Philanthropy Will Not Solve Obesity

“Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything,” – Carlos Slim : the richest man in the world

Tim Ferriss recently published a post titled “The Manhattan Project to End Fad Diets“. The post introduces a new all-star, non-profit organization, with headliners like Gary Taubes, Tim Ferriss, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

The organization is apparently set to end fad diets, curb the obesity epidemic, save the world, etc.

While I have no doubt their intentions are noble and honest, I can tell you definitively this organization will accomplish nothing positive, and may in fact result in destructive outcomes (not only perpetuating the problem, but intensifying it).

The reason is two fold.

One : as the richest man in the world so eloquently states, charity accomplishes next to nothing. This is not to say honest and selfish benevolence is wrong, useless, or misguided; it is to say that it has little to no effect on long term outcomes/changes.

It’s a “spinning of the wheels”, so to speak. It just doesn’t do anything … because it has nothing to do with the root problem.

Two : building off that statement, let me be clear : creating a super-star lineup of doctors and authors has nothing to fundamentally do with the obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome epidemic, in these united States, or elsewhere.

The very fact that Tim is excited about this, demonstrates his ignorance in the root cause of the problem.

And if you do not understand the root cause of a problem, your hopes of solving it, are next to nothing.

What is the root cause of obesity in the united States you ask?

It is the silent, cowardly, quivering acceptance of unjustified violence in human relationships.

The tacit approval of violently enforced taxes, of violently enforced compulsory schooling, of violently enforced monetary monopolies, of “necessary evils”.

Of evil being necessary for life on earth.

The problem is not what the government “officially” recommends — it is that the government has money taken under the threat of violence to broadcast such a recommendation in the first place.

The problem is not what children are eating, being forced to eat, or even being taught in school — it is that public schools are strictly funded through violently enforced taxes, and children are forced to attend, forced to obey, and the parents are “compelled” to comply.

Unless they want their children to be violently taken by the government, and they themselves locked in jail (and if they resist, shot and killed).

Nothing is free in this world. You cannot cheat reality.

Obesity, sickness, misery, and death is the price this country pays for turning a blind eye to these daily occurrences.

What the hell did you think would happen when the government :

  • forced you to use their money
  • took your funny money by force
  • turned it into wheat and corn subsidies
  • married fascist Monsanto
  • raided raw milk farms
  • spawned unconstitutional bureaucracies  like the FDA and USDA
  • herded your children into wheat/corn/soy fed obedience factories

Philanthropy will solve nothing, because it has nothing to do with the problem in the first place.

You want to do something useful? Support men like Mark Sisson who have created multi-million dollar empires off of reality based health advice.

And stop taking it in the ass from your government.

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

,

36 Responses to Philanthropy Will Not Solve Obesity

  1. Spamato Zed September 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Whole lotta stupid going on in here. You aren’t even a bright enough libertard to realize that philanthropy and charity are supposed to be your tax free alternative to a social safety net.

    Taxes are part of the unwritten social contract you enter into when you become a member of society. No one forces you to live here, and no one forces you to participate in the economy. If you don’t like it, then go somewhere else, or don’t earn and spend money at a taxable level. The continued failure of the right wing American “libertarian” movement (which has fuck all to do with liberty) should send a clear message that the citizens of this country will not permit you to force your bad political ideas down our throats.

    If you want ebola in your milk, then go start your own society. Now, kindly fuck off.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

      “Tax free alternative” is a misnomer. Violently enforced taxes are illegal — no human being can consent to slavery. No one should be paying taxes under the threat of violence. Allowing people to keep their own property is not a reward — it is an insulting, barbaric, primitive bribe. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.

      Social contract is also a misnomer, at least in the degree to which it is used as an excuse to exercise unjust violence (such as you are implying). As stated, human beings, as individuals, or together in large numbers, cannot consent to slavery.

      You cannot volunteer yourself into slavery, and you cannot volunteer your posterity into slavery. This idea is irrational and nonsensical. Little wonder how popular it is.

      Whether or not I am “forced” to live here — or was in fact born here by accident of birth — has *nothing to do* with the fact that it is impossible to delegate unalienable rights. Never mind that the specific argument you are making — leave if you don’t like it — is an argument of desperation.

      It’s the argument an animal makes when backed into a corner with no options left, and no where to turn.

      Desperation must taste like ebola infested milk.

      • Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

        >No one should be paying taxes under the threat of violence.

        Weird, because in order to be represented in citizenry, you have to pay taxes for at least some form of representation. Where in the flying fuck do you think this shit comes from? It’s not the free market deciding that they’re going to create and maintain an infrastructure that represents people, NO business is interested in that. They’re interested in maximizing returns vs investment, the very basic idea behind every economic transaction. “Violence” is what you get when YOU break the deal, like how my landlord is violent when he throws me out if I don’t pay my rent.

        Don’t like it? Renounce your citizenship and get your bitch ass out of here and take your shit business with you. Only your whiny excuses are what’s stopping you and the fact that you’re a hypocrite that wants the bells and whistles of our system but doesn’t want to deal with the required compensation.

        >Allowing people to keep their own property is not a reward.

        Considering that your property, like mine, is completely based on the illegitimate transfer of ownership through violence in its very early stages, I’d say be happy the Native Americans haven’t come back and reclaimed their rightful “property”.

        >Whether or not I am “forced” to live here — or was in fact born here by accident of birth — has *nothing to do* with the fact that it is impossible to delegate unalienable rights.

        That’s because what humans consider rights are not really unalienable at all, they’re either self declared by the individual (that nobody really gives a shit about violating sans a few people here or there) or they’re declared to be protected by the state (one of the many functions of government that people can decide what rights people have and when do they get them).

        Saying we have inalienable rights because, and this is where I think you’re pulling it from, the Declaration of Independence says so, is really fucking sloppy philosophy.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

          “Weird, because in order to be represented in citizenry, you have to pay taxes for at least some form of representation.”

          It’s really stunning how deeply you are misunderstanding me.

          I did not say no one should pay taxes.

          I said no one should pay taxes under the threat (imminent or distant) of violence.

          When you say “taxes”, you are not being specific enough in terms. What you really mean is “violently enforced taxes”, which are illegal.

          Are you now going to tell me breaking the law is practical and necessary?

          • Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

            >Are you now going to tell me breaking the law is practical and necessary?

            In some instances, depending on your ontology/ethical position, this could be answered with a yes.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

              Illegal laws are not laws, so, in most cases (almost all), the necessity of breaking the law is not subject to conscious or subconscious philosophical positions.

              (The law is only legal when derived from existence — not consciousness).

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

          “It’s not the free market deciding that they’re going to create and maintain an infrastructure that represents people”

          This is not relevant to our argument — it is a non sequitur.

          Now that you have introduced the idea though, I’d like for you to prove to me that the government not only can legally provide an infrastrcure (US federal government, or State governments), but should.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

          “Violence” is what you get when YOU break the deal, like how my landlord is violent when he throws me out if I don’t pay my rent.”

          No, your landlord does not get to run around like a violent maniac. If you defraud your landlord or fall short of your voluntary obligations, he has a right to remove you from his property. If you refuse to leave he not only can, but should call the police to have you arrested for trespassing.

          Again, you are too vague in your words. This is not just “violence”, this is retaliatory violence, in direct response to your forceful stay on his property.

          It is fully justified and logical.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

          “Considering that your property, like mine, is completely based on the illegitimate transfer of ownership through violence in its very early stages, I’d say be happy the Native Americans haven’t come back and reclaimed their rightful “property”.”

          There aren’t many sins in this world.

          Suggesting that one person is morally responsible for the acts of another, is one of them (living, dead, unborn, etc).

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

          “That’s because what humans consider rights are not really unalienable at all, they’re either self declared by the individual (that nobody really gives a shit about violating sans a few people here or there) or they’re declared to be protected by the state (one of the many functions of government that people can decide what rights people have and when do they get them).

          Saying we have inalienable rights because, and this is where I think you’re pulling it from, the Declaration of Independence says so, is really fucking sloppy philosophy.”

          Individual rights are, and can only be derived from reality. The tool for doing so is the law of identity.

          A=A

          1=1

          Human being = Human being

          The fact that you are sitting here alive necessitates a right to your own life. You even have a right to contradict yourself.

          The Declaration of Independence is a great document, but it does not create rights.

          It only asserts what already exists, in the most powerful legal document in American history.

        • Matt September 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

          A lot to comment on here, but I’ll leave it to two comments:

          1. You’re right about this in the sense that throwing money at a problem doesn’t make it go away in long term. However, a non-profit can be run with the same structure as a for profit company, it simply has to reinvest a portion of the money it makes back into the business. This is a sustainable model, and there are a few organizations out there that are proving it works (The Delancey Street Foundation comes to mind).

          2. Again, you’re right in a sense… building a super star lineup of doctors has nothing fundamentally to do with the choices people make about diet… but neither would a free market and the absence of government intervention ensure that people would know and follow the right dietary recommendations.

          Even in the absence of any force, in order to make the right decisions you need to A. know what the right decisions really are, B. Make the choice to follow the correct decisions.

          An organization (for profit, or otherwise) focused on figuring out what’s really healthy, and disseminating that information to the public would still be needed.

          Cheers,
          Matt

          • Anthony Dream Johnson September 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

            “but neither would a free market and the absence of government intervention ensure that people would know and follow the right dietary recommendations.”

            You’re missing my point Matt.

            Think : where do all reality-based, good nutritional choices come from?

            They come from reason, logic, non-contradictory thinking.

            Violence is the negation of thinking, of free will, of acting on your best judgments — Tim’s included.

            Matt chew on this … do you really think that the diseases of civilization skyrocketing alongside the skyrocketing growth of government, central banking, income tax, military slavery, debt, guilt, ______ fill in the blank, is a coincidence?

            These occurrences are tracking together because they are fundamentally intertwined.

            A person’s opinion on nutrition has nothing to do with what diet is best for them, because nutrition pertains to existence, not consciousness.

            The same is true of political systems.

            • Matt September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

              They do come from reason, logic, and non-contradictory thinking… they also come from testing and the scientific method.

              Paleo has given us a good approximation of what’s good for you, and the evidence is pointing there… but I think nuances and definitive proof will only come with someone focused on good science.

              That addresses that part, but there’s something else going on here..

              Your characterization of the problem as being due to the government gets part of the picture… but not all of it. There are other concurrent trends (such as the rise of the magic pill and short term thinking) that could just as easily attributed to free market businesses.

              The error your making here is similar to the one you made in your post about Ron Paul being elected… you think that simply being right is enough to affect change.

              Truth is certainly one aspect of this, but there are others… power is one, influence is another.

              There can just as easily be non-reality-based free market companies who are able to create change simply because they are able to influence people’s perception of reality, or have the power to limit those people’s options.

              • Anthony Dream Johnson September 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

                “Truth is certainly one aspect of this, but there are others… power is one, influence is another.

                There can just as easily be non-reality-based free market companies who are able to create change simply because they are able to influence people’s perception of reality, or have the power to limit those people’s options.”

                There is a fallacy going on here that I do not know the term for.

                It’s the same fallacy as monopolies existing without government. It doesn’t happen, ever.

                Monopolies require government to exist. They do not exist in a free market.

                By the same token, a free market company that is at odds with reality is a ticking time bomb of failure. It cannot go on indefinitely, independent of free market companies that are in alignment with reality existing or not.

                It’s exactly like Greg Swann said in Austin :

                If it can fail, it will fail.

                Persuading people to do things that are destructive to themselves, their happiness, their life, and even those around them, is a lose-lose situation.

                Eventually the truth will surface. You cannot cheat reality. You can evade reality, lie, and convince people to accept falsehoods, but eventually, it catches up with you.

                Ayn Rand once said there were flaws *in* the Constitution since it’s inception. This is false.

                The flaw was falsely accepting the Constitution as a floating abstraction, disconnected from reality, free to modify or interpret in any which way any number of people wanted to modify or interpret it’s language.

                That is the root cause on an epistemological level of what is wrong with the federal government in the US today.

                By consequence, every wrong we experience today was predictable at the inception of the constitution, to any person who understood this.

                And it’s not just predictable, it was inevitable.

                (If it can fail it will fail).

  2. Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    Ah yes, I see the best connection you’ve ever made

    a. Government is evil (axiom because Libertarians say so)
    b. Some people are obese

    Conclusion: Government makes people fat because it’s evil and then I’ll go on a tangent to show that it’s evil.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

      A. I never made the claim that government is evil. To the contrary, government is not de-facto evil. I have specifically defended so on this blog.
      B. Government does not make people fat — unjustified violence rationalized through philosophical errors and applied through government do.

      B is not an opinion.

      C. Your thinking in the subject comment is lazy and sloppy. It makes me wonder if you’re over-fat. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were.

      • Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

        >unjustified violence rationalized through philosophical errors and applied through government do.

        1. Prove it since you’re making the claim and
        2. My oh my, since when did violence make you fat? I thought it was because you were stuffing your face with refined sugars, saturated fats, and combined with not working out which *gasp* the government recommends that you don’t do.

        I’m actually not fat at all, thanks.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

          I work out 10 minutes a week, and nearly half of my calories come from saturated fat.

          I’ve done this for 3 years and 11 months.

          I’m lean, and in extremely good health.

          You should do your homework, it looks like you’ve swallowed more lies than one.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

          Normal human beings get over-fat because of distortions in reality. This is largely non-controversial (over-fatness is not considered a normal expression of our species).

          What is controversial is whether this is a result of distortions in behavior, in metabolism, both, neither, or if both, to what degree is each a contributing factor.

          Violence in human relationships is a gross distortion of each individual’s right to their own life — evidenced by the fact that they are alive, and as derived from reality, through the law of identity.

          The fact that you are even alive to argue this point with me proves my point to you. Any argument by you to the contrary is self-contradictory.

          Distorting reality by initiating violence distorts reality, both in the result of the act itself, as well as the consequent failure of government to prevent this occurrence from happening in the first place (their failure in protecting your rights).

          Good can only come from man’s mind. Violence is it’s negation.

          Government being a vast, daily source of that negation and having negative consequences associated with obesity (and metabolic syndrome) is not only plausible, it was a predictable consequence.

          Even if the government was doing *nothing* other than forcing people to use money they created, it would in some way contribute to obesity, because value was being shifted outside of where it was intended to go (other currencies, the best currency, as determined by the market, the individual, etc).

          The effect is only greater with each additional act or threat of violence encountered in each person’s life, which then gets compounded into posterity, as well as the culture at large (think nutritional slogans, myths, fad diets sponsored by government research, etc).

          • Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

            >Violence in human relationships is a gross distortion of each individual’s right to their own life — evidenced by the fact that they are alive, and as derived from reality, through the law of identity.

            The fact that you are even alive to argue this point with me proves my point to you. Any argument by you to the contrary is self-contradictory.

            The fact that I’m alive is not that I have some “right to life”, this is a false dichotomy, it simply means that I haven’t been naturally selected out of the system.

            It depends on charity: My mother CHOSE to be charitable enough to let my father impregnate her, CHOSE to carry me to term, CHOSE to feed me, raise me, provide for me at a LOSS of finance to herself for one thing: Love and hope.

            She didn’t accept that I had a right to life, she, like other species on our planet, decided to give me a chance, and I’ve thrived.

            >Even if the government was doing *nothing* other than forcing people to use money they created, it would in some way contribute to obesity,

            The government only forces you to uphold your end of the bargain that you entered into it. You can leave any time, the door’s that way.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

              I’m sure both your mother and father did not consider banging you into existence and “act of charity”.

              I’m quite sure the act was very graphic, raw, unfiltered, sweaty, and perhaps slightly violent.

              Yes, who am I kidding, your mother taking it deep was an act of charity.

              Nothing in the world is quite as joyful as fucking for charity.

              Maybe people should start masturbating at church instead of donating money.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson September 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

              I’m done with this conversation for now.

              I recommend looking up the definitions of “charity” and “voluntary” when you have a moment.

              A helpful image :

              http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/340/205/4d5.png

              • Jimmy Swagger September 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

                I’m done with your piss poor philosophy.

                Look up how your Libertarian ontology fails after you’ve taken more than a primer in philosophy and we can talk.

                Even better are your red herrings in our previous discussions.

                >I’m sure both your mother and father did not consider banging you into existence and “act of charity”.

                Whether or not you think you think you’re stupid doesn’t change the fact that you more than likely are. Amateur at best. And ah yes, I should have known that the only reason your parents fucked each other was because they wanted to allow a zygote its right to life, because the zygote has a right to life (going off your poor tautology reference)

                >Maybe people should start masturbating at church instead of donating money.

                Oh man, another one with the presupposition that I go to church, attempting to compartmentalize me into a group you want so dear to marginalize because you probably hate their ideology. How terribly sad.

                Here, I’ll give you a red herring:

                Maybe if dumbshits like yourself could actually function in society, there’d be no need for pick up artists who need to constantly emblazon eternal youth onto their cult followers because, ironically, they couldn’t get a meaningful relationship in the first place.

                Or maybe when you put your money where your mouth is and do what you say or claim with such veracity then you could be considered somewhat respected by someone other than a bottom-feeding, gutless slag.

                For final irony, thanks for linking the picture, be sure to take more than a minute (and several replies, can’t fragment everything, can we? That’d be messy, oh dear!) and look through your arguments and realize they’re built on the shoddy toothpicks you so want to tear down in imagined context.

                Must be one of those angry, anarchist atheists, or one of those coward Libertarians that don’t have the balls to live in anarchy, but wants the free market to provide them with the pill to grow them.

                Beautiful.

                • goldernie September 14, 2012 at 3:37 am #

                  Jimmy: You didn’t come into existence because you had a right to life; you have a right to life because you came into existence.

                  Dream: Tim is doing the best he can:

                  “The very fact that Tim is excited about this, demonstrates his ignorance in the root cause of the problem.”

                  By creating a non-for-profit he is NOT implying that said project ‘addresses the root cause of the problem’. Maybe he ignores what is (in your opinion) the root cause of the problem, maybe he doesn’t, my bet is he doesn’t, he’s Tim Ferris, remember?

                  The very fact that Tim is excited about this, does not ‘demonstrate’ his ignorance in the root cause of the problem. Maybe he CHOSE to address the epidemic in a different way, ever thought of that?

                  Lets say we are Tim, we want to alleviate the obesity epidemic and know the relevant principles of nutrition, or at least know who knows them. We have 2 options:

                  1-Go on a fools errand to ‘end the fed’, terminate violently collected taxes, overthrow the international bankers , etc, etc, etc, etc… (in other words, become a conspiracy nut, waste your life without accomplishing anything and then die)

                  2-Side-step the government and alleviate the obesity epidemic using whatever tools we have available (non-for-profits) including some of their propaganda tools (credibility indicators).

                  I’m not disagreeing with you on the idea that the obesity (etc) epidemic is fundamentally linked to violence, as you describe on your post, I’m only suggesting that you should give Tim a bit more credit.

                  • Anthony Dream Johnson September 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

                    I was not specific enough. I should have said “the degree to which Tim appears to be excited about this is unwarranted”.

                    “By creating a non-for-profit he is NOT implying that said project ‘addresses the root cause of the problem’.”

                    If Tim is not addressing the root of the problem, he is by definition, treating a symptom and/or addressing a derivative cause of the problem, neither of which, are going to actually solve the problem.

                    Furthermore, doing what Tim is doing and is excited about, sets the stage to create unintended consequences.

                    I.e. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

                    What if Tim and his Avenger team come to the wrong conclusions, influence the government recommendations, and in the process, spur the government to “double down” on “suggesting” those recommendations?

                    Think : more frequent raw milk raids, doubling the budget of the USDA, the FDA, creating a NEW ABC organization.

                    You mentioned a fools errand : but the greatest fools errand is to treat symptoms and pretend they are the root of the problem.

                    If Tim was really on the mark wit this one, the organization would be equally focused on getting government out of the health equation, as it is the nutritional science.

                    Philosophy is science, and until they treat it as such and value it as such, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot — no exceptions.

                • Anthony Dream Johnson September 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

                  “Oh man, another one with the presupposition that I go to church, attempting to compartmentalize me into a group you want so dear to marginalize because you probably hate their ideology. How terribly sad.”

                  I did not suggest that you go to church. That’s specifically why I said “people”, not “you”.

                • Anthony Dream Johnson September 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

                  “Must be one of those angry, anarchist atheists, or one of those coward Libertarians that don’t have the balls to live in anarchy, but wants the free market to provide them with the pill to grow them.”

                  I’m neither an anarchist or libertarian : I’m a declarationist.

  3. theoptimal1 September 15, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Dream hit it on the head in a comment.

    Take the government out of the equation. The monopoly on force they occupy is hands down the single most dangerous situation for our physical health that can exist. Nevermind the fact that is is also directly responsible for the obesity epidemic, healthcare quality decline, suffering education (should I go on?) All of which can and will effect our health as well as the health of our children (I am a father)

    That all being said, lets remember the best way to affect positive change; with the individual. If each of us to decide for ourselves what we can and should eat, the economy will rectify itself, health care quality will increase, etc.

    Take responsibility for your own actions, even if that means paying thru the nose for something you NEED. Its not my, or any ones else’s responsibility to help anyone for any reason other than because I want to.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 15, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

      Thanks Optimal.

      “health care quality will increase”

      This is a really interesting point actually. Make sure to check out “Fitness, Health, and Liberty” by Doug McGuff M.D.. I will release it on this blog soon.

      Doug talks about staying out of the belly of the beast. So not necessarily improving health care quality — side stepping it completely by not getting sick, injured, etc, and halting degenerative conditions (sarcopenia, arthritis, gut disorders, etc).

  4. Memphis September 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    you have an incredibly warped sense of reality:

    “forced you to use their money”…no one is forcing you to do shit. You don’t want to use money? Go live in the mountains, hunt for your own food or barter your way for food/shelter with farmers or who ever will offer it to you.

    “took your funny money by force”…no one is coming to your house and beating you and stealing your money.You like clean roads and bridges to drive your car on? How about a fire department to pull your ass out of a burning building? What about libraries stocked with books? a police force to keep the streets clean?..if not- fine, but the rest of us are willing to give up some of our “funny money by force” in order to get these things in return. It’s one thing to argue that taxes should be decreased, but c’mon.

    “turned it into wheat and corn subsidies
    married fascist Monsanto
    raided raw milk farms
    spawned unconstitutional bureaucracies like the FDA and USDA
    herded your children into wheat/corn/soy fed obedience factories” – I agree with you that the overall nutritional practices in our country are definitely questionable. They certainly aren’t perfect, and wheat is probably not great to be consumed in mass quantities. But these interventions weren’t made to create the healthiest species possible, they were done to prevent people from starving while making food easily accessible and affordable. No one is force-feeding you wheat/corn. If you don’t want wheat, you can easily eat a wheat-free, corn-free, butter-lovin’ diet or whatever new-age b.s. you are reading about today. Yes, the government markets grains as a major food group, but this isn’t Germany circa 1939, no one is forcing you to eat shit.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

      “forced you to use their money”…no one is forcing you to do shit. You don’t want to use money? Go live in the mountains, hunt for your own food or barter your way for food/shelter with farmers or who ever will offer it to you.”

      You are impressively stupid.

      I have a right to use whatever kind of money I choose, standing in my own home, across the street, on a farm, or at the top of a mountain. Rights are not dependent on geographic context.

      Federal Reserve Notes — what you believe to be legitimate money — are forced upon you via “legal tender laws”. You furthermore do not have the right to create your own money, distribute it, etc.

      You go to jail when you try, and if you resist, you are killed.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 17, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

      ““took your funny money by force”…no one is coming to your house and beating you and stealing your money.”

      Yes, they are.

      The IRS does when they tax me personally, and when they tax corporations (of which, the cost gets passed on to me).

      The State collects further taxes, on sales, on property, and so on.

      These are not optional — it’s pay, or jail. If you resist jail, death.

      You are entitled to your own opinions — you are not entitled to your own facts, especially not on this blog.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      “Yes, the government markets grains as a major food group, but this isn’t Germany circa 1939, no one is forcing you to eat shit.”

      Indirectly, yes they are.

      Take money by violence –> call it a tax –> give my stolen money to wheat farmers –> produce cheaper and cheaper wheat/corn/soy –> feed it to the animals I want to eat —> etc…

      Fraud is an indirect form of violence.

      So is governmental “encouragement” and “discouragement”.

      You can’t buy honest meat when it’s no longer being sold, the economy is in depression, the farmer goes out of business, etc …

      You are really naive. Get a clue.

  5. Craig September 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Gee…. I thought that the obesity problem had a lot to do with all the creative capitalists who came up with profitable and tasty products products like: Domino’s pizza (with cheese stuffed crust, and cheesy garlic bread), Jelly Belly jelly beans, Crispy Creme Donuts, Auntie Anne’s cinnamon and butter drenched pretzels, Cinnabon rolls, Doritos, regular coke (with profit margin enhancing high fructose corn syrup), Andy Capp’s cheddar fries, Carl Jr’s massive hamburgers, The Cheese Cake factory with ‘feed a family on a single entree’ serving sizes, the all you can eat Home Town Buffett, and on and on and on…. Free market capitalism serving a more than willing consumer!

    • Anthony Dream Johnson September 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

      Guns don’t kill people. Individuals kill people when they decide to pull the trigger.

      By the same token, food doesn’t make people fat, and neither does freedom.

      Based on your comment, you appear deeply confused.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Most Important Video of Your Life : You Cannot Educate Your Way to Freedom - November 9, 2012

    [...] unlike I said here, that philanthropy will not solve obesity, education will not solve human slavery. I believe there [...]

Make your mark

More in Independent Thinking, Nutrition (30 of 127 articles)


This video is disturbing. It has the feel of propaganda, and is perhaps the pinnacle expression ...