5 ms·

sure they do, if you are ok with the government making decisions about you and your life FOR you.

unchurch 8y ago
Okay, Ayn Rand, that’s enough.
stcredzero 8y ago
What if there was solid data decisively showing that there were substantial externalities effectively being paid for by the public? The answer to that, is that the power to determine this is too dangerous. There do have to be rules and conventions, or there would be chaos. Since such power is dangerous, the exercise of it should be kept to a minimum. Then the question arises as to what that minimum is.
- lend000 8y ago
  That's a different story. Externalities should be taxed to the extent of the cost of the externality to society (if not outright banned, which is not practical for most common externalities like running a combustion engine, breathing, etc.). But pure sin taxes like soda/gambling/recreational drug taxes, where an individual is only affecting themselves, are effectively the government and busybody supporters of the policy playing god of morality. I've actually heard people suggest that drinking soda or using pot is an indirect externality as a result of the potential to 'change' users, and that its indirect effect on society via people's free association with such things is a justifiable externality. That implies that society is entitled to aspects of a person actions and characteristics outside of their lawfulness. It's a very socialist and anti-individualist argument, which I disagree with on a fundamental level. Now for cigarettes, on the other hand, there are two potential externalities to tax. 1. The smoke that affects anyone near the user. 2. The addictive factor (nicotines), which is an externality against its users created by (and the tax should be applied to) the manufacturer. Not to mention all the environmental externalities that should be applied at each stage of the supply and manufacturing chain due to fuel/processing/chemical effects on the environment/energy used/etc. However, these are common to all externalities, and if I had my way I would tax externalities in a direct and systematic way like this across the board, such that the tax is sufficient for the government to "undo" the externality. If there is no feasible way to undo it, it should be illegal.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > where an individual is only affecting themselves This depends on political context. In much of the western world outside the US (and partially in the US) healthcare is a publicly funded service. If you pay for your neighbors healthcare, then your neighbors obesity is an externality. > or cigarettes, on the other hand, there are two potential externalities to tax. And again here: my neighbors lung cancer is on my taxes, so effectively the only fair cost of cigarettes includes all treatment from all smoking and of course all lost tax revenues from the sick smokers who couldn't work etc. That's a lot more money needed than to cover just second hand smoke as an externality. And even if you don't factor in public healthcare, an unhealthy population is an externality although not as immediately obvious.
    - lend000 8y ago
      It seems you either missed the point of my comment or disagree with me on the fundamental level (to which degree an individual owns himself in a society). Society has absolutely no right to you working a certain amount in my opinion. The healthcare argument I also see very often, which I see quite differently. It begs the question "Why should you pay your neighbor's healthcare?". Instead of adding all these layers of socialization and externalities to address the unfairness inherent in the socialization, why not skip both? Hence why private health insurance is an effective form of measuring that externality in non socialized medicinal systems, and asking whether you are a smoker or non-smoker is the first question in the sign up process, drastically affecting your rates. This is getting off topic, and say what you will about America's atrocious healthcare system, but the fact that it is not fully socialized is NOT the problem. Real problems: artificial non-market based demand created by partial socialization (medicare and medicaid buying programs) raising prices for the non-socialized group, oppressive FDA (costs 1 billion usd on average to push a drug through), oppressive occupational licensing (very high barrier to entry to becoming a doctor), imbalanced IP system (especially for chemical/drug patents), and plenty more. Eliminating these problems would go a long way to making America the world's best healthcare system (it already is in some regards -- do some research on where all the prime ministers of social medicine countries go for their important surgeries since their systems haven't incorporated the American medical tech yet). There are still issues to consider with emergency care (where there is typically not market-based selection of your healthcare) but I think government incentives aiding a market based system (similar to the incentives created by Singapore, arguably the best current system) would create a system so superior to any other country's medical system, that it wouldn't be such a central political issue.
- Sir_Substance 8y ago
  >What if there was solid data decisively showing that there were substantial externalities effectively being paid for by the public? That's always a risky argument to engage in. Everything has externalities, whether it's "sinful" or not. For example, there are a lot of externalities that the public pays for in order to allow everyone to drive a car. Probably round 30% of the driving public should not be driving a car. In western countries, drivers licence programs are much more about babying idiots through the basics of car driving than they are separating the incapable and denying them access. I don't know anyone who has wanted a drivers licence and been refused one. I do know multiple people in multiple countries who have taken the test more than 3 times to get it. For the moment, we still value granting people freedom of movement. A society where there are two classes, those who can move themselves and those who cannot, would be deeply undesirable to most of us. I for one value the right of people to make their own life decisions. The notion that my tax money might be used to treat lung cancer or buy sturdier surgery tables for obese patients doesn't bother me. What the hell is the point of a health care system if not to isolate ourselves from the harsh realities of life that prevent us from enjoying ourselves? I don't want to live in a society where there are two classes, those who can pay for private health cover and therefore drink as much as they want, and those who cannot and thus may not party too hard. That might sound a bit weird, but would you want to live in a society where if you can't afford private health care you're not allowed to cycle on public roads? I'm always in favor of letting people making their own decisions and then supporting them no matter the consequences. When that cost is spread across an entire society, it's a pretty light burden. Could be lighter if we stop letting companies dodge taxes tho.
  - rosser 8y ago
    I'm not following how sin taxes entail a bifurcated society. Can you elaborate on that?
    - Sir_Substance 8y ago
      I certainly can, I did so in simple, easy to understand language with examples right here in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413
- refurb 8y ago
  The problem with externalities when it comes to personal behavior is where do you stop? What about people doing extreme sports? People that are promiscuous? People that like to hike in middle of nowhere and need search and rescue? If you want the govt to control every aspect of your life, it’s a great path to start on.
nrb 8y ago
"The government" is people. Are you arguing that society, collectively, should not establish a system of rules that reflects their social norms?
- rnd0 8y ago
  >"The government" is people. In theory. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice...? It's the same with the theory of "the government is the people" and how that works out in practice. See also; citizen's united
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  It may take quite a bit for people's decision to trickle up to the government...if it ever reaches there. They vote on 12000 things a year (made up the number, OK) and very few issues are so important to warrant not voting them /rising up.
- Sir_Substance 8y ago
  >"The government" is people. A relatively small group of people, governing a huge group of people. The granularity gap is crazy. It's very hard for me to get exact numbers, but it seems[1] that the US federal government employs around 2 million people, and the US population is ~328 million. That's 164 people to be governed per employee, and most of those employees are not involved in establishing sets of rules. It is quite beyond the governments capacity to adjust it's rules to handle an individuals personal circumstances or the changing nature of society, which is why there are so many unjust judicial rulings and so many outdated laws still on the books. Governments should stick to making only the rules which _cannot_ be handled at any scale below the millions. Power lines need to be a matched voltage nation-wide. Railway gauges must be the same nation-wide. Petrol from any petrol station should work in any car, and burning it should not be poisonous at any density of cars found anywhere in the nation. These are the things a government is for. Tie-breaking multiple valid solution arguments on an epic scale. It doesn't matter that much what voltage we pick, just that we pick _a_ voltage, singular. Governments are quite incapable of managing smaller-scale decisions. For example, it turns out the cannabis oil is pretty amazing at suppressing fits in people with epilepsy, and MDMA might turn out to be the solution tens of thousands of PTSD sufferers have needed for decades. We've at least suspected both of these things for around half a century. Unfortunately, both substances are regulated by a government so large it is literally not capable of making criminal possession exceptions for universities so that these effects can be studied. Lives have been lost due to this scaling problem. Governments are a great tool for certain problems. For other problems, they are like trying to scrub food off a porcelain bowl with a jackhammer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service#Employment_by_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_se...
alkonaut 8y ago
Well that's really just about the balance of liberal vs not. Given a certain overall tax level (which level is acceptable depends on your political worldview), one might argue that it's better to tax things that cause unwanted externalities such as environmental problems, or health issues. The latter is especially important in cases where healthcare is publicly funded. It might feel like government is micromanaging me if they tax my soda, but I really don't see how it's so much worse than taxing my paycheck. Given a certain fixed amount of taxes, I'm more than happy to see as much as possible of it be "sin" taxes to be honest.
jancsika 8y ago
That conditional is true if one believes in the legitimacy of any one of an extant type of formal government, no? Edit: clarification

Okay, Ayn Rand, that’s enough.

What if there was solid data decisively showing that there were substantial externalities effectively being paid for by the public? The answer to that, is that the power to determine this is too dangerous. There do have to be rules and conventions, or there would be chaos. Since such power is dangerous, the exercise of it should be kept to a minimum. Then the question arises as to what that minimum is.

lend000 8y ago
That's a different story. Externalities should be taxed to the extent of the cost of the externality to society (if not outright banned, which is not practical for most common externalities like running a combustion engine, breathing, etc.). But pure sin taxes like soda/gambling/recreational drug taxes, where an individual is only affecting themselves, are effectively the government and busybody supporters of the policy playing god of morality. I've actually heard people suggest that drinking soda or using pot is an indirect externality as a result of the potential to 'change' users, and that its indirect effect on society via people's free association with such things is a justifiable externality. That implies that society is entitled to aspects of a person actions and characteristics outside of their lawfulness. It's a very socialist and anti-individualist argument, which I disagree with on a fundamental level. Now for cigarettes, on the other hand, there are two potential externalities to tax. 1. The smoke that affects anyone near the user. 2. The addictive factor (nicotines), which is an externality against its users created by (and the tax should be applied to) the manufacturer. Not to mention all the environmental externalities that should be applied at each stage of the supply and manufacturing chain due to fuel/processing/chemical effects on the environment/energy used/etc. However, these are common to all externalities, and if I had my way I would tax externalities in a direct and systematic way like this across the board, such that the tax is sufficient for the government to "undo" the externality. If there is no feasible way to undo it, it should be illegal.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > where an individual is only affecting themselves This depends on political context. In much of the western world outside the US (and partially in the US) healthcare is a publicly funded service. If you pay for your neighbors healthcare, then your neighbors obesity is an externality. > or cigarettes, on the other hand, there are two potential externalities to tax. And again here: my neighbors lung cancer is on my taxes, so effectively the only fair cost of cigarettes includes all treatment from all smoking and of course all lost tax revenues from the sick smokers who couldn't work etc. That's a lot more money needed than to cover just second hand smoke as an externality. And even if you don't factor in public healthcare, an unhealthy population is an externality although not as immediately obvious.
  - lend000 8y ago
    It seems you either missed the point of my comment or disagree with me on the fundamental level (to which degree an individual owns himself in a society). Society has absolutely no right to you working a certain amount in my opinion. The healthcare argument I also see very often, which I see quite differently. It begs the question "Why should you pay your neighbor's healthcare?". Instead of adding all these layers of socialization and externalities to address the unfairness inherent in the socialization, why not skip both? Hence why private health insurance is an effective form of measuring that externality in non socialized medicinal systems, and asking whether you are a smoker or non-smoker is the first question in the sign up process, drastically affecting your rates. This is getting off topic, and say what you will about America's atrocious healthcare system, but the fact that it is not fully socialized is NOT the problem. Real problems: artificial non-market based demand created by partial socialization (medicare and medicaid buying programs) raising prices for the non-socialized group, oppressive FDA (costs 1 billion usd on average to push a drug through), oppressive occupational licensing (very high barrier to entry to becoming a doctor), imbalanced IP system (especially for chemical/drug patents), and plenty more. Eliminating these problems would go a long way to making America the world's best healthcare system (it already is in some regards -- do some research on where all the prime ministers of social medicine countries go for their important surgeries since their systems haven't incorporated the American medical tech yet). There are still issues to consider with emergency care (where there is typically not market-based selection of your healthcare) but I think government incentives aiding a market based system (similar to the incentives created by Singapore, arguably the best current system) would create a system so superior to any other country's medical system, that it wouldn't be such a central political issue.
Sir_Substance 8y ago
>What if there was solid data decisively showing that there were substantial externalities effectively being paid for by the public? That's always a risky argument to engage in. Everything has externalities, whether it's "sinful" or not. For example, there are a lot of externalities that the public pays for in order to allow everyone to drive a car. Probably round 30% of the driving public should not be driving a car. In western countries, drivers licence programs are much more about babying idiots through the basics of car driving than they are separating the incapable and denying them access. I don't know anyone who has wanted a drivers licence and been refused one. I do know multiple people in multiple countries who have taken the test more than 3 times to get it. For the moment, we still value granting people freedom of movement. A society where there are two classes, those who can move themselves and those who cannot, would be deeply undesirable to most of us. I for one value the right of people to make their own life decisions. The notion that my tax money might be used to treat lung cancer or buy sturdier surgery tables for obese patients doesn't bother me. What the hell is the point of a health care system if not to isolate ourselves from the harsh realities of life that prevent us from enjoying ourselves? I don't want to live in a society where there are two classes, those who can pay for private health cover and therefore drink as much as they want, and those who cannot and thus may not party too hard. That might sound a bit weird, but would you want to live in a society where if you can't afford private health care you're not allowed to cycle on public roads? I'm always in favor of letting people making their own decisions and then supporting them no matter the consequences. When that cost is spread across an entire society, it's a pretty light burden. Could be lighter if we stop letting companies dodge taxes tho.
- rosser 8y ago
  I'm not following how sin taxes entail a bifurcated society. Can you elaborate on that?
  - Sir_Substance 8y ago
    I certainly can, I did so in simple, easy to understand language with examples right here in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17746413
refurb 8y ago
The problem with externalities when it comes to personal behavior is where do you stop? What about people doing extreme sports? People that are promiscuous? People that like to hike in middle of nowhere and need search and rescue? If you want the govt to control every aspect of your life, it’s a great path to start on.

nrb 8y ago

"The government" is people. Are you arguing that society, collectively, should not establish a system of rules that reflects their social norms?

rnd0 8y ago
>"The government" is people. In theory. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice...? It's the same with the theory of "the government is the people" and how that works out in practice. See also; citizen's united
onetimemanytime 8y ago
It may take quite a bit for people's decision to trickle up to the government...if it ever reaches there. They vote on 12000 things a year (made up the number, OK) and very few issues are so important to warrant not voting them /rising up.
Sir_Substance 8y ago
>"The government" is people. A relatively small group of people, governing a huge group of people. The granularity gap is crazy. It's very hard for me to get exact numbers, but it seems[1] that the US federal government employs around 2 million people, and the US population is ~328 million. That's 164 people to be governed per employee, and most of those employees are not involved in establishing sets of rules. It is quite beyond the governments capacity to adjust it's rules to handle an individuals personal circumstances or the changing nature of society, which is why there are so many unjust judicial rulings and so many outdated laws still on the books. Governments should stick to making only the rules which _cannot_ be handled at any scale below the millions. Power lines need to be a matched voltage nation-wide. Railway gauges must be the same nation-wide. Petrol from any petrol station should work in any car, and burning it should not be poisonous at any density of cars found anywhere in the nation. These are the things a government is for. Tie-breaking multiple valid solution arguments on an epic scale. It doesn't matter that much what voltage we pick, just that we pick _a_ voltage, singular. Governments are quite incapable of managing smaller-scale decisions. For example, it turns out the cannabis oil is pretty amazing at suppressing fits in people with epilepsy, and MDMA might turn out to be the solution tens of thousands of PTSD sufferers have needed for decades. We've at least suspected both of these things for around half a century. Unfortunately, both substances are regulated by a government so large it is literally not capable of making criminal possession exceptions for universities so that these effects can be studied. Lives have been lost due to this scaling problem. Governments are a great tool for certain problems. For other problems, they are like trying to scrub food off a porcelain bowl with a jackhammer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service#Employment_by_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_se...

alkonaut 8y ago

Well that's really just about the balance of liberal vs not. Given a certain overall tax level (which level is acceptable depends on your political worldview), one might argue that it's better to tax things that cause unwanted externalities such as environmental problems, or health issues. The latter is especially important in cases where healthcare is publicly funded. It might feel like government is micromanaging me if they tax my soda, but I really don't see how it's so much worse than taxing my paycheck. Given a certain fixed amount of taxes, I'm more than happy to see as much as possible of it be "sin" taxes to be honest.

jancsika 8y ago

That conditional is true if one believes in the legitimacy of any one of an extant type of formal government, no? Edit: clarification