3 ms·
1) By that logic, the government could expand its moral authority by absorbing the costs of certain behaviors. One could argue that because STD/STI treatment "
by nickff 11y ago
1) By that logic, the government could expand its moral authority by absorbing the costs of certain behaviors. One could argue that because STD/STI treatment "costs are at least partly absorbed by everyone, then it does have a right" to tax or ban homosexuality.
2) The fact that a government does one thing wrong does not mean that it somehow gains the right to commit more wrongs.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago1) It may as well have a right, but just because it has, doesn't mean it should act on it. Those types of decisions are in fact complicated trade-offs. What you're trying to do here is equivalent to binary perception of risk, aka. "it's dangerous outside, so let's all stay in caves". People don't work like that. 2) Many, myself included, disagree that the government is commiting a wrong by penalizing sodas.
- Frondo 11y agoWell, but that's why we talk about it and decide this democratically. Where are we drawing the line on what the government does for public health? Right now, we're not banning sodas, but a tax on them seems like a relatively benign way to curtail the public health hazard sodas represent. It isn't a slippery slope so much as a discussion we have as a people. After all, there's very little debate over how much right the government has to nanny-state us with all these traffic lights and traffic lanes (where in the constitution does it say that the government can tell ME where and when I can drive my car??), because we're generally OK with that kind of government-dictated restriction of freedom to move.
- zzleeper 11y agoThe key reason for a Pigovian tax [1] is people change their behavior due to it. But I doubt that my gay friends will stop being gay if they get taxed on that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax