emarkp: Health food interest means liberals are anti-freedom

[fluiddruid]

I’d like to avoid hijacking a perfectly good debate, and I thought the best forum for discussing emarkp’s little theory would be here, in the Pit.

From this thread :

Since there’s no shortage of WAG’s so far, I’ll add another. The conservative philosophy is tied to the idea that the individual should choose for him or herself and receive the consequences. The liberal philosophy is that individuals must be protected from themselves, hence pushing any idea that is considered ‘good for you.’

Nice. Could you possibly put in any more self-congratulatory digs in a single paragraph?

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is not that liberals are against individual freedom, and that conservatives are for it. This is, quite frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the posters of the SDMB and shows either blatant ignorance or blind arrogance.

Where is this “conservative philosophy” of choosing for yourself when it comes to drug policy? Different religious beliefs and separation of church and state? Different cultures? Homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption? All of these are areas where liberals come out far stronger than conservatives, as a whole, in favor of self-determination and freedom of choice. Where do the arguments for censorship in entertainment come from? Again, conservatives.

I am not saying that the opposite of your statement is true. Liberals tend to favor less freedom than conservatives in other areas – gun control, for example. However, your portrayal of political policy is a laughable cariacature.

Eating natural/organic/“health” foods is (arguably) better for you. Saying this does not force you to eat it, nor does it limit your choices. Likewise, showing that cigarette smoking is likely going to have a negative effect on your health does not equal protecting people from themselves.

I’ll not say that there aren’t wacky ideas that are associated with “health food” out there. However, you said:

It doesn’t help that yesterday’s health food fad is rejected today as being scientifically unsound.

Cite? Healthy and natural foods are not a fad. They’re not a cure-all, obviously, and people who purport anything to create miraculous cures (including types of health food, supplements, magnets, or God-knows-what) are quacks and charletans, but this doesn’t mean that “health food” is a fad. Maybe you’re thinking of something other than what I am. I associate the term “health food” with things that have whole grains and nutrients, that are low in fat, or are otherwise good for you. I can’t see how saying that any of those things are part of a healthy diet is scientifically unsound.

[gobear]

Where is this “conservative philosophy” of choosing for yourself when it comes to drug policy? Different religious beliefs and separation of church and state? Different cultures? Homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption? All of these are areas where liberals come out far stronger than conservatives, as a whole, in favor of self-determination and freedom of choice. Where do the arguments for censorship in entertainment come from? Again, conservatives

Genuine conservatives who believe in individual self-determination are called Libertarians. The clamp-down-on-shit-we-don’t-like crowd are reactionaries–right wing stooges on a power trip. A Libertarian doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you do at hom on your own time.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**
Genuine conservatives who believe in individual self-determination are called Libertarians. **

There is a conservative movement, though, that believes that it’s the government’s job to protect the status quo, and to promote a certain set of societal values.

[fluiddruid]

Which would be, then, not promoting self-determination, Captain Amazing? It seems we’re all in relative agreement here.

I don’t think that a system that promotes the most freedom is necessarily the best – hence, why I’m not a libertarian – but I think that criticisms that are used as the basis of an argument should be sound and that, ultimately, restricting freedoms should be done with only the greatest consideration. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of wishing to push their ideas on others. I simply resent that my views were characterized as support of such behavior. Certainly, neither side characterizes their own views that way; hence, the statement “the liberal philosophy is that individuals must be protected from themselves” is completely false.

[Kalashnikov]

Libertarians are not necessarily conservatives. I’d say that the conservative <-> liberal and libertarian <-> statist axes are orthogonal.

Not that I consider the terms conservative or liberal to be particularly meaningful anyway - both often claim to be in favor of freedom but are really only in favor of people’s freedom to be just like them.