Democracy

[an8150]

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].

[an8150]

hippifried, "Can't subject public safety to cost/benefit analysis [so you'd be prepared to see global GDP spent on, say, closing down a dodgy restaurant or treatment for a woman's diabetes?]. They have nothing to do with each other [you may not like it, and in fact it doesn't matter whether you like it, because will remain true nevertheless, but everything costs something]. Y'all've gotten off the subject of markets now, & moved into the realm of negligence. People shouldn't have to wait for the "market" to catch up with reality [for reality, see: my comments above. Plus, what do you think a market is, if not reality? What did you think you meant when you typed this last sentence?]. If a business puts the public at risk, regardless of fault, they need to be shut immediately [all cars place their buyers, and anyone in the vicinity of those cars, at risk; should all car manufacturers be closed?], until the problem gets fixed or they're gone. If someone knowingly puts people at risk for personal gain (cost benefit analysis), it's criminal. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of crap. People trump property. Always [assuming absolute property rights, what if A says of his priceless Stradivarius that he wishes it were saved first from a wrecked cruise liner? Do you propose that his wishes are ignored and he is forcibly prioritised over the instrument?].

This is just one example of the many many many reasons that egoism can't work in the real world. It's just a pipe dream, based on a half baked crackpot theory. "

[an8150]

broncofan, "The public might be acting "rationally" by buying a tube of toothpaste that is a dollar cheaper but more likely to cause cancer. You would probably say that by preventing them from making this awful choice, I am being paternalistic. But do you really hate your father that much that you'd encourage cancer just to spite him? Shame shame."

The shame is on you, for your unexpected cheapness in writing those words. Moreover, it's a sloppy comparison. You and your fellow travellers are not my parents. Politicians are not my parents. Furthermore, as an adult in middle age, I don't expect my actual parents to behave paternalistically towards me. They may be concerned about me, but since I am no longer a child in their care, my mistakes are my own to make.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=an8150;1241790]

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];
--but that would depend on how you define the balance between precautionary measures and what you call 'micro-management' so it is not a matter of me being dishonest at all, and since we probably don't even agree on the difference between management and micro-management, this exchange is futile, unless of course you are not just right but absolutely right, which I suspect is what you believe.

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
--This is sophistry -you suggest that the concept of a 'free man' is an absolute value, so any impingement on that 'freedom' becomes a negative interference in your life precisely because you claim freedom is an absolute -and crucially, an individual- condition that should not be interfered with: this enables you to introduce the concept of 'utilitarian trade-offs' as a perversion of individual freedom which suggests that either you only stop at a red light when you feel like it or because you can deduce not doing so might kill you; or you abide by the rules of the road which limit your freedom and you thus in practice subscribe to a 'utilitarian trade-off'.

The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship, so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships.

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"
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom, and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state, but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s...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]
-more sophistry -you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy.

a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions...there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors
--I take this as an example of the futility of utopian desire -even if the UK government did not control any aspect of the gas industry, did not tax it, and just opened the market to any gas company to provide a service based on customer choice, how would you trade in gas from Algeria or Russia if the origin of the supply was not also beyond the control of the governments in those states? It is like permament revolution, unless there is an end to all government, you only need one link in the value chain to be controlled by government and your 'freedom' is impinged.

[an8150]

Stavros,
--but that would depend on how you define the balance between precautionary measures and what you call 'micro-management' so it is not a matter of me being dishonest at all, and since we probably don't even agree on the difference between management and micro-management, this exchange is futile, unless of course you are not just right but absolutely right, which I suspect is what you believe. [I do. But if the government telling you which lightbulbs to use, and where to put your boiler, doesn't constitute micro-management, I don't know what does. Some years ago, a friend of mine obtained a visa to visit North Korea. He told me that in every home, there was a picture of the Dear Leader hanging in the same place in the living room. And the nub of that was: every such picture was required to hang from the wall at precisely the same angle. Does that pass your test for micro-management?]

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
--This is sophistry -you suggest that the concept of a 'free man' is an absolute value [correct], so any impingement on that 'freedom' becomes a negative interference in your life precisely because you claim freedom is an absolute -and crucially, an individual- condition that should not be interfered with: this enables you to introduce the concept of 'utilitarian trade-offs' as a perversion of individual freedom which suggests that either you only stop at a red light when you feel like it or because you can deduce not doing so might kill you [there have been some interesting experiments in abolishing red lights, which as I understand have tended to show that road users become more cautious. I don't have a problem with rules of the road, though, I merely say that they should be a matter of contract rather than criminal law]; or you abide by the rules of the road which limit your freedom and you thus in practice subscribe to a 'utilitarian trade-off'.

The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship, so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships [I think you've gone off the rails there, although I have some difficulty following what you've written. I think you've lost sight of the distinction between voluntary interraction and coerced behaviour].

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"
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom [if there's a difference, it's the same as that between loving someone and being in love with someone], and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times [I suspect you see politics as positively desirable; to me it just about amounts to a regrettable necessity, and only in very limited circumstances; politics superimposes itself on liberty, liberty is our natural condition]. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state [and as you know, positive liberty is an abuse of language; it's what I've referred to previously as the failure to distinguish liberty from (dis)ability], but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s...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]
-more sophistry -you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy. [I'm ambivalent towards Brenda, contemptuous towards her son and heir; the gravamen of my pet peeve is that the modern tendency to refer to a premier's ministry as his or her government subtly psychologically endorses the increasing presidential tendencies of modern British prime ministers, and few of us wish to see a president Thatcher/Blair/Brown (delete as desired)]

a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions...there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors
--I take this as an example of the futility of utopian desire -even if the UK government did not control any aspect of the gas industry, did not tax it, and just opened the market to any gas company to provide a service based on customer choice, how would you trade in gas from Algeria or Russia if the origin of the supply was not also beyond the control of the governments in those states? It is like permament revolution, unless there is an end to all government, you only need one link in the value chain to be controlled by government and your 'freedom' is impinged. [you're moving the goalposts somewhat: my observations on this point were intended to respond to the claim that such a free market existed and its failings were therefore justifiably criticised as failings of a free market. It's actually gerrymandered state capitalism. By all means criticise its failings, but don't attribute them to the failings of a free market. But to respond to your moving of the goalposts, as I understand it, you worry that Britons couldn't buy gas from Russia without government-to-government negotiation. Putting aside for one moment the fact that that amounts to nothing more than the claim that because the Russians have a protection racket, we need to have one, too, they'd be cutting their noses to spite their faces if they refused to sell us gas just because we didn't have a government department to oil the wheels. That's not to say they wouldn't do that, but then they could do it anyway. Indeed, I think they've done it with the Ukrainians.]

[an8150]

Assuming this and other similar photographs have not been debunked, I call savages:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world...s-8346406.html

[Prospero]

There are indeed places in the modern world where the rule of government do not apply and where there are no laws. I listened to a BBC report about one this week. A young man, a refugee, had fled his home country somewhere in Africa and had been captured in the depths of the Sinai desert by - I think - Bedouin who were holding him hostage until has family paid thousands in money to win his freedom. The young man said he'd been tortured. And that his family could not raise the money to win his a freedom. His expected fate - already meted out to many other similar hostages was to be doused with petrol and burned alive. This was how the kidnappers exercised their freedom. Their inalienable rights to liberty.

Now it is less likely that this would happen in a place where there were laws and rules and Government regulation. In Sinai, not covered by any effective laws, this has happened to many people and, by now, may well have happened to this poor soul. His freedom versus the freedom of his captors. Incidentally the kidnapper was also interviewed on the telephone by the BBC reporter. He said he has to do this because it was how he made a living. If the ransom was not paid, he would burn the young man.

Regulations and laws prevent this being an acceptable way to exercise your freedom in most parts of the world. Such laws of course impinge on the freedom of individuals such as this kidnapper and his associates. Perhaps such laws, should be scrapped on the higher altar of freedom.

When I quoted Hegel a weeks ago the naive idealist who is arguing here for total liberty accused me of being hateful. I was, in fact referencing Isaiah Berlin's use of this phrase in his essays about the challenge a civilised society has in reconciling seemingly irreconcilable concepts - including liberty and societal rules. The example i quote above is - to me - a perfect example of the need for law, for rules, for the hand of government, to limit man's capacity for cruelty.

[an8150]

As the in-house niaive idealist, I must ask whether people are ever kidnapped, tortured, burned alive and murdered in England?

Besides, Prospero, you're confusing the badlands of the earth where there be dragons with civil societies where the writ of the law runs. Libertarians don't say there should be no law, much less no criminal law (although I think anarcho-capitalists, if I understand their position correctly, argue that all law is enforced privately on a micro scale), and we certainly don't say that freedom means freedom to kidnap etc. Moreover minarchist libertarians such as I argue that the only legitimate role for the state is collective self-defence against aggressors. The unfortunate to whom you refer wandered off the reservation to a dangerous place, presumably unarmed, certainly outnumbered and found himself confronted by savages who know no rule of law or property rights and who, as a result, make their living in the manner you described. My faith in mankind is such that, given property rights upheld by the rule of law, my utopia would not resemble such a place because there would be no need for it. While many have the capacity for violence, most humans are not wantonly cruel in the way you describe. Still, it's instructive to see Hobbes' spirit living on.

[hippifried]

hippifried, "Can't subject public safety to cost/benefit analysis [so you'd be prepared to see global GDP spent on, say, closing down a dodgy restaurant or treatment for a woman's diabetes?]. They have nothing to do with each other [you may not like it, and in fact it doesn't matter whether you like it, because will remain true nevertheless, but everything costs something]. Y'all've gotten off the subject of markets now, & moved into the realm of negligence. People shouldn't have to wait for the "market" to catch up with reality [for reality, see: my comments above. Plus, what do you think a market is, if not reality? What did you think you meant when you typed this last sentence?]. If a business puts the public at risk, regardless of fault, they need to be shut immediately [all cars place their buyers, and anyone in the vicinity of those cars, at risk; should all car manufacturers be closed?], until the problem gets fixed or they're gone. If someone knowingly puts people at risk for personal gain (cost benefit analysis), it's criminal. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of crap. People trump property. Always [assuming absolute property rights, what if A says of his priceless Stradivarius that he wishes it were saved first from a wrecked cruise liner? Do you propose that his wishes are ignored and he is forcibly prioritised over the instrument?].

This is just one example of the many many many reasons that egoism can't work in the real world. It's just a pipe dream, based on a half baked crackpot theory. "

I have no problem at all with the "global GDP" being spent on treating & preventing the spread of disease. Yeah everything costs something, but so what? Smallpox no longer exists in nature, & private entrepreneurship had nothing to do with that result. It was collusion between governments, spending tax monies, & forcing compulsory vaccinations. There was no financial reward. I have the scar. My children, grandchildren, & great grandchildren do not. It's not necessary for them because the cheapskates, with all their excuses & phony whining about "liberty", were pushed aside & ignored.

I know what a market is, what it can & cannot do, & what it will & will not do. Like always, I meant exactly what I said. There's nothing between the lines. I speak plain English, & refuse to converse in "Rand-speak".

There's a demand for cars. The odds of personal injury from them is almost nil for someone who doesn't voluntarily participate in that mode of transportation. There's no demand at all for botulism, sponge form encephalitis, or deadly e-coli. It's just another bogus analogy, although, the common denominator is regulation. That's how we use the government to "defend" us against the negligence of others in regard to known issues that are preventable.

I don't & won't assume "absolute property rights" because there are no such thing as "property rights" to begin with. Property has no rights, & people don't have more rights than others because they claim ownership of property. If some idiot wants to risk his life to retrieve his fiddle from the sinking ship, then he better be able to swim because there's no reason to hold the lifeboat for him. If his actions can somehow put others at higher risk, then yeah, he gets forced. People trump property. Always.

I'll continue to stick to that last statement of mine. I have yet to see a rebuttal for it.

[an8150]

You've answered a series of questions there, hippifried, but none of them is a response to the questions I posed. Why have you purported to answer my questions when in fact answering other, different questions? Did you think I wouldn't notice?