendo". If MAHA is to have any worth at all, it must separate itself from the crowd that believes whatever is posted on Whole Food bulletin boards.
Although we may have the right to make bad choices, to poison ourselves with gluttony, eat or drink foods loaded with chemicals of OUR choosing, etc.., the FDA and our government does NOT have the right to be our chemist nor to secretly be the ones poisoning us to death! Our food supply should be as clean and healthy as it can be in a fallen world. What we do with it or add to it after we purchase it, is our choice - healthy or unhealthy.
I gather I’m not considered a true libertarian if I like the idea of banning cigarette smoking on airplanes as an example. I don’t care if you want to harm yourself with cigarettes or hfcs but when your preferences potentially harm me or my child I object. I refused to wear masks or mask my 2 y.o. granddaughter which I’m sure some people thought was potentially harmful to them. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. I truly struggle with these examples of my own behavior. I’ll take comments and hope they are respectful.
We actually discussed smoking on planes. I think the market could provide options for the smoking and non smoking flights of there were enough opportunities for smoking flights.
Forced masking is nuts. Psychological warfare by the government. It's Amazing how many people bought it. Fear, guilt and self righteousness is powerful.
"Effective from these toxic foods". Please explain this somewhat garbled sentence. Did you mean "affected by these toxic foods"? What makes them "toxic" other than whispered innuendos?
I’m all for the live and let live aspects of libertarianism
However, when other people make personal choices that cost me through taxes and insurance premiums it’s wrong. I’m happy to contribute to cover random chance and events. And to help those truly in need. The government Is about as efficient helping people as the Clinton charity….
FACTUAL CORRECTION: The Amish, like other U.S. citizens, are required to pay federal income tax—as such, the Amish do help pay for the US military.
• However, there are certain exemptions related to Social Security and Medicare taxes for Amish individuals and others who belong to religious groups that conscientiously object to accepting Social Security benefits.
This guest is confused. The non-aggression principle has nothing to do with military pacifism. Why is he explaining why the US should be able and willing to defend itself. The US has never had such a problem—quite the contrary.
• The non-aggression principle is not inherently passive. While it forbids the initiation of force or coercion, it explicitly allows for the use of force in self-defense or defense of others. In essence, the principle is about refraining from being the aggressor, but it does not mandate passivity in the face of aggression.
CORRECTION: The Amish, like other U.S. citizens, are required to pay federal income tax—as such, they do pay for the US military. However, the Amish are exempt from certainn Social Security and Medicare taxes (as are other individuals and religious groups) because of conscientious objection to accepting Social Security benefits.
In theory, libertarianism opposes nationalism, so this combo isn't even possible.
In practice it is easy to imagine being a libertarian and also a patriot (every human suffers from tribalism). And, it is possible to observe that some nations are better than others from a liberty viewpoint, so one might support a "better" nation.
Libertarianism sounds great in principle but is a tough sell in practice. Should all drugs be legal based on the principle of "my body, my choice"? Perhaps, but that's the easy part. The hard part is whether everyone who gets addicted should be on their own, with no government support for treatment. You may think so, but that would be considered cruel and will never fly with the general public. If the government is responsible for treating addiction, it should not legalize all drugs.
This is an important issue. I'm glad some are thinking about it.
The war on drugs criminalizes addiction rather than treating it as a health issue. The government's treatment of these people is incarceration rather than directing them to get help.
This is a health crisis. But the American people and government are brainwashed to think these people do this to themselves on purpose. It's a physical condition that is triggered once the person tries alcohol and drugs. The physical addict has no choice once they start, they become mentally insane. It appears police are trained to dehumanize someone with addiction because they are treating the addicted as a criminal degenerate who knows better.
Prohibition empowers:
Cartels - the consequences is mass migration of illegals fleeing corruption.
Militarized police - 1033 Program is legislation passed in the early 90's. The US military gives weapons, tanks, gear and money to local police forces. They must use the equipment. This has increased swat raids for drug possessions. Many non violent people have died.
Prison complex - Dick Cheney and many other establishment people have gotten rich off government contracts. Drug possession incarceration is a big money maker.
Big Pharma - all pharmaceuticals are derived from natural. FDA controls access to natural options and recreational drugs in behalf of the pharmaceutical companies.
Politicians - get lobbying from all the above. Plus, left right paradigm preys on donors based on the emotional and moral arguments. If they eliminated the war on drugs and started treating addiction as a health issue rather than a crime then the money train dries up.
One more thing. Micheal Shellenberger has written extensively on this topic. If I understand his position correctly, he claims that police need the threat of jail time for drug use to force addicts to get treatment. Without that threat, the police are powerless to get addicts into treatment, so those addicts just continue using on the streets. If Shellenberger is right -- and I think he is -- then legalizing all drugs is counerproductive.
My response to his position is based on how to approach the nature of addiction.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't with alcohol. Alcoholics continued drinking. Moonshine was born and the Kennedys got rich off prohibition.
Rarely do people with addiction stop based on court mandatory treatment. They start back once the sentence is complete.
Addiction is a physical disease. This is a health issue rather than a crime. Those who are addicted are much less likely to ask for help if they are default criminals & feel like they must live in secrecy.
This is like criminalzing type 2 diabetes and saying that the diabetics will stop unhealthy lifestyles if we threaten them with jail. Or schizophrenics will stop listening to the voices if police get involved and they are court mandated to take the medal their brain is telling them is somehow evil.
The addict must want help first.
If fear of incarceration stopped drug addiction it would've worked over the last 30 years when the failed war on drugs was launched. And government has been stepping in to treat addiction and it hasn't worked.
The problem with that thesis is it doesn't consider what causes addiction and the insane nature of the disease.
The public and government are fairly ignorant to this health condition and its cause. Government is not capable of solving the most personal of issues.
I don't claim to be an expert on this topic by any stretch, but Michael Shellenberger says that what they are doing in some areas of Europe is far more effective than what we are doing here with the de facto legalization of drugs in places like San Francisco and Oakland.
Well..... yes, but the days of the police incarcerating drug users are well in the past. It may be happening in some places, but certainly not in the big cities where drugs use is rampant. And how do you "treat addiction as a health issue" if the user is homeless and has no health insurance? Is the government supposed to pay for treatment? Most people probably think so, but I was under the impression that libertarians opposed such "free" government services.
I dislike MAHA because those behind it confuse their own personal preferences and what it is reasonable to expect from others. Even if HFCS is bad, it has to be poisonous, not just bad, to be legitimately excluded.
Of course people should be free to eat toxic garbage if they want. But they have to be informed that what they are eating is, in fact, toxic garbage. Everyone knows soda is bad for you. Most don't know that the HFCS used as a sweetener severely compromises their immune systems. For example. Informed consent has been lost. We need to get it back. Libertarians should understand that better than anybody.
RFK has already said what he wants to do - produce good science at NIH and CDC, publish the results, and let the lawyers have at it when it's found that manufacturers are putting toxins in our food. Harming people for profit will no longer be consequence free. I think everyone can agree that this is how it should be.
I don't "know" that HFCS severely compromises immune systems. Would you care to cite the medical journal articles that document it? All I have seen is whispered innunendos... the kind the anti-vaxx crowd believes on principle. Note that "it's found" does not mean "popularly condemned by whispered innuendo". If MAHA is to have any worth at all, it must separate itself from the crowd that believes whatever is posted on Whole Food bulletin boards.
Although we may have the right to make bad choices, to poison ourselves with gluttony, eat or drink foods loaded with chemicals of OUR choosing, etc.., the FDA and our government does NOT have the right to be our chemist nor to secretly be the ones poisoning us to death! Our food supply should be as clean and healthy as it can be in a fallen world. What we do with it or add to it after we purchase it, is our choice - healthy or unhealthy.
If you will pardon my saying so, you ALSO have no right to be our chemist. Neither do the Whole Foods bulletin board crowd.
I gather I’m not considered a true libertarian if I like the idea of banning cigarette smoking on airplanes as an example. I don’t care if you want to harm yourself with cigarettes or hfcs but when your preferences potentially harm me or my child I object. I refused to wear masks or mask my 2 y.o. granddaughter which I’m sure some people thought was potentially harmful to them. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. I truly struggle with these examples of my own behavior. I’ll take comments and hope they are respectful.
Great comment! Thank you.
We actually discussed smoking on planes. I think the market could provide options for the smoking and non smoking flights of there were enough opportunities for smoking flights.
Forced masking is nuts. Psychological warfare by the government. It's Amazing how many people bought it. Fear, guilt and self righteousness is powerful.
I don’t think you expose your self to enough people who are effective from these toxic foods. So are your kids vaccinated?
"Effective from these toxic foods". Please explain this somewhat garbled sentence. Did you mean "affected by these toxic foods"? What makes them "toxic" other than whispered innuendos?
I’m all for the live and let live aspects of libertarianism
However, when other people make personal choices that cost me through taxes and insurance premiums it’s wrong. I’m happy to contribute to cover random chance and events. And to help those truly in need. The government Is about as efficient helping people as the Clinton charity….
"don’t jive with libertarianism". But they dance with fascism, socialism and communism. Jibe, not jive 😀😀
Agreed
FACTUAL CORRECTION: The Amish, like other U.S. citizens, are required to pay federal income tax—as such, the Amish do help pay for the US military.
• However, there are certain exemptions related to Social Security and Medicare taxes for Amish individuals and others who belong to religious groups that conscientiously object to accepting Social Security benefits.
This guest is confused. The non-aggression principle has nothing to do with military pacifism. Why is he explaining why the US should be able and willing to defend itself. The US has never had such a problem—quite the contrary.
• The non-aggression principle is not inherently passive. While it forbids the initiation of force or coercion, it explicitly allows for the use of force in self-defense or defense of others. In essence, the principle is about refraining from being the aggressor, but it does not mandate passivity in the face of aggression.
CORRECTION: The Amish, like other U.S. citizens, are required to pay federal income tax—as such, they do pay for the US military. However, the Amish are exempt from certainn Social Security and Medicare taxes (as are other individuals and religious groups) because of conscientious objection to accepting Social Security benefits.
Divide and conquer.
In theory, libertarianism opposes nationalism, so this combo isn't even possible.
In practice it is easy to imagine being a libertarian and also a patriot (every human suffers from tribalism). And, it is possible to observe that some nations are better than others from a liberty viewpoint, so one might support a "better" nation.
Libertarianism sounds great in principle but is a tough sell in practice. Should all drugs be legal based on the principle of "my body, my choice"? Perhaps, but that's the easy part. The hard part is whether everyone who gets addicted should be on their own, with no government support for treatment. You may think so, but that would be considered cruel and will never fly with the general public. If the government is responsible for treating addiction, it should not legalize all drugs.
This is an important issue. I'm glad some are thinking about it.
The war on drugs criminalizes addiction rather than treating it as a health issue. The government's treatment of these people is incarceration rather than directing them to get help.
This is a health crisis. But the American people and government are brainwashed to think these people do this to themselves on purpose. It's a physical condition that is triggered once the person tries alcohol and drugs. The physical addict has no choice once they start, they become mentally insane. It appears police are trained to dehumanize someone with addiction because they are treating the addicted as a criminal degenerate who knows better.
Prohibition empowers:
Cartels - the consequences is mass migration of illegals fleeing corruption.
Militarized police - 1033 Program is legislation passed in the early 90's. The US military gives weapons, tanks, gear and money to local police forces. They must use the equipment. This has increased swat raids for drug possessions. Many non violent people have died.
Prison complex - Dick Cheney and many other establishment people have gotten rich off government contracts. Drug possession incarceration is a big money maker.
Big Pharma - all pharmaceuticals are derived from natural. FDA controls access to natural options and recreational drugs in behalf of the pharmaceutical companies.
Politicians - get lobbying from all the above. Plus, left right paradigm preys on donors based on the emotional and moral arguments. If they eliminated the war on drugs and started treating addiction as a health issue rather than a crime then the money train dries up.
One more thing. Micheal Shellenberger has written extensively on this topic. If I understand his position correctly, he claims that police need the threat of jail time for drug use to force addicts to get treatment. Without that threat, the police are powerless to get addicts into treatment, so those addicts just continue using on the streets. If Shellenberger is right -- and I think he is -- then legalizing all drugs is counerproductive.
Thank you for your comment.
My response to his position is based on how to approach the nature of addiction.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't with alcohol. Alcoholics continued drinking. Moonshine was born and the Kennedys got rich off prohibition.
Rarely do people with addiction stop based on court mandatory treatment. They start back once the sentence is complete.
Addiction is a physical disease. This is a health issue rather than a crime. Those who are addicted are much less likely to ask for help if they are default criminals & feel like they must live in secrecy.
This is like criminalzing type 2 diabetes and saying that the diabetics will stop unhealthy lifestyles if we threaten them with jail. Or schizophrenics will stop listening to the voices if police get involved and they are court mandated to take the medal their brain is telling them is somehow evil.
The addict must want help first.
If fear of incarceration stopped drug addiction it would've worked over the last 30 years when the failed war on drugs was launched. And government has been stepping in to treat addiction and it hasn't worked.
The problem with that thesis is it doesn't consider what causes addiction and the insane nature of the disease.
The public and government are fairly ignorant to this health condition and its cause. Government is not capable of solving the most personal of issues.
I don't claim to be an expert on this topic by any stretch, but Michael Shellenberger says that what they are doing in some areas of Europe is far more effective than what we are doing here with the de facto legalization of drugs in places like San Francisco and Oakland.
I'll check him out. 👍 Thanks for the convo.
You should definitely check him out. I follow him on substack, and he is a warrior for free speech.
Well..... yes, but the days of the police incarcerating drug users are well in the past. It may be happening in some places, but certainly not in the big cities where drugs use is rampant. And how do you "treat addiction as a health issue" if the user is homeless and has no health insurance? Is the government supposed to pay for treatment? Most people probably think so, but I was under the impression that libertarians opposed such "free" government services.
I dislike MAHA because those behind it confuse their own personal preferences and what it is reasonable to expect from others. Even if HFCS is bad, it has to be poisonous, not just bad, to be legitimately excluded.
I'm conflicted about MAHA from the perspective that it could become an agenda for the use of government force in the other direction.
Using government to force corporations and people negates the free market providing the correct response.
Regulatory agencies are not human and end up going with the deepest pocket lobbyists.
Maybe it will provide more freedom of choice for alternative medicine and choices.
I'm going to interview someone directly involved with MAHA soon. Let's ask them good questions.