Paleo Libertarians

John Durant, author of The Paleo Manifesto: Ancient Wisdom for Lifelong Health, tells the story of how he discovered his inner hunter-gatherer.

The Paleo ManifestoJohn Durant is the author of The Paleo Manifesto: Ancient Wisdom for Lifelong Health (Harmony), which tells the story of how he discovered his inner hunter-gatherer. He offers practical guidelines for making the transition to a meat-heavy, low-carb diet favored by humanity's paleolithic ancestors.

In December, New York Times science columnist John Tierney interviewed Durant at New York's Museum of Sex. They talked about the cultural and political history of today's industrial diets, why so many libertarians have gone paleo, and more.

Q: Give us an overview of The Paleo Manifesto.

A: A lot of the health conditions that people suffer from today-diabetes, obesity, auto-immune conditions-basically are mismatch conditions. By mismatch, I mean a mismatch between our primal genes and our primal biology, and how we evolved, and the lifestyles we lead today: our diet and sedentary activity patterns. The basic concept is by mimicking key aspects of our ancestral lifestyle or lifestyles you can prevent the onset of a lot of these chronic health conditions.

Q: Why are so many libertarians drawn to the paleo concept?

A: It's multifaceted. The first thing is that if you look at the organic movement and the existing food movement, it really sprang out of vegetarianism. If you look at the early organic movement, it's almost exclusively vegetarian. And there was a lot of political and ideological baggage that came along with that point of view. So there were a lot of people who were interested in optimal health, or simply just good health, who felt excluded from the food movement because it meant buying into all these other beliefs. So there was latent demand for a point of view like this.

Another factor is that libertarians tend to understand the power of spontaneous order-of how you can get very intelligent outcomes from decentralized solutions, like in an economy. You can have an emergent order. And you see the same thing in biological evolution. You have these intricate, incredible, well-coordinated life forms that have come about over millions of years of decentralized decision-making.

Libertarians tend to be a little bit less religious, and so are open to ideas about evolution. And when I'm talking to a libertarian and I make the point that the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] food pyramid is not God's truth, it doesn't require a lot of persuasion to convince libertarians that the official federal guidelines on diet are wrong.

Q: Could you tell me where the federal government, and maybe also where modern agricultural society, went wrong?

A: The big picture is that people started eating a lot of industrial food after the industrial revolution. Refined sugar, refined flour, hard alcohol became more common and were inexpensive. We know that humans are not adapted to industrial food.

The logical next step is to ask what we ate before we ate industrial food. Most people were farmers. Farmers grow grains and they have herds of cattle which they milk for dairy. So people think we should go back to that.

That's correct insofar as avoiding a heavily industrial diet is a probably good thing. But it's not correct in thinking that's the optimal human diet. We've only been eating agricultural foods for, at most, about 10,000 years.

In the 1970s, George McGovern chaired a Senate committee that established dietary goals for the United States. That's when a lot of the anti-fat orthodoxy got put into place officially, and when you started to see a greater push by the government to eat less fat-[which] usually meant fewer animal products-and eat more carbohydrates, which usually meant grains: wheat, corn, and legumes like soy. In our political history, that's when you start to see the shift to what I believe to be incorrect dietary guidelines.

Reason TV conducted a video interview with John Durant in December 2013.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Left out the critical question: Why do we want to adopt a diet that was characteristic of a time with more starvation and other nutritional deficiency and shorter life expectancy?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    It's Traditional?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Because it is healthier.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That remains to be seen. 20 years ago the CW was that fatty foods and red meat were unhealthy.

    What seems constant is that a lazy, inactive lifestyle is a problem, but playing games with diet is much more attractive than getting up from in front of the TV or computer.

  • Jordan||

    That remains to be seen. 20 years ago the CW was that fatty foods and red meat were unhealthy.

    It's still the conventional wisdom. And still wrong.

  • ||

    Hey look, it's Tulpy-Poo! Maybe he thinks that he can just come back now after a week of shame.

    He's wrong. Man, you are a total scumbag, Tulpy-Poo.

  • ||

    "Come back"? As if he ever left. Or do you just mean under this handle?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And it took you and your butt buddy below all of 9 minutes to respond when I showed up! I "come back" every weekend due to the fact that, unlike others I could mention, I have a life which would interfere with maintaining constant presence here.

  • ||

    What an amazing statement, sockpuppet. You haunted a board with sockpuppetry, and then when found out are so socially retarded that you don't realize that any normal human would leave in total shame and not come back. Then, when still coming back after being caught and hated and asked to leave, you accuse others of "not having a life" and whatever else your gibberish is implying.

    You are one fucked up autistic retard, Tulpy-Poo. And it's screamingly obvious to every single fucking person here but you. You're also a complete scumbag.

  • Virginian||

    Tulpa was sockpuppeting?

  • Tejicano||

    About a week ago Tulpa was running one discussion as a sockpuppet "Rollo" while also posting as Tulpa. He got confused and replied as Rollo in a discussion he had been running as Tulpa. Some here have been refering to it as "The Incident".

  • LiveFreeOrDOH!||

    That's rich! Can you post a link to that discussion please? I am fairly new, but only PBplug is on my troll list.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Ha! I have a fan! "LiveFreeOrDOH" Too funny.

  • Plopper||

    Link plz?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Maybe he thinks that he can just come back now after a week of shame. He's wrong.

    This is perhaps the funniest and most telling of all your reactions, though the competition is stiff. Your inability to squelch my POV is really bothering you, isn't it?

  • juris imprudent||

    squelch my POV

    No one kills the credibility of your POV like you yourself.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Maybe you should do the right thing?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Tulpa, if that really is your moniker, please leave as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a lying piece of shit.

    No one wants you here. You are a scumbag who gets a little boner by fucking with people. You are a disingenuous pig.

    Go away.

  • OneOut||

    Hey Lyle !

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Healthier for whom? I have IBS and a high red meat and low-soluble fiber diet would have me bed-ridden and in extreme pain.

    I don't think any one diet can be a one-size-fits-all.

  • SugarFree||

    IBS? Are you sure? Maybe you are just rage-pooping.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Six of one; half-a-dozen of the other.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Paleo isn't a low soluble fiber or red meat diet.

    Proteins come in many forms and is typical high in fiber.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Good to know, but is it high in insouble fiber (whole grains, wheat, nuts, greens, etc.) or souble (rice, oats, beans, tubers, bananas, etc)? The first would tear my stomach apart, the second would be no problem.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I don't know enough about the differences between soluble and insoluble to advise, and, obviously, you know best what your body can tolerate. But, IMO, the general conventional wisdom surrounding fiber is as confused and faulty as it is about everything else.

    As an example of one (and probably not terribly relevant) I had some minor IB issues which were completely cleared up on a low carb (no sugar or grain) diet. I don't eat paleo - just ketogenic.

  • iEagleHammer||

    Paleos try to eliminate whole grains and wheat. Nuts are thought to be okay as a snack. Things like oats, beans, bananas, etc. are definitely part of the diet. It sounds to me like you probably already practice the diet to some degree because of your IBS.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hmm...maybe Paleo is the way to go.

    Thanks, guys!

  • OneOut||

    Eat real food, mostly vegetables.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Oats and beans are on the diet if they are tolerated by the individual. Oats are less recommended than legumes, btw

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I, too, have IBS. I haven't had a single attack since I switched to Paleo two years ago.

    ... Hobbit

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sounds encouraging.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    a high red meat and low-soluble fiber diet

    Paleo is not low in soluble fiber. Even forgoing all sugar and white flour does not remove any fiber.
    And Paleo doesn't necessarily mean red meat.

    I remembered this. Maybe it will interest you:
    The Lancet Volume 344, Issue 8914, Pages 39 - 40, 2 July 1994.
    Bran and irritable bowel syndrome: time for reappraisal
    C.Y Francis MRCP , P.J Whorwell FRCP
    Department of Medicine, Research and Teaching Bullding, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester M20 8LR, UK
    55% of patients were made worse by bran whereas only 10% had found it helpful.
    Consumption of fruit made the condition worse.
    All symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome were exacerbated by bran, with bowel disturbance most often adversely affected, followed by abdominal distension and pain.

  • ChrissMari||

    You can lose weight, doesn't mean it's healthier.

    It's also silly to think that even organic vegetables are the same as they were in caveman days.....

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Losing weight without starvation doesn't strike you as healthier?

    You're missing the point, which is to eat macronutrients that are closer to what the species would eat "in the wild." It's a concept that has worked very well for animals, like the Cleveland Zoo gorillas.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not to mention a diet that's extremely resource intensive when you're talking about a world population of billions. How ironic that a "hunter-gatherer" diet is only possible for wealthy people, grown fat off the benefits of agriculture and industry.

  • Fluffy||

    I would discuss this with you, but that would be pointless, since I have to assume these aren't your actual thoughts.

    Fuck off, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Or maybe you resort to an ad hominem when you don't have an argument.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's not an ad hom, pig. You are a PROVEN fucking liar.

    LEAVE!

  • ||

    What is it about our idiot trolls that renders them unable to tell the difference between an insult and the argumentum ad hominiem? It's shockingly common, and Tulpa here is the finest example. Maybe it's because he's dumbest of all our trolls. Or maybe he's all our trolls.

  • ||

    It's because they're too stupid to realize that you're not arguing with them, even though they think you are, because they are retarded or autistic or retarded.

  • OneOut||

    So a person who has health problems should not eat what is best for their health because Al Gore needs the carbon credits to be able to fly his jet giving speeches about global warming.

    Aren't you special ?

    Bless your heart Tulpa.

  • OneOut||

    So a person who has health problems should not eat what is best for their health because Al Gore needs the carbon credits to be able to fly his jet giving speeches about global warming.

    Aren't you special ?

    Bless your heart Tulpa.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    So poor shits like you will die in agony.

  • sasob||

    If one doesn't eat properly, one will shit poorly. Just sayin'.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    How ironic that a "hunter-gatherer" diet is only possible for wealthy people, grown fat off the benefits of agriculture and industry.

    Really? Poor people can't garden? I have (evidently false) childhood memories of picking vegetables in a home-made greenhouse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Gardening = agriculture.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Holy crap. You say a lot of really stupid shit but this is particularly bad.

    So the Kalahari, Spinifex, Sentinelese, Pirahã and Batak (to name just a few) are wealthy and have grown fat off of the benefits of agriculture and industry you miserable fucking sack of shit?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Starvation was lack of food due to a variety of conditions not related to the quality of the food. Paleo foods are way more nutrient dense than industrial foods so there goes your second point, and finally life expectancy was biased by infant mortality, a dangerous life style and infectious disease. So basically, you are full of shit.

  • ||

    Religious much?

    Seriously, you think there were lots of hale and hearty 70 and 80 year old cave men?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Instead of drug-addled and factory-raised meats I imagine this guy is eating free-range and humanely-raised meat in which case I can understand that type of diet. It's interesting to me how eating habits can be correlated with political/social awareness to an extent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Both correlate with wealth. There's not enough free range for a herd feeding 300 million people.

  • PapayaSF||

    So, what's your point? Nobody should practice Healthy Diet Thing because it's impossible for everyone on Earth to do the same?

  • ||

    He doesn't have a point. He's being pointlessly contrarian so he can tell himself he's a gadfly or a maverick or whatever, like he always does. At least he's using his normal handle this time, though.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    People can eat what they want, it's none of my business. Where I start to wonder is when they claim everyone should eat the way they do.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Where is EVERYONE in the Paleo claims? Its an expensive way to eat. So what? GO off yourself.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Because it diverts resources (water, oil, soil, etc) from growing less expensive food for poor people. It's pretty hideous to cause 10 poor Ethopian kids to go without the rice they need to survive, just so you can eat a meat-heavy diet and look hot at the beach.

  • Tejicano||

    Anybody who believes that the reason anybody on the face of the earth today is starving is due to a lack of resources on a global scale doesn't understand the problem well enough to even discuss solutions.

    It reminds me of those "Band-Aid" idiots who produced a song and (supposedly) passed on the profits to a fund which they intended to send somewhere to feed the starving people in Ethiopia - but were so clueless that the money ended up in the hands of the very warlords who caused the problem.

  • LiveFreeOrDOH!||

    So earlier in the discussion you bashed paleo dieters because they are trying to neutralize the affects of some industrial foods caused by advent in agriculture, and now you are bashing them because correcting that is preventing poorer people somewhere on earth from eating the industrial foods. So in your mind, because people realized that industrial foods are not good for them, and they switched their diets and their children's diets are hypocrites, and they should stick with the mistake they made - even though it's better for them to correct it? Let me ask you this: In every decision you make every day, do you ask yourself how it's affecting anyone on this earth? Clearly no because you are using electricity and breathing precious air that can be reserved for more deserving people. Stop throwing stones, you're living in a very fragile glass house.

  • Senor Sam||

    Yes there is. There's enough free range to feed billions. Here's some education for you: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan.....ate_change

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't watch random videos on the Internet. Summarize it please.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    You can lead an idiot to evidence, but you can't make him think.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Help me out, here. Is it just my imagination, or is this unadulterated gibberish?

    THE unresolved question is, how will this economy of the future function when millions of people can make and share goods and services nearly free? The answer lies in the civil society, which consists of nonprofit organizations that attend to the things in life we make and share as a community. In dollar terms, the world of nonprofits is a powerful force. Nonprofit revenues grew at a robust rate of 41 percent — after adjusting for inflation — from 2000 to 2010, more than doubling the growth of gross domestic product, which increased by 16.4 percent during the same period. In 2012, the nonprofit sector in the United States accounted for 5.5 percent of G.D.P.

    What makes the social commons more relevant today is that we are constructing an Internet of Things infrastructure that optimizes collaboration, universal access and inclusion, all of which are critical to the creation of social capital and the ushering in of a sharing economy. The Internet of Things is a game-changing platform that enables an emerging collaborative commons to flourish alongside the capitalist market.

  • Fluffy||

    This person is stupid and thinks that growth in "nonprofits" that was entirely driven by (deficit) government spending is sustainable.

    Without a gusher of federal grants, there would be virtually no nonprofit sector in the US.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Hospitals and colleges are mostly "nonprofits", which is a joke of course since administrators and skilled employees of those interests make boatloads of money. With the student loan bubble expanding and health care costs skyrocketing, I could see how they would be growing in GDP share.

  • chmercier||

    You could say the same thing about any "nonprofit" or charity, really.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    He's just attempting to co-opt free association enabled by the interwebz and social media as a manifestation of "anti-capitalism" instead of the natural creative destruction that it is. If he labels it in this way he doesn't need to acknowledge the obvious benefits of deregulation or the lack of regulation and gets to capture the benefits without coming to terms with the underlying dynamics that make it actually work.

  • chmercier||

    Yeah. Rifkin is probably one of those guys who would respond "socialism" to the system libertarians/free marketers generally wish for.

    You see, they're mired in doublethink - socialism=freedom and all that jazz.

  • chmercier||

    Finished reading. Basically what you said. Of course, his underlying idea, without directly stating it, is that without government it wouldn't be possible. That to say capitalism is undermining his "capitalism" is an odd argument - but Rifkin probably sees the writing on the wall and like a good little boy, has to spin it so that his team can win. Free markets = socialism because socialism has to win, see?

    Didn't Rifkin write for Slate or Salon at some point? I can't remember.

  • chmercier||

    Rifkin is usually good for a laugh or two. Er, maybe a chuckle.

    He is essentially arguing the olde tune: capitalism will lead to Socialist Utopia!

    Only this time, he's ignoring that the internet actually revolutionized the free-ish market of goods and ideas.

    I'll read the whole thing, but I'm willing to bet he's a Frankfurt School guy.

  • sasob||

    Sounds like communitarian touchy-feely bullshit to me. But...but...we are the world - we are all one! Yeah, until it comes time to decide who takes a turn in the barrel.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    More:

    This collaborative rather than capitalistic approach is about shared access rather than private ownership. For example, 1.7 million people globally are members of car-sharing services. A recent survey found that the number of vehicles owned by car-sharing participants decreased by half after joining the service, with members preferring access over ownership. Millions of people are using social media sites, redistribution networks, rentals and cooperatives to share not only cars but also homes, clothes, tools, toys and other items at low or near zero marginal cost. The sharing economy had projected revenues of $3.5 billion in 2013.

  • chmercier||

    Yeah, this part was interesting. No question of who or why this is happening. Just the assumption that people have seen the light and are joining the anti-capitalist cause.

    While engaging in capitalism. Socialism ftw! apparently.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And more:


    Nowhere is the zero marginal cost phenomenon having more impact than the labor market, where workerless factories and offices, virtual retailing and automated logistics and transport networks are becoming more prevalent. Not surprisingly, the new employment opportunities lie in the collaborative commons in fields that tend to be nonprofit and strengthen social infrastructure — education, health care, aiding the poor, environmental restoration, child care and care for the elderly, the promotion of the arts and recreation. In the United States, the number of nonprofit organizations grew by approximately 25 percent between 2001 and 2011, from 1.3 million to 1.6 million, compared with profit-making enterprises, which grew by a mere one-half of 1 percent. In the United States, Canada and Britain, employment in the nonprofit sector currently exceeds 10 percent of the work force.

    This seems to be a man who sees exactly what he wants to see.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No one's mentioned WHEAT IS MURDER yet? I'm disappointed.

  • ||

    The problem with paleo diets is that it would be completely ridiculous for our bodies, which are specifically evolved to eat just about anything, to not be able to eat just about anything without major problems.

    Like any reaction to an imbalance, paleo is an overreaction. The government and "health experts" got really stupid and started telling people how to eat, and they created an imbalance with the food pyramid. Some of the people following their advice imbalanced their diet, of which a balanced one is probably something that works for most, because that would make sense for an omnivore (I can't prove that, however). When these people "went paleo", they corrected part of the imbalance, and some of them felt a fuckload better and lost weight. So of course, to them, the new imbalance became the "right way".

    Different people have different bodies. Some of them probably react worse to carbs than others. But the whole problem in the first place was the assumption that 1) our bodies couldn't handle the variety of foods we were naturally eating and enjoying through pure choice (before the government and "health experts" weighed in), and 2) that someone could figure out some magic bullet way of eating.

    Eat what you like, but eat a variety. Exercise. Don't eat only one thing all the time. Don't fear perfectly tasty and natural things that we need (and love) like fat. If you do that, you're probably going to be doing quite well. Trying to find magic bullets is fucking stupid.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Paleo is more about not eating grains and refined sugar. Tons of variety in the rest. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

  • chmercier||

    Even then, they say *some* grains are all right, just don't overdo it. Grains are supplement, not main course.

    It's actually a lot more blended than what its reputation is.

    Then again, paleo repudiates the godvernment, so it must be wrong.

  • Acosmist||

    "We've only been eating agricultural foods for, at most, about 10,000 years."

    Which is when evolution accelerated insanely for humans, so...eh? Eat what you want, but don't bring in evolution when the evidence is so cloudy. 10,000 years is a long time if we're talking the last 10,000 years; human evolution took off with the advent of agriculture.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Acosmist||

    Excellent, thanks.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Human Bioperversion!!!

  • mtrueman||

    "human evolution took off with the advent of agriculture"

    Cattle have been on a predominantly grain based diet for a lot less than 10,000 years. Are you looking forward to the evolution of cows 'taking off'?

  • Robert||

    Didn't it already?

  • mtrueman||

    I'm not sure that evolution ever takes off. Especially for humans and cattle thanks to an overwhelming dependence on grains. Grains, on the other hand, maybe. I think you could make a better case for what agriculture has done for the evolution of grains.

  • Acosmist||

    You're right, I'll tell the local aurochs farmer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't think anybody is arguing that grain consumption itself is what benefitted humanity. Rather it's the ability of agriculture to feed dense populations, which hunting-gathering could not sustain.

    John Durant lives in a New York City apartment; there's something odd about a man who rails against that which makes his preferred lifestyle possible.

  • Acosmist||

    I have no idea what you're on about. The point, as the current literature suggests, is that agriculture increased selection pressures to a considerable extent. It's, like, there, if you care to crack a book. Or whatever.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Tulpa can't go anywhere.

    He's nailed to that cross.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Eat what you like, but eat a variety. Exercise. Don't eat only one thing all the time.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa.

    That sort of glibertarian extremism isn't going to get us any new converts.

  • SugarFree||

    Common sense sells, but who's buying?

  • ||

    Whaddaya mean I don't believe in wheat?

  • Almanian!||

    Tell me something - it's still "We - The Meat Eaters", right?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Why conflation of eating on one thing or a small number of food items with Paleo? Idiotic or at least ignorance. Eating all sorts of meats, veggies, tubers, fruits, some dairy (depending on personnel tolerance), fish, shell fish, etc. is the bare denial of the Paleo = eating one thing myth.

  • phandaal||

    Yup, we're totally identical to our 5-foot-nothing, dead-by-25 ancestors who all lived in a similar geographic environment.

    The paleo diet is a cult of bullshit. It takes good dietary advice tries to lay it on a foundation of pseudoscience. I hate that it's somehow the new libertarian thing.

  • Sevo||

    "I hate that it's somehow the new libertarian thing."

    I don't think it is. You can find vegans with libertarian views; that doesn't mean no meat is a 'new lib'n thing'.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I would think Soylent would be the next libertarian (TM) thing.

  • juris imprudent||

    Only if you freely contracted for it before you died.

  • sasob||

    Wouldn't it be better to freely contract for it before someone else died?

  • GroundTruth||

    Show me a vegan, and generally even a vegetarian, and I'll show you a socialist, and maybe a communist.

  • ||

    People who realize that authority figures have been steering them wrong, and have potentially really negatively impacted their lives, often become way more libertarian, because they realize that authority figures are usually totally full of shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If that were true, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, Robespierre would have been giants of libertarianism.

    The more common conclusion drawn in those circumstances is that the wrong authorities were in charge. Child abuse is not a good way of producing a pacifist.

  • ||

    Hey Tulpy-Poo, let's see how stupid you actually are. Explain to me how a "law and order" enthusiast can be such a cunty whiny little responsibility-avoiding shit? Did you actually think there would be no repercussions for lying and deceiving people and then getting caught (because you were too stupid to change a handle, ha)? That you don't have to have any responsibility for that?

    Come on, say something amazingly stupid and autistic and socially retarded like I know you will. Oh man, this is going to be good. When you're gone past retarded into vegetable-like as you have, everything you type is hilarious beyond measure.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I posted under a fake name -- like you and nearly everyone else on this site does every day. That's neither lying nor deception.

    The difference is, this time it was someone you disagree with and you saw an opportunity to turn the ad-homs you hold so dear up to 11.

  • ||

    And that was about as socially inept, retarded, autistic, and flat-out un-self-aware as I could have hoped for. Well done, moronic scumbag. Well done. That's precisely what I was looking for.

  • ||

    The difference is that other ppl do it for lulz. Not to just be another voice of retarded contention.

  • OneOut||

    "I posted under a fake name -- like you and nearly everyone else on this site does every day. That's neither lying nor deception."

    We prolly all post under a fake name in order to dissuade potential stalkers ...maybe like yourself. My legal name isn't OneOut, but it's the only one I use here.

    Most of us keep the same false name, you ?...not so much.

  • Almanian!||

    This is the stupidest thing it's said in the last 5 minutes.

    Holy FUCK - that broke the Stupid Meter AND the Non Sequitur Meters at the SAME TIME, tulip! That is some fuckTARDedness you're dropping right there. HARD CORE.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    One man's stupid non sequitur is another man's obvious statement.

    Unfortunately, this is especially true when the first man is an H+R opinion leader.

  • Brandybuck||

    There is a strong streak of "Everything You Know is Wrong" in libertarianism. It's why we so many truthers, money cranks, and paleo-diet enthusiasts. It's why we have people claiming hemp is the miracle plant and THC the wonder drug. I expect any day now that the new libertarian meme will be leprechauns are real, because we all know they're not therefore they are. Government oppression of leprechauns are why you don't see them.

  • OneOut||

    Why do you hate leprechauns ?

    Racist !

  • Virginian||

    truthers, money cranks, and paleo-diet enthusiasts

    One of these things is not like the other.

  • Acosmist||

    I'll bite - which one?

  • Calidissident||

    The dead-by-25 thing is misleading, life expectancy stats are heavily skewed by high infant mortality

  • ||

    Even if you discount dead-by-one, life expectancy is far better in modern times and has been increasing monotonically, if slowly.

  • Calidissident||

    Oh I'm not denying that. Although those gains in life expectancy have been very recent. People have been living in agricultural societies for several thousand years, and until the modern era, they didn't necessarily have a significantly higher life-expectancy than hunter-gatherers. In some cases, it was the opposite, as many of the deadliest diseases throughout history evolved through close human contact with livestock (which was the reason why so many Native Americans were wiped out when they came into contact with Europeans - there was far less domestication of livestock in the Americas because there were few or no, depending on the area, species capable of domestication that would make useful livestock)

  • Steve G||

    surviving and thriving are two different things. How many people above 50 are basically kept alive by pills?

  • chmercier||

    ^This. There was infant mortality. After that, it was largely illness in the first 10 years, coupled with environmental concerns/infections.

    It's the way they "average" the lifespans. For two peopele: 1 + 65 = 66. 66/2 = 33! OMG, they only lived to be 33!

  • ||

    Perhaps you could point out the elderly among the hominid fossils? What does that age-at-death distribution look like?

  • chmercier||

    This is according to mostly from medieval and ancient finds when they could accurately determine primary sources along with testing of the bones/soils etc.

    My fault for not making that clear initially; my comment was meant to be lighthearted in acknowledging that modern bias.

    As for the link to the age thing - it's a modern bias that only in the past century or so have people lived beyond 35-40 years. It's a stereotype that everyone died young based on the averages.

    Similar testing has been done, granted without written sources, to determine the age of prehistoric humans, largely through burial sites. Similarly, it's how they determine foods they ate, looking through old refuse caches and whatnot.

    Much of the prehistoric is based solely on archaeological and geologic/biologic evidence and much of it is few and far between.

  • Steve G||

    Agriculture actually pushed us down to 5-foot-nothing and we've been climbing back up ever since as a result of addl protein. Our paleolithic ancestors were stronger, taller and healthier than us, at least the ones that made it to adulthood.
    Concur about the cultish and historical reenactment angles that people like Durant push, but the actual science is out there verifying what these people ate and how robust they were.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Incumbent wants spending limits; who would have suspeted?

    Democratic U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is calling on newly announced Republican challenger Scott Brown to sign the same pact in New Hampshire that helped prevent outside groups from pouring millions of dollars into his last Massachusetts Senate election.

    In a letter sent Saturday, less than 24 hours after the former U.S. senator from Massachusetts entered the race, Shaheen said she "very much admired the People's Pledge" that Brown signed with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2012. Brown lost his Senate seat to Warren.

    "I believe it limited the influence of outside groups and allowed the people's voices to be heard," Shaheen wrote. She asked Brown to make a similar pledge this year to give New Hampshire voters "the assurance that their voices will not be drowned out by third-party expenditures."

    Let teh peepul speak! But not overly loudly.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    She asked Brown to make a similar pledge this year to give New Hampshire voters "the assurance that their voices will not be drowned out by third-party expenditures."

    I didn't realize that third party expenditures counted for anything on election day; I thought it was just New Hampshire voters' votes.

    Perhaps Sen Shaheen is saying that NH voters are too dumb to reject messages they see advertised on TV.

  • ||

    Hey scumbag: FUCK OFF. How many times do you have to be told before you get it through your thick, retarded, socially inept, autistic skull? How fucking stupid are you?

    Don't answer that, we all know. God damn you're pathetic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Perhaps I don't recognize your authority to tell me what to do?

    It's always anarchists who get the most pissed when people don't do as their told.

  • ||

    I don't give a rat's ass what you recognize, you lying sockpuppeting autistic piece of trash. You're too stupid to get the message, you've made that abundantly clear. We always knew you were stupid, but you've proven how mongoloid you actually are with this. And the best part is you literally cannot see why. You're really that retarded.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Right, your behavior on this thread is the epitome of a serene acceptance of others' choices and a live and let live mentality. Gandhi would be proud.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I don't have to accept liars.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The fact that you and others call me a liar for posting under a fake name -- like you and every non-Reason employee does -- shows that you're just settling an old score.

    I don't remember you attacking Ayn Randian/Randian/The Angry Optimist/Neoliberal Kochtopus when he starts posting under a different name and not telling anyone about it.

  • ||

    I was unaware Randian changed his name to fuck with people.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Maybe you could cool it with the autistic bullshit? Tulpa is a fucking idiot but it's not cool to compare him to people (like my son) that actually are autistic.

  • Sevo||

    OT.
    New Gov't Program Urgently Required to Close the Drone Gap!:
    "US lags as commercial drones take off around globe"
    [...]
    ""No, we didn't get it cleared, but we don't get our pop flies cleared either and those go higher than this thing did," a team official said when contacted by The Associated Press. The drone flights ceased the next day. The official wasn't authorized to speak publicly and asked not to be named."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol.....321851.php

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Since only one person in the world could possibly disagree with Epi, you must be a sockpuppet.

  • ||

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Tulpa is sockpuppeting defenses for himself. Oh my god you are impossible to parody. You have to be the stupidest person in existence.

  • Almanian!||

    SHUT UP, EPIHITLER!!!!

    /tulip's body guard

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Heh, call me Nostradamus.

  • ||

    So that's going to be your new sockpuppet handle? My god you are retarded beyond any comprehension of retarded. You actually, truly don't get how obvious you are. You have severe mental problems, Tulpy-Poo, and they clearly fuck your life up, about which I can only laugh uproariously.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Google has two pages worth of threads from the past week, during which I did not post here, where you guys are accusing various people of being my sockpuppets (incorrectly in every case, of course). If only one of us has got mental problems that fuck them up, it ain't me.

  • OneOut||

    " (incorrectly in every case, of course)."

    Of course.

    If it wasn't so obvious you wouldn't have felt the need to add " of course", of course.

    /sarc

  • Almanian!||

    So people are free to tell others to leave. If the others decide not to, well, they're tulip.

    Suggest you don't go full retard right out the gate. NO ONE wants to go full retard right out the gate.

    Have nice day.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Sure are a lot of little Hitlers here.
    I thought this was a free-speech site. No?

    I choose not to associate with a proven fucking liar.

    He has every right to be here, and I am not forcing him to do anything against his will. But, I have EVERY right to tell him what I think of his ethics.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And others have the right to question your commitment to free speech when you shout down disfavored individuals due to past squabbles.

  • ||

    You may need a refresher course on how freedom of speech can be infringed. When Epi and FdA start calling for the government to arrest you or cut off your access to the Internet ill "question their commitment to free speech".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'm not talking about the first amendment, I'm talking free speech in general. Heckling is an enemy of free speech despite usually not being a tool of the govt.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    "Heckling is an enemy of free speech" On what fucking planet?

  • dinkster||

    Well fraud is not protected speech. Assuming the identity of a mental health/addiction councilor or other medical professional is very naughty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I wasn't aware of any transactions taking place based on my comments.

  • dinkster||

    I can only imagine what you do in your spare time, given your propensity to assume the identity of a medical professional.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Plants are what food eats.

    That is all.

  • Almanian!||

    Brawndo has what plants crave.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Electrolytes!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Lurk moar.

    Tulpa is a regular troll here, which was tolerated for YEARS, as everyone has the right to their opinion. It was long suspected that he was disingenuous in his arguments and was here just to fuck with people.

    Two weeks ago, he was caught red handed, impersonating a drug counselor, as the sockpuppet rollo.

    He now has ZERO credibility and is worthy of everyone's contempt. His opinions are meaningless.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There are two sides to every story.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, there are two sides to every story: Yours and Rollo's.

  • Raven Nation||

    Ah, thank you. I was absent from the boards most of last week and was also confused over the increased hostility toward T.

  • Robert||

    I usually thought his posts were interesting.

  • William of Purple||

    and Mary's going spastic in the Amish thread.
    WHAT A WONDERFUL SUNDAY AFTERNOON!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Twice in one day. She got booted earlier.

    Who's got the webmasters email?

  • dinkster||

    Man I missed all those melt down posts. Sad panda.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    Union asks whether everybody should get paid more; surprise, everybody thinks so!
    (somehow, I don't think they mentioned the costs)
    "Thumbs-up for $15-an-hour minimum wage in new S.F. poll"
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics.....321206.php

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • ||

    Wow.

  • chmercier||

    Yeah, diversity has basically become a euphemism for exactly that.

    Check this out: http://www.freep.com/article/2.....port-finds

  • steve walsh||

    Why do "we" have to chose a diet? Why can't I eat what works for me - in whatever way I want to measure it - and leave the rest of you pukes to fend for yourselves?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Because we have a government that sets nutritional guidelines for public schools and other federally funded institutions. And, because we have a government that subsidizes the production of certain agricultural products that make up the bulk of our diet.

  • chmercier||

    Godvernment hath deemed that thou art not smarteth enough to interpret data and make choices for thine self.

    Now eat thine 18 servings of subsidized grains coated with healthy high-fructose corn syrup, thou restive serf!

  • Jheri Cruel||

    Paleo as a concept has some good points. Like don't eat processed shit, stop pretending that french fries are better for you than a lean chicken breast, and that passionfruit is stupid. But INMNSHO, most people that stick strictly to the diet are just as bad as the vegans, the vegetarians, the proggies, the Crossfitters, the SoCons, and everyone else that wants to tell someone else what to do.

    It isn't the grain, the sugar, or the red meat that leads to shitty health. It's eating more calories, day in and day out, than one burns. You can lose weight eating Twinkies, and you can gain weight eating chicken and asparagus.

    Also, after months of lurking, I would like to apologize to Tonio. Everyone refers to Palin's Buttplug as Tony, so I thought he was your sock at first. My apologies.

  • ||

    just as bad as the vegans, the vegetarians, the proggies, the Crossfitters, the SoCons, and everyone else that wants to tell someone else what to do.

    I've been a vegetarian for the past 50 years. I cannot recall ever telling someone else that they must or ought to do the same. Can you accept that people make dietary choices without feeling a compulsion to force others to make the same choice?

  • Jheri Cruel||

    I'm only speaking from personal experience (prejudice maybe) here- of course people do all these things and don't push their lifestyle on others.

    Maybe most was too strong a word, maybe a vocal minority would have been better phrasing. I am 100% in favor of every person doing as they see best for themselves. I just hate the diet book/ lifestyle pushers.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    This. The obnoxious vegans--a minority of a minority--are giving the majority of vegans and vegetarians a bad name for those who don't know many vegetarians. All of the vegans & vegetarians I know (which includes an objectivist vegetarian among the many hindus) are considerate people who don't goad, much less shame.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    and that passionfruit is stupid

    Right on! No one likes passionfruit. Seriously.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I like it, but it got a zero on the Stanford-Binet.

  • Robert||

    If passionfruit is stupid, is stupidfruit passionate?

  • Tejicano||

    I dunno. But I would say that stupid passion is often fruitful.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's eating more calories"

    But we don't eat calories, we eat food. Calories are simply a measure of the energy in food or anything else. Reducing what we eat to one single number is only going to lead you astray.

  • Jheri Cruel||

    Sorry I didn't differentiate between a sandwich and the calories in a sandwich. I kind of figured that pretty much everyone could figure that out on their own.

    That said, go talk to a nutritionist if you think that calories consumed vs calories burned doesn't matter to your long term health.

  • mtrueman||

    Like I said, when you eat a sandwich you are eating a lot more than calories. If you want to pretend otherwise, and reduce what you consume to one simple number, go ahead. Don't say you haven't been told.

  • Jheri Cruel||

    It's not just me, it is the basis of every structured diet out there. Want to cut fat? Run a calorie deficit. Want to gain muscle? Run a calorie surplus. You don't think it works that way? Eat whatever makeup of macronutrients you want, whatever vitamins you want- unless you consume the number of calories you need to get where you want, you won't get there.

    But keep on pretending that calories don't matter.

  • mtrueman||

    "Want to cut fat?"

    No, in fact I don't give a damn about cutting fat, and find it strange that you assume I do.

    I am not saying that calories don't matter. I'm saying that to reduce what we eat to one number, whether it's calories or any other measure, is to mislead oneself.

  • SIV||

    I bet all those guys back in the paleolithic feel really stupid now for eating all that grass seed and honey.

  • ||

    I was just thinking about the same thing.

    Paleo is such a vague term. People in different places were eating different things.

  • Robert||

    Duh, of course they were eating different things. How could their food have been in 2 places at once?

  • mtrueman||

    "Paleo is such a vague term. People in different places were eating different things."

    I agree that it's a vague term. Would you agree that these days, people in different places are eating the same thing? Something from a factory. Seems to me that the world of Soylent Green is a lot closer than many are comfortable with and the Paleo movement and other similar movements or ethical stances are reactions to that discomfort.

  • iEagleHammer||

    If Paleo gets people looking into libertarianism then I'm all for it.

    I think from a diet perspective they say a lot of things that make sense too. They are basically just saying "eat a balanced diet, but the government is wrong about grains, eat less of those." There isn't really anything radical about that at all. And the fact is that people following this diet are losing weight. That doesn't mean it's healthy, but it might be. Of course if someone is motivated enough to follow a diet that leaves out pizza and lasagna then they probably work out too, which would help the weight loss.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    'Libertarians tend to understand the power of spontaneous order-of how you can get very intelligent outcomes from decentralized solutions, like in an economy.'

    this. i like this.

  • Freedom Frog||

    Paleo works for me. Somehow my body tolerates beer and corn once in a while.


    That is all.

  • dinkster||

    Greatest sock puppet fail of all time.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Another factor is that libertarians tend to understand the power of spontaneous order-of how you can get very intelligent outcomes from decentralized solutions, like in an economy. You can have an emergent order.

    The man knows his audience.

    I've been half-heartedly screwing around with paleo since I read Durant's book following his cosmo talk earlier this year and have dropped fifteen pounds despite eating flatbread several times. I anticipated that paleo would lead me to eat more meat or fish, but the biggest change I've seen without micro-managing my diet has been the substitution of vegetables for bread or rice. We keep about a dozen packages of frozen mixed vegetables in the chest freezer and stir fry one or two a day.

    I don't keep bread of any kind in the house--we make it from scratch when we've planned a meal, and then only enough to cover that meal--and that seems to be the magic bullet.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I saw this talk after escaping from my mother and sister who talk incessantly about gluten.

    STOP TALKING ABOUT GLUTEN, EVERYONE.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    If your family yammers on about gluten, it's your fault for not upholding your end of the conversation by twisting every conversation into an opportunity to convert them to anarcho-capitalism.

    And seitan can be good if done properly.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    While I certainly disagree with some of the things socialist comedian Lewis Black says (listened to him more during the Bush years, in fact he could be dead for all I know) he couldn't have been more of an individualist when he said that what's healthy for one person might kill the person right next to them.

    On a related note, i'm sick of this cavemen/steampunk/ZZ Top/hipster/Duck Dynasty fad. I've always known people with facial hair but people these days are really overcompensating. The day I couldn't distinguish a trendy from a redneck or a Santorum/Duggard type was the day hell froze over.

  • ibcbet||

    Even forgoing all sugar and white flour does not remove any fiber.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement