The Politics of Low Carb

For a long time it never occurred to me that politics - or, more properly, philosophy - might have anything to do with my own discovery of or interest in low-carb diets. But I spend a lot of time studying and thinking about both, and I've come to what I think are some interesting conclusions worth sharing.

There's a very interesting cross-section of libertarians and low-carbers, and I'm one of the many members of both camps.  That observation led me to ponder what might be common to both sets of ideas that would lead to such a large intersection.

Libertarians, by definition, are staunch defenders of individual liberty and limited (if any) government.  Low-carb dieters have necessarily shunned conventional medical wisdom and government dietary guidelines.  That's a pretty weak correlation on its face, so I think we need to look up the chain to what I believe is the natural root of both intellectual pursuits.

Some people believe, whether they're conscious of it or not, that man is inherently evil.  More specifically, man's desires are maligned as evil.  Sexual desires are predatory and/or destructive, the desire for prosperity is synonymous with greed, our gastronomic tendencies are equated with gluttony, and our very desire for freedom from government interference is tantamount to shirking our duties to society.  If you're nodding your head in agreement at these ideas, you believe that your natural desires are things to be resisted.  That good can only be done through sacrifice, that to satisfy your desires requires something evil to be done.

What I believe, what libertarians believe, and what I suspect most low-carbers believe, is pretty much the opposite of all that.  That we have succeeded as a species largely because we have desires that are good not only for us, but for society and humanity, and that to reject them harms the species as well as the individual.  That altruistic behavior is best expressed among families and communities on a voluntary basis, that indiscriminate or compulsory charity ultimately does harm to everyone involved.


What in the world does this have to do with diet?

You love fat.  If you don't think you do, ask yourself if you've trained yourself not to, because you've been told it will kill you.  Ask yourself seriously how you feel about butter.  Bacon.  Ribeyes.  You love them because your body loves them.  If you're one of the first group of people I described, the people who look on their own wants and needs with disgust, the dietary recommendations you've heard for the last few decades ring true to you.  If you could only deny yourself consistently enough, you'd be thin and live to see your hundredth birthday.

If you're not, there's a good chance you've always been skeptical of nutritionists.  Their advice did not ring true.  You love bacon, and there's got to be a biological driver for that.  More than that, bacon makes you feel good.  It energizes you without the crash that accompanies some other meals.  You practically (or even literally) moan with a pleasure that emanates from something primal and natural.  And, if this is you, you know exactly what I'm talking about and I need go no further...

Except to venture to predict that you also have libertarian leanings.  As simple and right as the idea may seem to others, you're not so sure there's anything moral about the confiscation of the fruits of one man's labor to be handed out to another, however noble the goal.  Left to his own devices, each man will pursue his own happiness, and the efforts of both are hampered by the punishment of achievement on one side and the subsidization of failure on the other.  You may even go so far as to call this evil. 

If I'm wrong about all this, I've probably just lost half (which is to say, 1.5) of my readers.  But I don't think I am.  I would love to hear your thoughts.