When Bastiat speaks of “the Law”, he is referring not to any one particular law, but to the system of codes, rules and regulations that we are to live by as imposed on us by a government. Government is force. And the rules it forces you to obey, taken as a whole, are “the Law.” This is the subject of the book.

His premise is simple, and he repeats it often: “The law is justice.” It’s not anything else. The appropriate use of law is the protection of life, property and liberty. Because these things preceded the law, the law will always be metaphysically subordinate to them. When the law steps outside of that narrow vision, it creates injustice, in violation of it’s nature. This is his argument in a nutshell. He starts this way:

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

..

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

–Frederic Bastiat, The Law

He goes on to define property as that which is obtained by labor, and plunder as that which is taken by force from the labor of others. The main thrust being that if an individual can’t, by law, do a certain thing, then government (the will of many individuals) can’t do that thing either. In this context, taxation is “legal plunder”, war is legal murder, etc.

What does he say about the state of post-civil war America?

…look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime — a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World — should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States — where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs — what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

–Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Ron Paul was right. This is a truly great book. There are a million quotes I could paste in here. Too many. It will, at the very least, give you a better understanding of Ron Paul’s own philosophy of government.

As far as main dishes, I always order steak or chicken fajitas and just toss out the tortillas that come with it. Dump all your guac, salsa, lettuce and sour cream on top of the fajitas and just eat it like a taco salad. It’s awesome. The black bean soup is also a good alternative if you don’t like fajitas. And, of course, there’s taco salad. Just be sure and ask them to put it on a plate instead of in a tortilla bowl.

If you eat like this, you’ll come out around 15 carbs. Hope that helps.

Overall, I guess you could say that 1984 felt like two different books. The first half felt like simply a parabel of future society. But, the second half takes you deep into the evil that absolute power can produce in the mind of man. Whereas Ayn Rand’s Anthem was similar in it’s vision of where government would go in the future if it remained un-checked, 1984 was a much darker book. Anthem only gives you vague impressions of the people behind the curtain of government. 1984, in contrast, introduces you to them in their fullness.

Throughout the first two-thirds of the book, I kept running into phrases and whole sections that sounded like they perfectly described what we see in our own government today. It was, at times, uncanny. Here’s some that stood out to me about war:

“…in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at…”

–George Orwell, 1984

“The primary aim of modern warfare .. is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“…In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat… But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair… The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.”

–George Orwell, 1984

To say that this book is highly recommended is an understatement. It is a must read. But, make sure you carve out some time, because once you start reading it, you probably won’t put it down until you’re finished.

“But, I know this guy that lost 60 pounds on Weight Watchers,” you might say. Well, I know people that have lost lots of fat on weight watchers too. And, the reason they lost that weight is because the Weight Watchers points system reduces your total carb intake. If they reduced their carb intake even more, they’d lose even more fat. Think about it this way: if a person that eats a normal diet of around 2500 calories a day (60% carbs, 30% protein, 10% fat), cuts their calorie intake to 1500(a reduction of 40%), they will, by pure mathematics, be reducing their carb intake by 40% as well. So, if they were eating 100 carbs per day before. They’d be eating only 60 now. That’s a huge drop. And that’s why they succeed in losing fat.

Ok, so if it works, then what’s the problem you ask? The problem is that 1500 calories per day is virtually undo-able for most adults if there is other food available to them. It’s just not sustainable for about 90% of the population. Ultimately the diet will fail. I cannot count the number of Weight Watchers folks I’ve seen lose tons of weight and then gain it right back. And the reason is that the diet is starving you.

On my diet, I eat as much as I want. Usually to the tune of about 2500 to 3000 calories per day, with loads of fat, and I still lost almost 50 pounds. So, what does this tell us?

1. Reducing calories (which reduces carbs by default) makes you lose weight.
2. Reducing carbs, without reducing calories also makes you lose weight.

The common variable is carb reduction. The calories are irrelevant, in as much as they would be an indicator of anything other than a probable carb intake level. On their own, they are meaningless to weight loss.

This is all just a condensed version of a much larger, detailed explanation by Gary Taubes at his blog. You’d do well for yourself to go read it.

My weight loss (and yours too) is about restricting the intake of simple and refined carbs and increasing the intake of animal fats, protein and vegetables. But, I had to do it in a way that was easy to manage as a lifestyle. Simply counting carbs was never going to work. I just can’t keep that up. Life is too unpredictable, and I can’t carry around a bunch of carb lists and a calculator. The good news is that none of that is really necessary when it comes to a low carb lifestyle. You don’t need to know how many carbs are in each food. All you really need to know is a short list of ingredients to never eat and a short list of ingredients to be careful about. Anything not on those two lists can be eaten in as much quantity as you want. Go ahead and stuff your face.

Here’s my list of absolutely never eat ingredients:

• Refined Flour
• Sugar
• Potatoes
• Corn
• “Nonfat” or “low fat” things (inluding milk)

That’s a short list. Sugar includes every form, but especially fructose. I stay away from all non-naturally occurring fructose and all forms of corn syrup. Especially high fructose corn syrup. High Fructose Corn Syrup(HFCS) is a diabetes/fat creation machine like no other. Avoid it like the plague.

Now for the list of ingredients that I only eat in small quantities:

• Fruits & Berries
• Greek Yogurt
• Whole Milk
• Soy Flour
• Whole Wheat Flour
• Vegetable Oils

Again, it’s a short list.

Anything that doesn’t appear on the two above lists I can(and do) eat any amount of that I want. If it’s not on those lists I can literally stuff myself with them and they will have zero impact on my weight.

Now for the explanation.

The first list(the never-eats) are the most common ingredients found in food that will spike your blood sugar, causing an insulin flood and subsequent crash. The insulin flood briefly puts your body into fat storage mode until it subsides. Basically, these foods are so highly digestible that they just go straight to the blood stream and spike your glucose(i.e. you get fatter).

The second list are ingredients that will still increase blood sugar levels, but they are more complex carbs and so the effect isn’t as drastic. It takes your body longer to break them down, so the effect isn’t a spike in blood sugar, but more of a low arch.

So how does all of this play out in a real world scenario? Here’s an average week of meals for me:

Monday

• Breakfast: 4 pieces of bacon and 2 eggs with cheese.
• Lunch: Gyro plate from Purple Onion(toss the pita bread, toss the rice)
• Dinner: Large hamburger patty loaded with condiments and green beans
• Dessert: A square of dark chocolate.

Tuesday

• Breakfast: 2 sausage patties and a 2 egg omelet.
• Lunch: Taco salad from Salsaritas on a plate(not a shell) with steak and chicken
• Dinner: Pork chops with black soy beans(topped with salsa) and a salad
• Dessert: A chocolate whey protein shake made with 1/2 almond milk, 1/2 whole milk.

Wednesday

• Breakfast: 2 sausage patties and a 2 egg omelet.
• Lunch: Taco salad from Salsaritas on a plate(not a shell) with steak and chicken
• Dinner: Pork chops with black soy beans(topped with salsa) and a salad
• Dessert: Bowl of chopped up strawberries and blueberries with heavy cream on top

Thursday

• Breakfast: Greek yogurt with blueberries and Splenda.
• Lunch: A huge salad from a salad bar with bacon bits, cheese, broccoli, olives, dressing…
• Dinner: Clam chowder with bacon or ham, and cauliflower instead of potatoes
• Dessert: Some chocolate flavored almonds and other nuts

Friday

• Breakfast: Cinnamon toast made with low carb bread
• Lunch: 12 hot wings from Buffalo Wild Wings with cole slaw on the side instead of fries
• Dinner: Rotisserie chicken with some broccoli and cheese and a salad
• Dessert: Dark chocolate

That’s a typical week of food for me. In addition, I drink a moderate-gravity beer almost every night after we put the kids to bed. I have no idea how many grams of fat that is, or how many calories it is(probably in excess of 3000) per day, but I know that it’s almost always less than 40 carbs a day. For comparison, there are 65 carbs in a single 20 ounce coke. There are 48 carbs in a single serving of McDonald’s french fries. It’s not the oil in the fries that makes you fat. It’s the potatoes.

I can’t stress enough that when I leave the table at each meal, I’m stuffed. I eat until I’m full every time. The only downside to this type of lifestyle is that it’s going to require some cooking. Pre-packaged stuff is just too loaded with refined carbs. The good part is that it takes just as long to fry up a hamburger patty and some green beans as it does to heat up some Bagle Bites, so there’s really not much difference.

There is a paradigm shift beginning in metabolism/fat research right now(thanks to guys like Gary Taubes) and I fully expect that in 5 years or so, the low-fat/calorie restriction diets we’ve all grown up with will start to fade away. They don’t work. They’re based on just-so story science.

-3/4 pound of de-seeded jalapenos
-2 cups of apple cider vinegar
-1 cup of splenda
-1/2 cup of honey
-2 tsp of pomonas pectin
-2 tsp calcium water (from the pomonas box)

Instructions: Prep the jalapenos and dump them in the blender. Pour in a cup of apple cider vinegar. Puree’ until it’s thoroughly liquified. Pour the puree’, the other cup of cider vinegar, 1 cup of Splenda, and 2 teaspoons of calcium water into a large saucepan and boil for 10 minutes. At the 10 minute mark, stir the pectin into a 1/2 cup of honey and pour in. Stir vigorously. Boil for another minute then turn off the heat. Ladle into hot jars and can in a water bath for 10 minutes.

This jelly is based off the one in the Ball blue book. It’s good, although it has a very vinegary twang to it. I plan on playing around with it to adjust the taste to how i want it.