Stavros, "Precautionary measures do not constitute micro-management [we'll have to agree to disagree about that, although I think you'd be more intellectually honest were you to say that yes they do, but so what, because they are precautionary]; your argument is that we are more micro-managed and taxed than ever before in history [I don't think I said more taxed than ever before], my response has been to dispute that this is true. That we may be more subject to surveillance, through closed-circuit tv cameras on our streets, I think that is probably true.
The restaurant in question was presumably already regulated, so the story is not exactly a poster child for the efficacity of regulation.
-But that is not the point -I raised it because it exposed the difficulty of your hostility to 'micro-management' on a health issue where I assume your judgement would be that threats to health should be removed wherever possible [nope, and "should be removed" is a giveaway; I don't think you can imagine a world in which you're a free man, you're entire world view is based on utilitarian trade-offs which I find morally odious... you can't make an omelette, etc ]. It is actually a difficult case because I assume many people have eaten that liver dish without falling ill and it is the kind of dish you would expect a Michelin-starred chef (albeit that particular Brasserie doesn't have such a star) to have tested many times. So its not about the efficacy of regulation, but the authorites responding to an issue as it arises, which is what they are there for. I agree that in a 'free market', whatever that means [see above: try and conceive it], the Brasserie, noting that several people have died/fallen ill after eating the dish would withdraw it from the menu (well, we assume this) [I don't, see above; either way, in my view it's up to thje restaurant, or should be, and the grown-ups who patronise it], but what you have to establish is that the population does not want their food industry regulated in this way [no I don't; I agree and have agreed numerous times on this thread that most people are cool with your levers and pulleys, legislated incentives and disincentives and utilitarian trade-offs. Indeed, by saying that this is what I have to establish you make my point for me that I am not free because lots of other people demand that I should not be...which takes us back almost to where this thread began, with trish claiming there was no need for Rand's philosophy because the communists had gone away, to which I replied, even at that early stage, that the evidence of this thread was to the contrary], and that I am not sure of [no need to be unsure, you lot have won, and keep winning; people like me keep trying to fight you off]. In other words, there may be issues, public health being one of them, where the public actually wants regulations enforced, not withdrawn [yes, yes and yes; btw, my reference to government interference in what you "ingest" was intended to encompass booze and drugs; care to comment?].
None of this dispensation existed under mediaeval monarchs, whose bureaucracies, whose ability to gather information and act on it, were minute and trivial compared to those of today.
I agree that serfdom was a moral and economic fact of life, but then so is the fact that we work for the government for about half the year (more or less, depending where you live). The distinction is one of like, not one of kind. You refer to the fact that under feudalism, property was (usually) held on sufferance. I would argue that nowadays the concept of property in the western world has been so debased by the terms on which it is held - that boiler you aren't allowed to decide where to locate, for instance, as to be meaningless. Eminent domain, in the US, is another example. Granted, life in the mediaeval era was nastier, more brutish and shorter than it is now, but then again the intervening period of the industrial revolution, as well as medical advances reducing child mortality rates, explain that difference.
As to comparing rates of taxation then and now, you say that "To compare the rate of taxation in the 14th century to what we pay today is meaningless without the context." But that makes my point for me: the context then was of a stunted government which, outside the ambit of the feudal settlement into which most people were born, had no impact on how they lit their mud hits, or where they located their fires within those mud huts, etc. The context now, by contrast, is of a much greater tax take which contributes to funding the micro-management of precisely those things (or their modern equivalent). We are better off, but in many respects less free. And we can be conscripted for military service.
Your attempt to defend your earlier claim that taxes in medieval England were a tiny proportion of what we pay now has not been advanced with any evidence [I can't be bothered to go back through the thread, but I thought you'd conceded that but contended it was irrelevant given the nature of feudal indentured servitude; either way as far as I can tell you are cool with a certain level of indentured servitude. I'm not. Again we'll have to agree to differ]; if we can agree that when a man and all he produces belongs to the noble Lord, and that constitues 100% of what he makes, it is hard to pay more in tax on top of that [a fair point, but we're left with the unfortunate conclusion that modern social democratic governments let us keep that proportion of the fruits of our labour that they see fit in just the same way as did feudal monarchs; as I said above, it's a difference of like not one of kind, and the difference of like is not that great either where the government spends 50% of a nation's earnings]. But what seems obvious is that the complete absence of freedom itself seems to be a 'mere detail' to you, and because the serf is 'free to choose' where to put a fire in his hut maybe that 100% is wrong. Should we re-calibrate the man's freedom and grant him 1% of freedom to choose where to put the fire, leaving us with a figure of 99% paid in taxes, could it be 0.5% after all its only a fire -? This is sophistry, not history [more properly, it's an argument about the precise degree of servitude acceptable to you. No degree of servitude is acceptable to me]. You might as well claim that cotton pickin' slaves from the ole South had free accommodation, so what were they complaining about? [that's a sloppy comparison]
The problem is induced by the link you make between taxes and freedom in late capitalism, integral to the arguments of Hayek, to take one well-known example. The comparison with medieval England is not going to work because the context is different, the concept of freedom itself has changed from what it was at that time [in the sense that "freeman" might carry with it the connotation of "not a serf", yes, and the political theory of liberty was largely unknown or in its infancy. Actually, I'm inclined to throw your cotton picken slaves comparison back at you here: just because Locke, Mill and Rand were unknown to Wat Tyler, what was he complaining about? Or something. Either way, liberty is an eternal value, predating all states and government, whatever one's state of knowledge as to what it might entail; borrowing freely from an arch enemy: "man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"], in addition to which the powers that local barons and the Kings had have changed, as indeed have the powers of the Church and the Parish Council in which you once would have lived [sure, I say they are more sophisticated, better enforced, broader and deeper, and, importantly, subtler, but again, that's just quibbling about the precise degree of acceptable servitude].
Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s, and that is based on the argument that people should pay less in tax so that they can decide what to do with the money they earn, rather than have the government decide for them, and on some issues she was right, and taxes were reduced, and she won four elections in a row on that basis. You will also note that not only did the richest people benefit most from her tax regime, her government [sorry, pet peeve: it was her ministry, not her government] reduced personal income tax, but then increased secondary taxation with increases on VAT, alcohol, petrol and tobacco, to take just four typical taxes, thereby increasing the tax burden in aggregate terms [the Thatcher ministries are problematic for people like me; on the one hand, they are the closest thing we've had to government believing, and to some extent legislating, on the basis of a core belief in liberty. On the other hand, that's really not saying very much given the Butskellite prior consensus and the arguably identical Keynesianism that we've had recently]. Over the lifetime of the Thacher government the UK's maufacturing capacity was reduced by 25%, and the rise in unemployment that followed was paid for from the profits of North Sea oil. The privatisation of the railways has resulted in this 'privately run' industry now absorbing more public money in subsidy than was paid to British Rail as it was at the time, and the fare structure has become a labyrinth of charges few can understand; the costs of running a car/vehicle have increased, for private users and say, haulage businesses; it costs a lot more to smoke yourself into a hospital bed or the grave; and 20 odd years on from the privatisation [a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions] of the gas industry, we are paying more for gas, with evidence that the 'free market' has led to gas companies fixing prices regardless of it [there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors], so that it is a case of 'free to fix' rather than 'free to choose'; and I had the benefit of a free university education but the current generation is expected to create a debt burden -their own private tax- before they have even graduated. Is this freedom? [nope, it's a range of consequences produced by successive governments' monopoly on legitimate violence; you're confusing the misplaced association of successive British governments with free market initiatives with what would actually happen in a free market. As I say above, and as you seem to accept, you cannot imagine what a free market might look like. You're also confusing liberty with ability/disability]
The evidence we have suggests that the most libertarian government we have had in the UK in the 20th century, and its like-minded successors, did not reduce the tax burden, did not remove government subsidy from industry, and has not made the country safe from attack [yes, as I say, the Thatcher ministries really weren't the free market in tooth and claw nutters the Polly Toynbees of this world would have us believe. Would that they had been]. .
As I have said before, I think most people in this country do not object to paying taxes when the system is transparent and fair, and they can see that the money is indeed being spent on our defence, our health and education and the other uses to which taxes should be put; it is morally the right thing to do, because we all live here and share this island and its resources. These are all issues that can be, and are put to the public vote; if you think we should leave the European Union, NATO and 'go it alone' then you have the opportunity every day to campaign for it [aside from mild intellectual stimulation,what do you think I'm doing here?], and then ask yourself why nobody votes for it (because it would raise our taxes! [shrinking government would raise our taxes???] -being a sore loser doesn't win many votes [indeed not, pork does, though].
