By all means argue for what you want matey

We regard this as a significant problem from the freedom and liberty point of view. Sure, of course, everyone is free and at liberty to argue and advocate for their preferred view of the world. And yet:

Henry Dimbleby: ‘We must turn down US trade deal if it means sacrificing animal welfare’

We disagree but of course that right to say it is to be defended.

He warns that imported meat can be of a lower standard. “There is no point in importing beef when we have higher standards of animal welfare or going abroad where there is a higher carbon footprint.”

Well, price might also be a consideration for people.

There being a trade off to be made there between those standards and costs.He thinks it would be “insane” to undercut British farmers by importing food that is produced to lower animal welfare or environmental standards. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me to create a world-class sustainable farming system in this country then import other food underneath.”

He points to American chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. “It’s not right to do a trade deal with the States, where you let them import and sell us things that our farmers are not allowed to create.” Britain must also not lower its own standards to create a level playing field, he says.’

And there’s where we really disagree. “Must” isn’t arguing for liberty and freedom, is it? That’s a demand. That everyone else must be forced into the same trade off that this individual desires. At which point, well, who made you Caesar?

The Leon founder turned government food tsar

Apparently we have a system of governance where people are, quite literally, appointed as Caesars.

And to repeat a point we’ve made before. This insistence upon bans upon importation, the demand that such and such must be enforced, it’s the argument, the acknowledgement, that all don’t agree. For if all did indeed desire those higher standards, at those higher prices, then no one would ever buy the cheaper imports. To deny people the chance to make their own decision is that admittance that they would make a different decision. Thus the choice must be taken away so that the Tsar’s desires can be enforced.

And that, of course, is why trade actually should be free. For the restrictions are only the imposition of one set of desires upon all - that very tyranny of power which is the opposite of the liberty we’re straining to have.