Consume Product

>European packaged food is often considered healthier and to have less sugar and chemicals due to stricter regulatory standards and a focus on using natural, whole ingredients. In the European Union, there are strict labeling requirements, and manufacturers must disclose the presence of additives and preservatives. Additionally, there is a cultural preference for fresh, homemade meals, which has led to a demand for healthier packaged food options. However, it's essential to read the nutritional labels and ingredient lists of each product to make an informed decision about its healthfulness.

>Food laws in the United States can be considered less strict due to a combination of factors, including a powerful food industry lobby, a lack of public awareness about the potential health risks associated with certain additives and preservatives, and a cultural preference for convenience and low-cost food options. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating the safety of food products in the United States, but their oversight is often limited by a lack of resources and political pressure. As a result, there is a greater emphasis on self-regulation by the food industry, which can lead to inconsistencies in the quality and safety of packaged food products.

This is not my wisdom i am sharing, it is in fact the wise analysis and conclusions a man on youtube that goes by the name "leather apron club" has come to. Here is the original video in case you want to listen to the man argue his points directly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIE3VOGemlA

Most people who call themselves libertarians, simply are not libertarians. Libertarians can be divided into two groups, weak and strong libertarians. A weak libertarian is someone who defends and only cares about defending their own liberty, they would never stick their neck out to defend someone else's liberty, conversely, a strong libertarian would defend the liberty of someone else just as strongly as they would defend their own.

Most modern day libertarians are these so-called weak libertarians, people who use this ideology as a cope so they do not have to act in order to correct wrongs they see in society. "oh well this sucks but i'm a libertarian, so not much i can do about it, it is their right", either that or "frat types", "Live for the moment bro, who cares just do your thing". Perhaps even rich silicon valley types, people who are economically well off but again, use this ideology as a crutch not to help those they perceive as in need of help.

Certain arguments these people might use are "central banking is fine, who cares, it's win-win, the person getting the loan gets the money they need, the bank benefits from interest, and everyone consented". And we all know about (((central banking))) and how they essentially end up hoarding the wealth of an entire country without needing to do anything, therefore infringing on the liberty of a majority in the nation. Another example would be these weak libertarians being against unions, which in theory should be perfectly fine under libertarian ideology, with unions falling under freedom of association of course. The ultimate irony for these weak libertarians is that they necessarily have to be okay with actions that are anti-liberty, like the banking example from above. It's of course very myopic to strive for an individual's liberty even though you know that this one individual will inhibit a lot of people's liberty, say 100 years from now.

When strong libertarians interfere, sometimes they restrict the liberty of an individual to maintain the liberty of society as a whole. Kill one to save a thousand right? So now that we know that these people ought to act to save the liberty of others, and they do, this leads to 2 important questions :

1. What if the person being helped simply doesn't want the libertarian's help? Well you either say "okay fine" and stop trying to help them, essentially becoming a weak libertarian again, you put the selfishness of this person above your highest ideal. OR you help them anyways, but then are you still a libertarian? Because you interfere in an action that is between 2 willing participants.

2. How do you judge when someone's liberty is being harmed? There can be all these fancy answers like certain laws perhaps, but which all end up being judged by one person. But your own judgement works by the same token, so people who hold liberty as their highest goal, will have to interfere with the liberty of individuals to save that of societies, purely based on their subjective judgement.

So all libertarians are eventually tested, and they either take the path of the weak libertarian, who, by not holding liberty as their highest virtue, are not really libertarians, or the strong libertarian, who will have to interfere with the liberty of some people, by the libertarian's own judgement, against that person's will.

The logical end of the stepping stone ideology that is Libertarianism is either cuckoldry or fascism.