We Don't Need RFK Jr. To 'Make America Healthy Again'
The federal government can't make the right health choices for you and your family. Only you can do that.

The online, health-focused "crunchy" community has always had an antigovernment streak. That makes sense, as it consists of trad wives who want legal raw milk, health nuts who hate chemicals and junk food, moms who are concerned about vaccines, hippies who want to use natural products, and other groups that tend to go against the status quo. Personal responsibility to make choices that benefit both people and the planet has often been the community link between wildly different accounts and motivations.
And then came Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. Suddenly, many of the same crunchy influencers who championed personal responsibility and making informed choices for their families began to applaud the federal government making choices for all American families.
As the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), RFK Jr. has an opportunity to leverage the federal government's power to restrict things he believes are making Americans sick, such as seed oils, junk food, vaccines, chemicals, and more. A large portion of the crunchy community would support him in doing so. Eryn Carroll, a health-minded influencer, applauded MAHA, suggesting that the federal government should work to ban GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, and fluoride in tap water. "Imagine a health system led by someone who truly prioritizes our well-being over corporate interests," wrote Carly Shankman, another online crunchy influencer, in support of RFK Jr.
But many in the crunchy community remain adamant that the federal government should not take choices away from people. "I am granola but also a rational science-minded person, and they are going to have to pry vaccines and pasteurized milk out of my cold hands," ranted one Reddit user in a channel describing itself as "a place for almost hippies."
The disagreement over MAHA within the health-focused community proves that two things can be true at once: Yes, many things are bad for our health. No, asking the federal government to remove our option to choose these things is not a good idea.
I live in the daily tension between these two things as the stereotypically crunchy person among my friends and family. My house is as chemical-free as possible, and anything including the ingredient "fragrance" is banned. I don't use perfume, make homemade cleaning products, haven't lit a candle in years, filter my water, and religiously read the ingredients list of anything I'm tempted to buy at the grocery store.
Some people live this way as a form of prevention, but I adopted this lifestyle when I was desperate for a cure. A few years ago, my health took a sharp turn for the worse, and on top of some other health problems, I developed severe chemical allergies that made day-to-day life miserable. I often turned to crunchy influencers to get ideas for product swaps and brands. It took years and thousands of dollars, but I finally have a household and lifestyle that keeps me healthy.
"Over the past fifty or so years, more than 80,000 chemicals have been introduced into our environment, and the vast majority weren't tested first to see if they were safe for human contact," writes Darin Olien, author of Fatal Conveniences. The crunchy community is right to ask questions about the impacts of these chemicals.
Water quality is another common, justified concern. "Getting a passing grade from the federal government does not mean the water meets the latest health guidelines," writes the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG's Tap Water Database lets you search using your zip code to see contaminant levels in your area's drinking water. I check the database every time I move to a new area and am often shocked at the high levels of chemicals and disinfectants found in the water that comes out of my faucet.
We shouldn't wave away valid health concerns, but regulation already exists. And, as certifications and innovative digital tools make it simpler than ever to make informed decisions, we can remove many harmful substances from our lives without increased regulation. The global certifier OEKO-TEX makes it easy to identify whether the clothes, blankets, and towels you buy have been chemically treated. EWG's Skin Deep Database makes it easy to get information about how the ingredients in your personal care products might be impacting your health. There are also a handful of government certifications that Americans already know and trust, such as the organic label on your grocery store purchases.
You might think worrying about any of this is a waste of time. You grew up on Red Dye 40 and feel just fine! Why add a water filter when the United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world? You are absolutely free to think worrying about any of this is ridiculous, just like I am free to make choices that benefit my health. There's no need to get RFK Jr. involved to make decisions for either of us.
Healthy decisions are not one-size-fits-all; they are tradeoffs, and we are the only ones who can decide what risks we're willing to take. I choose to clean without standard household disinfectants because I'm wary of how they will affect me; my friends bleach their countertops because they are concerned about the risk of germs. I get vaccinated because I think the benefits outweigh the risks; I have family members who disagree. I wear little-to-no sunscreen (and only specific brands) because I am concerned about carcinogenic chemicals; others slather on the sunscreen because they worry about the sun causing skin cancer.
It is your right to get rid of all candles and only clean your house with vinegar, and it is your neighbor's right to pump their home full of fragrance and eat foods with red dye all day. America is a nation of individuals, and we are each free to decide what tradeoffs we are willing to make to live a healthy life. Instead of asking RFK Jr. to get involved, make informed choices for yourself and your family and leave your neighbors alone.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It is your right to get rid of all candles and only clean your house with vinegar, and it is your neighbor's right to pump their home full of fragrance and eat foods with red dye all day. America is a nation of individuals
Couldn't agree more. Honestly great article.
The thing is that RFK Jr. has said he's not going to make regulations but instead issue voluntary guidelines, which if you absolutely have to have a federal department is what it should rather be doing. He has said they will also end regulatory prohibitions on things like raw milk and cheese, and get rid of the subsidies for sugar and corn syrup.
The article also quotes online influencers Eryn Carroll and Carly Shankman's wish lists like they are RFK Jr's, but they're not. They're just from people opining online.
Of course I see Lying Jeffy, a paid totalitarian fascist who thinks Pol Pot and Mao were emblematic of "real" libertarianism, is pretending to applaud the article below because he thinks it pees on RFK's leg.
Corn syrup and especially high fructose corn syrup which has caused more obesity among young people than any other.
Horrible.
The libertarian case for an FDA is not to regulate what they do but to force full and honest disclosure. Want to use high fructose corn syrup? Fine. Skull and crossbones Surgeon General warning that it causes obesity and diabetes. Then let the people decide what product they want.
Libertarians should also ban aerosilized “spreadable” “vaccines” which violate the NAP. Covid vax causes viral shedding and must go for this reason. I was antimask and antimandate and “reckless” to the totalitarians, and yet I *only* ever caught Covid after being in close quarters with people who just got their booster that same day. Both times!
Finally, those government recommendations need to actually be RIGHT, but right now almost everything the CDC and FDA publish is corporate lies and ideological bullshit. Not sure how we can really permanently stop that, because eventually some raging idelogue of a traitor to the Constitution will install their minions to piss all over everything. But we can at least try.
Terrific article. This article exhibits the libertarian ethos that I have always come to support. Libertarian is not the same as knee-jerk anti-government. Libertarianism is not the same as just wanting to burn everything down. Libertarianism is not the same as self-absorbed narcissism. Libertarianism at its core is a respect for other individuals and their non-NAP-violating choices that they wish to make. We should treat these choices as presumptively valid, even if we don't agree with those particular choices. Progress happens when individuals persuade other individuals to make objectively better choices, without coercion or force.
Fuck you and your “persuasion “.
Some of the persuasion Jeff has supported…
If you don’t commit to enough charity, government is forced to use your taxes.
If you refuse to isolate or wear masks, government is forced to mandate them. See also vaccines and defense of forcibly quarantine.
If parents refuse to indictrinate their kids into LGBT beliefs, schools are forced to educate the kids for them.
If individuals can’t see the truth and fall for misinformation, government has the right to censor information.
If you protest on the Capitol and have the wrong political ideology, government can convince you not to protest with bullets to the face
All lies. Which is typical of Jesse.
Here is Jesse's vision of government:
Government is an infinite series of tit-for-tat between the left and the right. If the left does something, then the right retaliates in kind. Then the left retaliates in kind, but even bigger. There is no limiting principle to this prisoner's dilemma, and the end result is that the entire system is blown up. No consideration at all about what individuals want or desire. It is only about power, the power to take from them and use power for us.
Jesse doesn't give a shit about institutions, laws, rules, norms, liberty, or anything else. It is all about power. There is no rule he won't break if it means he thinks he is 'stopping the left' and 'helping the right'.
Lol. You’ve adopted sarcs habits now. None lies.
I have links to all. It is why you’re mocked for bears in trunks. It is why you’re called a globalist authoritarian. You demand government enforce your assumed morals. There is no choice with you.
The fact is you only scream NAP to limit the right. You have supported every violation from globalists or the left from what energy to use, what school choice we have, what injections we have to take, etc.
As for the rest of your pablum.
Libertarianism doesn’t require ignoring bad acts. The NAP is initiation of force. We don’t have to ignore rapes like you want (but only for immigrants do you want it to be ignored), we don’t have to ignore crime, we don’t have to ignore state abuses from political enemies, we don’t have to ignore theft or anti market actions from others.
You treat the NAP as a defense against the left. As a means to not react to violations of the NAP. You’re an authoritarian. You’re a Marxist.
You only come here to protect those ethos. You’re not a libertarian. Your entire shtick here is pretending you are to help the left authoritarians.
Okay, so post your links. Let's see what you got.
bears in trunks
This was an admittedly silly analogy to illustrate the concept of negligence. A better example would be to consider the situation, in a pure libertopian society, of a person ordering food at a restaurant, but the food is spoiled and the establishment is dirty. If the patron gets sick from eating tainted food, is the establishment's owner liable for negligence? Even if the owner did not intentionally add pathogens to the food? Why don't you try to answer this question instead of continually bringing up 'bears in trunks'.
It is why you’re called a globalist authoritarian.
I'm called this because you and your team lie. What I actually favor, as an admittedly utopian vision, is a global order based on libertarian and federalist principles. Wouldn't that be better for the state of human liberty for all humankind, than what we currently have? Why do you oppose this?
You demand government enforce your assumed morals. There is no choice with you.
That is false. There is only one time when I have even come close to such a thing, and that is when I stated I don't think we are yet ready to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws in this country. But that's it. If you want to be a completely racist bigoted asshole in your own home, I don't think anyone should have the legal power to stop you, even though I profoundly disagree with your moral choices.
The fact is you only scream NAP to limit the right. You have supported every violation from globalists or the left from what energy to use, what school choice we have, what injections we have to take, etc.
This is completely made up nonsense. You, like Marshal, just project a caricature of 'the left' onto me. I have never supported government force to dictate what energy you wish to use, or which school you should go to, or what vaccines you must take. And again, since you claim to have links, if you think I am wrong, then post your links.
Libertarianism doesn’t require ignoring bad acts.
You're right for once!
The NAP is initiation of force.
More correctly, the NAP is a principle that forbids the initiation of force. Something that you don't really understand as a general principle.
We don’t have to ignore rapes like you want (but only for immigrants do you want it to be ignored),
No we don't have to ignore rapes, and I have never said that rapes should be ignored by immigrants. On the contrary, it's you and your team who wants to treat immigrants according to unfair standards of justice and treat them excessively harshly if they commit a crime.
we don’t have to ignore crime,
No, but we do have to understand which laws ought to exist and which laws should not, based on the NAP. Smoking pot in your basement is technically a crime but it shouldn't be, and no libertarian ought to support the use of state force against a pot smoker who is not violating anyone's rights. It is the same for peaceful migration. No libertarian ought to support the use of state force against peaceful migrants who are not violating anyone's rights. However, you strongly disagree with this last one.
So we see in reality, it is you who ignore the NAP when it is convenient, and want to throw out the NAP when it comes to immigration, and instead invoke all of these other tangential considerations. You are the one who doesn't give a shit about the NAP.
we don’t have to ignore state abuses from political enemies,
No, but we do have to correctly identify what is the 'abuse'. Holding a politician accountable to the law, a law that is considered a just law, is not 'abuse' even if you don't like the result. You and your team likes to redefine 'abuse' to mean 'mean prosecutors who go after Trump and his allies' instead.
we don’t have to ignore theft or anti market actions from others.
No, but we do have to correctly identify who is committing the theft. If one company in China is stealing IP, is it just or fair to punish every company in China in the form of trade restrictions or sanctions? Reality is, you use 'theft' as a rationalization to justify why you like trade restrictions against China.
You treat the NAP as a defense against the left. As a means to not react to violations of the NAP.
This is confession via projection. It is in fact you and your team which doesn't give a shit about the NAP unless it is being used against you. You are more than happy to justify trade restrictions, taxation, regulations, and literal use of state coercion which all are violations of the NAP if it means your pet causes are served.
You’re an authoritarian. You’re a Marxist.
You don't even know what the word Marxist means, because if you did, you would realize it's your team and its newfound devotion to the "working class" that is much closer to actual Marxism than me or anyone else. Your team has gone beyond simply condemning government as being 'the problem', but now, also Big Tech, Big Pharma, 'woke corporations', and other large institutions that control the means of production. Marx would very fairly critique your team as being engaged in its own class struggle between your version of the bourgeoisie (big corporations that you don't like) and the proletariat (the 'working class', which for you, constitutes 'real Murican patriots'). Team Red is veering towards Marxism, not me.
He knows that everything he says is a lie. He says it to make you write long comments like this. Making you dance makes him giggle. Don't make him giggle. And it doesn’t matter either. People who knows he’s full of shit already ignore his lies, and the ones who believe them don’t care what you say.
Lol. Jesse forces jeff to write long screeds.
Sarc's defending a ally no matter how stupid Jeff's self-serving rant is, which Sarcasmic probably didn't read.
Lol.
People, we don’t call him Lying Jeffy without reason and I don’t call him a Nazi without reason.
Jeff is a paid totalitarian simp for the DNC who regularly takes positions in defense of his party that are antithetical to freedom of speech, civil rights and free markets, all while calling them “libertarian” solely because he knows that it’s the ostensible mission of the magazine.
His above self-serving rant is a mass of lies.
He is aided in his mission by an angry troll called 'Sarcasmic'. A vicious drunken sot, who gets furious when people punch back when he starts trolling.
He has started following Jeffy around the comments, defending him and attacking anyone who tells Jeff to fuck off.
Sarc does this out of solidarity with a fellow outcast rather than endorsement of Lying Jeffy's horrifying ideas, which he usually doesn't even bother to read.
You, like Marshal, just project a caricature of ‘the left’ onto me.
Liar.
Punishing those abusing a system ≠ retaliating in kind.
Jesse cares about things including being tall, well-groomed, and looking like a cop. At least per one of Sarckles’ drunken posts.
This is why I state he uses it as a cugel to protect the left and authoritarians. Same as sarc.
Even here they demand respecting captured institutions. Never fire bad actors using state abuse.
To them the NAP is to stop reaction to abuses, not to stop initiation of abuses. It is wild.
Sarcjeff is the living embodiment of conservatives pounce.
This is why I state he uses it as a cugel to protect the left and authoritarians. Same as sarc.
It is the opposite. Illustrative example:
If a peaceful migrant crosses an international border, on public roads, what violation of the NAP has occurred?
Don't bring up 'welfare' or 'hospitals' or 'schools', because we aren't talking about the migrant using welfare or going to the hospital or sending kids to schools. Don't talk about 'trespassing' because there is no such thing as trespassing on public roads.
Can you state, without bringing up all of these other tangential issues, what violation of the NAP has occurred in this case?
Answer: you can't, because there isn't one. Yet you object to it anyway, by throwing out the NAP when it is convenient for you to do so.
Loser.
You misspelled "Liar".
The libertarian position would be:
1. No public roads. All roads should ideally be co-owned by the people whose land abuts it.
2. Those property owners can decide if the road should be set in trust for the public to use. That also means they would be able to decide if international men of mystery would be allowed to use their road to enter the country. If they go with no, he’s violating the NAP by trespassing.
3. Even in the above scenario, the nation-state would ostensibly still have the power to maintain and control its international borders. So if this road isn’t a port of entry where they can vet and health screen, he’s violating the NAP by skirting this basic safety measure.
I get your argument about freedom of association and property rights. And I totally agree: YOU have the right to associate with whomever you like on YOUR property. The problem is, nobody else has to, especially through the government, basically leaving you with indentured servants who can’t leave your property without you.
Jesse doesn’t give a shit about institutions, laws, rules, norms, liberty, or anything else. It is all about power. There is no rule he won’t break if it means he thinks he is ‘stopping the left’ and ‘helping the right’.
He's a tribalists through and through.
Said in response to defending his tribe lol.
You literally called me the ambassador of the mean girls. You are a tribalism dumbfuck. Lol.
Agreeing with the observational fact that you have no principles other than tribal loyalty is proof of being part of a tribe? Wow dude. Whenever I think you've reached Peak Stupid you always manage to prove me wrong. Congrats.
Ideas™ !
"oBseRvaTioNaL fAct"
Lol, fuck off, Sarckles.
Compare this to Jeffey’s preference where the left makes decisions ideologically and the right does not resist. Since academia is a clear example of this model lets review the outcome to understand what Jeffey is advocating.
1. Drive everyone but the most extreme left from policy positions.
2. Corrupt the institution from its original mission to achieving political goals.
3. As goals are achieved replace them with even more extreme goals.
4. Lie about reality, you can’t test someone’s loyalty by asking if they support the Theory of Gravity. Instead you have to claim the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.
5. React to any opposition with every increasing demagoguery because the fear of being othered is what keeps people in line.
Sounds wonderful…to Jeffey.
I've got an idea. Why don't you ignore what he says and call him a liar, go point by point explaining what he really believes in the form of a caricature of the left, then call him a liar when he points it out.
Oh wait, that's what you just did. Never mind.
Revealingly none of what you wrote is accurate. But that's your schtick isn't it? Try to create a narrative by continually claiming the same thing even when it has no basis in reality.
The truth is that I showed the result of what he argued for: an environment where the left pursues their goals without opposition.
Revealingly none of what you wrote is accurate. But that’s your schtick isn’t it? Try to create a narrative by continually claiming the same thing even when it has no basis in reality.
Just like Jesse you accuse others of doing what you are doing while you are doing it. Shameless. And brainless.
Just like Jesse you accuse others of doing what you are doing while you are doing it.
You'd like to pretend so, but the difference is that my arguments tie back to his statements and yours are just invented. You have literally never applied the same standards to yourself that you criticize others based on, not one single time. You whine about people putting you on a team but you routinely do it to others. You whine about people responding to criticism with "they did it first" but you do it all the time. Here one that's even worse because it didn't actually happen, you just invented it:
sarcasmic 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
But if Trump defenders did the same thing, waving the stars and stripes while shouting “Whose streets? Our streets!”, in a neighborhood with a high population of illegals, there’s no doubt at all that you’d defend them.
You seem to think people don't see how you flip back and forth based solely on who the targets are. But in reality everyone recognizes you'll say anything to attack those you hate, you're never applied a single consistent principle.
I notice you didn't post a link to that comment. Why? Because he did defend the idea of Trump supporters marching through illegal immigrant neighborhoods to frighten and intimidate them.
That's called lying by omission.
Did he? I notice you didn't link so we can conclude you're lying then right? At least, according to your own rules?
The link really doesn't help you out. It is from yesterday's roundup. Please post link and defend how it was taken out of context. It was literally you inventing a hypothetical because someone criticized actual behaviors of the left. It was pathetic lol.
Marshal is just another worthless troll. All he does is project a caricature of the left onto people, and then calls them a liar when they don't obey the caricature.
I call you a liar because you lie. For example you both lied that I defended someone who supported Apartheid and then you lied that you made that claim.
Similarly my criticisms of your positions, as above, use your exact comments.
The key to understanding who is correct when Jeffey engages in these juvenile comments is noting whose claims are supported by actual facts and whose are simple narratives supported by nothing at all.
My favorite is when they create a problem (like illegal immigration) then throw a tantrum when anyone wants to do anything about it. It’s a nice little catch 22 they create.
If you don’t commit to enough charity, government is forced to use your taxes.
This is a lie.
However, there is a related principle at work here. Which is, you can't force libertarianism onto people.
Suppose a libertarian white knight rode into office (somehow) and imposed the libertarian's wet dream of reducing the government down to almost nothingness. However, if the people were not on board with such a radical change, guess what will happen? In the next election, that libertarian 'hero' will be thrown out of office and all of the things that were eliminated from the government, will be brought back by his successor. Because that's what the people want.
One thing Breitbart got right was his observation that 'politics is downstream from culture'. There is not going to be a 'libertarian moment' in government in the foreseeable future because there is not a 'libertarian moment' in society at large. There is not going to be an elimination of the welfare state, in the foreseeable future, because the overwhelming majority of the people support and expect that welfare state to exist and continue. It is not some nefarious plot by government imposed on the citizens. It is what the citizens actually want.
So if we really want to see the libertarian changes come about that we want, we have to start with social change, 'bottom up' change at home. That is the point of my comment.
Garbage people like Jesse refuse to see that and instead just lie about what others say.
Garbage people like Jesse refuse to see that and instead just lie about what others say.
Don’t denigrate Shirley Manson by comparing Jesse to Garbage you asshole.
Look at the two hitlers using dehumanizing language.
I’m sorry you and Jeff don’t actually understand libertarianism. It must suck you have been here a decade and still don't get it.
Maybe read a book?
Scolding jeff for comparing you to a great band is dehumanizing? You just topped your last Peak Stupid comment. You're on a roll!
You dehumanize yourself daily - each post more brainless than the last.
Who needs books when you have google? Darn it, bastiat.com is down again…
-sarc
What about bumper sticker dot com?
Attacking jeff for criticizing your team's desire to micromanage our health proves that you fully support a nanny state as long as your team is in charge. If I was you I'd bookmark this, but I'm not a loser with no life or friends.
You. Defended. Covid. Overreach.
Dame with Jeff. You have no leg to stand on. Lol.
The rfk policy I agree with is releasing the information.
I’m the one who advocated for individual choice during covid. You’re the one who demanded masks and vaccines. Defended “quarantine” camps even for the non infected.
I’m the one who demands more speech. You and Jeff defend censorship.
I’m the one who wants government accountability for abuses. You and Jeff demand we respect institutions and nobody ever be fired for bad acts. (This is where you pretend supporting leftist lawfare as a good thing)
You and Jeff have no fucking shame.
The only thing in this world that you’re good at is accusing people of defending or supporting things that they do not defend or support, and then calling them liars when they tell you you’re wrong. I'm going to guess that you have siblings and telling lies about them to get them to defend themselves was your childhood hobby. Now it's the only thing you're good at as an adult.
Lol. Jeff already tried this lie of yours. We have links. You and Jeff are outraged by that fact.
The two of you are pathological liars without the intelligence to actually pull it off.
Damn you're not bright.
A lot of “you” in that post.
Possibly a lot of Colt 45 in there too.
If you refuse to take part in needless wars, the government will conscript and enslave you.
If you want to purchase a small simply built vehicle, the government will force you to pay for an overpriced , over engineered, stuffed with every device imaginable, car or truck that is totaled the moment it gets a ding in it.
Assumes a bunch of shit not in evidence, just like this worthless article
"The federal government can't make the right health choices for you and your family. Only you can do that."
But RFK can stop, or at least reduce, the amount of wrong, and sometimes dangerous, things the federal agencies now do that actively harm our health. And save a lot of tax dollars as he does it.
The federal govt can stop subsidizing the junk food industry and can stop taking money from productive people and transferring it to folks with unhealthy lifestyles.
End the food pyramid scheme.
Stop big Pharma from advertising on TV.
End agriculture subsidies.
I agree with #2. I’m fine with #1 as-is. If consumers have to pay the full cost of lifestyle choices leading them to need pills that cause rectal bleeding and the full cost of said pills that cause rectal bleeding, that should be their choice.
Distrust EWG's Skin Deep for evaluations.
The covid "vaccine" was the top selling pharmaceutical intervention of all time and it was a pure fraud in that it was sold as something that provided sterilizing immunity. There was never any reason to push it on healthy young people. The boosters are completely useless to borderline harmful for those individuals that have recovered from the virus. As such they are no longer used anywhere outside the US. Celebrities still endorse this nonsense on prime time TV. So there's that.
Liar.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/questions-and-answers-vaccines
Ha. Shrike showed you by linking to gov propaganda which doesn’t even mention the known vaccine injuries. Ha! Take that! Answer to question 3 is extra special lol.
Indeed. One of the greatest and deadliest hoaxes ever.
The good news is that, going by how he campaigned, RFK is pro-transparency and pro-choice.
Hopefully he rolls back regs and doesn't replace. Let Americans decide for themselves and quicker than an entrenched bureaucracy they'll arrive at the correct answers as to what's best for them.
At first glance I thought this article was going to be about brain worms and bears in trunks; surprisingly not.
This may be theoat libertarian take I've seen on anything in quite some time. Keep it up.
The only role for government or RFK I see in any of this is if government is obfuscating or otherwise making it difficult for people to find the information they need to make their own decisions then government interference needs to be removed from those instances.
I don't think RFK Jr. would be allowed to go on some Bloomberg-esque campaign, banning or regulating unhealthy food or other products. The hope is that he pushes for changes to the FDA to allow more "right to try" regarding certain medications, root out corruption in all the agencies that fall under the HHS, and work with Congress to move on things that he can't remove/change on his own (ex. end subsidies, regulatory changes, etc.).
“I am granola but also a rational science-minded person, and they are going to have to pry vaccines and pasteurized milk out of my cold hands,”
Based on RJKJ comments on the topic, vaccines and pasteurized milk will be on the market. People can choose. Even he acknowledges that his children are fully vaccinated.
On the other hand, now understanding the effects of artificial colors and other additives, getting them out of the food supply would be a positive health position.
Quit the protectionist stance on sugar (artificially high prices) and quit subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup (artificially low prices) may make it more economical to get the hfc out of everything on the shelf.
These are areas that individuals do not have the ability to choose. Hfc seems pervasive and is a health negative. Hard to find options without it.
These changes are not taking away someone’s right to choose, but making the food supply healthier.
As for water with fluoride, right now people don't have a choice in the matter in most of the country. The rate of fluorosis in this country is scandalous and yet it's hardly ever mentioned.
Other places don't do this, at least not to this extent. If people could sue their local governments for damages over this, I'd be against the Feds stepping in. But since they can't, someone has to protect people's rights to not be forced to take a substance they don't want.
Floride is one of the biggest hoaxes going.
Well if one reddit user says it, I believe it and that settles it.
I'm for getting the government out of the food business as much as possible. The problem is "don't get in it" and "what do you do once you're in it" are by no means mirror images of one another. Take the "Food Pyramid". Pretty much everyone knows its creation was politicized, corrupt and has led to a gross excess of carbohydrates in our diets. And, even if it's just a recommendation or standard, there are massive downstream effects, including a number from legal liability. So, how do you reverse the damage? Even if you stop pushing it, it's been baked into standards across the board. Or fluoridation. It's become the standard because of federal pressure. And the only area of "choice" on that issue, if you were to settle on choice, is whether local governments choose to give their citizens no choice about consuming fluoride.
Fluoride is a different question. The government agency puts fluoride in the water supply to everyone whether individuals want fluoride or not. The government sometimes pays for the dental care of indigent people at my expense and then claim that as the excuse for fluoridating everyone to prevent dental caries in the indigent to lower the healthcare expense. Your only option would be to shut off the public water supply to your house and buy private water in order to avoid fluoride.
Flouride is a hoax. It does nothing but line the pockets of the Rockefellers.
"The federal government can't make the right health choices for you and your family. Only you can do that."
The only people who would disagree are government bureaucrats and useful idiots on the left.
"The federal government SHOULD NOT make health choices for individuals." Of course, the statement as written is false - the federal government CAN make the right health choices for the rest of us, but we cannot RELY on it to do so. There are some things that are so fundamental that violating them constitutes commission of a crime. If, for example, you put poison in a community water supply, that would be - and should be - a violation of a law. The problem arises when different choices by different people for themselves do not harm others.
Count me all in on getting the Federal government out of public health regulations altogether. Having said that, none of us is totally free from the opinions of our neighbors about health and it would be almost impossible to achieve that state at this stage of American history even if we almost all agreed to try. My community of one hundred households shares a water well supply system which, thank goodness, we have almost always agreed upon the management of. The state requires all community water supply systems to complete a standard set of water tests on a regular schedule and the results are made available to the members for review. Even if the Feds stopped imposing regulations on the states, it would not stop the states from imposing water regulations or stop one of my neighbors from suing the system for failing to test for, let's say, xenohormones some day. The only benefit, if we can call it that, of regulations is that everyone knows what to expect and what the boundaries are within which we cannot choose or impose our opinions on our neighbors. Range wars have been fought over water before this. Be very careful how you try to unwind the red tape at this point ... the reorganization could well turn out to be disastrous.
cool and all but he's only said like 900x he's not going to dictator up the place ... you cite CBS news, reason, insta, and reddit, but not RFK, Jr.
Yeah, because the current system is working so well. This is a really good start.
>We Don't Need RFK Jr. To 'Make America Healthy Again'
The federal government can't make the right health choices for you and your family. Only you can do that.
Duh. *That is the point* - RFK is supposed to get in there to cut out the thicket of rules and regulations that allow the FDA to stand in the way of you doing that.
But no, Reason, again, would prefer to maintain the status quo until the magic day when it will all magically become libertarian. They will oppose incremental steps towards that goal though.
The point of the article in case you missed it is that he might NOT get in there and cut out the thicket of rules and regulations but, rather, get in there and impose a whole bunch of new rules and regulations against fluoridation, immunizations and seed oils. Or do you have some other interpretation for "MAKE America [be] Healthy Again?"
As I never consented to fluoride being added into my water, and can not buy a commercial filter capable of removing it, I am completely fine with the feds banning it. You are completely free to buy your own fluoride to add to your baby's formula if you want. Same with requiring immunizations. A federal rule banning requiring it is not an infringement on my rights, but a protection of them. If those new "rules and regulations" restrict other government entities, that interpretation is good with me.
FDA
Fraud
and Death
Administration
Well you see, it’s. TDS REASON / Trump thing - they reflexively oppose all Trump policies bc of their TDS.
America is a nation of individuals, and we are each free to decide what tradeoffs we are willing to make to live a healthy life.
Doesn't seem to me that RFK is talking about taking any of that away. Just making things more transparent so that you can be more informed about them when you exercise that freedom to decide.
I've never once heard him talk even slightly about imposing his own beliefs about "seed oils, junk food, vaccines, chemicals" or anything else on us against our will. Just that he wants the American public very aware of their respective effects on health, mortality, birth rates, etc.
Now, maybe your answer to that is, "I don't care even slightly" - great, you do you. I've never seen him suggesting you be deprived of that in any way.
The glaring flaw in your article is here: As the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), RFK Jr. has an opportunity to leverage the federal government's power to restrict things he believes are making Americans sick
You're effectively arguing because he has the "opportunity" to, that he necessarily will. Again, where have you ever heard him speak of doing that? You repeat the same false claim here:
No, asking the federal government to remove our option to choose these things is not a good idea.
Who's asking them to? (Hint - it's usually people on the left, not the right. See also: internal combustion engines, incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves, etc.)
You're doing the same thing people do with the orange guy - concocting this fevered imaginary boogeyman that you've pre-decided is an evil dark lord, assuming the worst he can do, and then arguing as if he already has.
Knock it off.
Dietary Hysteria is a luxury of the Leisure Class.
It's time for America to use the same guidelines found in Europe with strict limitations on food additives.
One of the worst is high fructose corn syrup created by ADM. It has created more obesity that anything else. Found in everything from soda pop to cereal and other drinks, in BBQ sauces and nearly every thing else that needs a liquid sweetener.
I see the results of this every day in my little village when I shop the local grocery store. nearly every single female working there, with the exception of two, are obese including young women in their teens. There is one young man working at a local gas station who is very morbidly obese, to the point where he is probably suffering from health problems.
This has to stop, one way or another. Americans are the fattest, sickest people on the planet and big Pharma is very wealthy because of it.
I agree also that we have the right to consume what ever we wish no matter how unhealthy. We all do it. Just don't make a habit of it. Sooner or later we pay the price.
"Making America Healthy" will always involve force.
You can make healthy choices for yourself. You will not be able to convince the country to voluntarily do so.
A free nation is inevitably a fat nation.
i am okay with "forcing" people to affirmatively select Fud that is far from food. once informed that they're eating shit they'd NEVER eat a spoonful of all by itself AND they elect that... fine...have at it. BUT DO NOT EXPECT ME TO HAVE ANY COMPASSION FOR YOUR DIABETES, HEART DISEASE, OR OTHER AFFLICTIONS BORNE OF YOUR CHOICES. same with lung cancer from smoking...you're on your own
You will not be able to convince the country to voluntarily do so.
But yet, that same country - and others like it - thinks we should be responsible for public health care costs; that the healthy and health-responsible should bear the financial burden of everyone who vices themselves into sickness and disease.
What's that about.
Government is nothing but 'Gun' control.
If a 'Gun' can't make you healthy ...
Government can't either because that's all it is.
Complicating that core-reasoning is just deception and manipulation.
The ‘gun’ is ALREADY pushing an agenda.
We are okay with RFK pushing back bc 50% of all Americans are wildly unhealthy and fat af.
It shouldn't be pushing at all.
It should be defending people against the pushing (might be called pushing back).
The point is not that RFK JR is going to be some miracle drug to make us all healthy. Of course we have to take care of our own health.
What RFK JR brings to the table which is sorely needed is transparency. Exposing the corruption and the backroom agreements. He also brings focus on health. You may not like RFK Jr, but your are probably an establishment tool protecting your cherished agency from review, from analysis.
Sure there are policies and regulations, but you forget that many of these policies and regulations are simply stupid, misinformed, designed to protect an industry and typically not the patients or the citizens who employee them. The problem with the government is that they have forgotten that they work for us. The seem to believe that they are in charge.
People wonder why Trump won this cycle, but it's clearly obvious. The voters always vote in the CHANGE candidate. And the plain and simple truth is that the voters are disgusted and tired of our government. The people what the status quo to be questioned. They want the wasteful spending to stop. How to fix the issues is not unified, but almost everyone agrees that it's broken.
I want RFK Jr. to make the corrupt and probably criminal elements in the agency to sweat and better yet quit before they get caught. I want transparency to be the paramount concern. Have some deliberate and open discussion on the very real problems we face. Eliminate duplicative programs. Return functions back to the individual states where much of this should be anyway.
most of the shit we eat isn't food. it's peculiar concoctions of GMO and hyper processed crap. SOMEONE needs to make a simple rule that if it isn't food...DON'T SELL IT AS FOOD. sell it as "Fud" at a FudStore. where Fud comes in many colors...and never gets rotten. MMMMMMM!
have a look at the crowd pics of woodstock. pretty much the only fatty was mama cass eliot. this nation has a HUGE problem. that problem is hugeness. we are fat as fuck. the "food" we eat is the reason. if RKF can shed light on that i am a fan
Agreed.
Reason out here defending the (clearly terrible) status quo of Big Food Corps and Big Pharma.
Hey Reason, stop with the TDS or you will shed more readers.
It seem Reason has a tendency to get real pissy when libertarian values are espoused by a non-libertarian. If RFK Jr. bans glyphosate, fluoride, and limits SSRI usage to those 21 or older, he will have done more for national health than every libertarian from the beginning of the movement until now.
Why do you care who proposes, who enacts? It's clear this population is dying of metabolic disease and the rates of early death and suicide are unacceptable. Everything points to environmental poisoning.
And I don't care who proposes the changes. Reason needs to keep it kibitzing to itself.
It’s their TDS.
You can tell the REASON writers aren’t truly Libertarian, but Democrats who don’t like authority.
The federal government can't make the right health choices for you and your family. Only you can do that.
That is why we need SOMEONE, not necessarily JFK Jr., to GUT the existing regulations.
“No, asking the federal government to remove our option to choose these things is not a good idea.”
‘Bc it was Trump who said it, it’s bad!’
So much gaslighting. Are you saying that we should get rid of every agency that regulates products for consumer safety? That’s a crazy and wild thought to say out loud just because of your steaming pile of shit TDS!
TRUMP ‘16 ‘20 ‘24
Yabbut...RFK, Jr's uncle started the President's Council of Physical Fitness. All school age kids had to participate in the program and awards were given. It seemed to have worked pretty well. Fast forward to today, every school seems to have state of the art turf football stadiums, etc., but Phys Ed is not required, and kids have to be cajoled/bribed into going outside to play to get some modicum of exercise. Point being, there are worse things the Fed could do than to encourage healthy behaviors instead of funding treatments for various maladies caused by sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy diets and schools spending money on bling that only serve a small segment of their students.