35 ms·

>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 argu

>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
  - rosser 8y ago
    Really? I asked in good faith for you to better articulate your position, not to be condescendingly told to read it again. Your post consists of a paragraph about externalities, some lovely-sounding "I believe that..." positions, and a couple example axes on which a society might bifurcate. I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation. So, one more time for the folks who don't share your implicit premises: how do sin taxes result in a structurally bifurcated society? EDIT: phrasing
    - Sir_Substance 8y ago
      >I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation. I do see a connection, and moreover that connection is obvious to me. I genuinely see your statement as a low quality argumentative technique to ask me to repeat a very clear statement in different phrasing in the hope that you will find some triviality that is easier to attack than my core premise. If you'd really like an answer, please articulate the nature of the logical disconnect you see.
      - rosser 8y ago
        > ... in the hope that you will find some triviality that is easier to attack than my core premise. That "core premise" is the very thing I want to see articulated here. What you've offered is your conclusion: that sin taxes somehow entail a structurally divided society. > If you'd really like an answer, please articulate the nature of the logical disconnect you see. That's literally not how argument works. The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion — in this case, something about societal bifurcation and sin taxes and their causal relationship. I suppose you could say that means I somehow need to "prove" that I don't follow you, or amn't merely trolling you into tripping up as you assert, but that's a reductio and then some. If the connection is "obvious" to you, but you are unwilling or unable to articulate it, it isn't implausible for me to surmise that we're talking around unexamined axioms (or, as I often call them, "articles of faith") of yours. Which is fine; I have my own such. But what you're doing here isn't argument, and I have now spent more time explaining that than I think hearing whatever argument you might have to articulate is likely to be worth, in terms of the amount of my life spent. EDIT: Not trying to be mean. Just, with this dialogue as my sample, I'm not inclined to anticipate an argument that will enlighten me, or change (or even challenge) my perspective. I'd be delighted to have been mistaken, though.
abathur 8y ago
One person's "consequences" have minimal impact when spread across society--but when we talk about society-level action, we're never just talking about "one" person, but are instead talking about ratios. Sure, it doesn't impact us much if one person drinks themselves to liver failure. But if we're talking about 0.1% or 1% or 10% of people drinking themselves to liver failure by 50, we eventually have to start making hard tradeoffs. It might seem ideal from a maximal-freedom perspective to let anyone who wants to drink themselves to liver failure do so, but it's worth thinking ahead to whether those tradeoffs increase or reduce the maximal-freedom-per-capita.

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
- rosser 8y ago
  Really? I asked in good faith for you to better articulate your position, not to be condescendingly told to read it again. Your post consists of a paragraph about externalities, some lovely-sounding "I believe that..." positions, and a couple example axes on which a society might bifurcate. I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation. So, one more time for the folks who don't share your implicit premises: how do sin taxes result in a structurally bifurcated society? EDIT: phrasing
  - Sir_Substance 8y ago
    >I don't see a logical connection between them, and I think a leap like that warrants articulation. I do see a connection, and moreover that connection is obvious to me. I genuinely see your statement as a low quality argumentative technique to ask me to repeat a very clear statement in different phrasing in the hope that you will find some triviality that is easier to attack than my core premise. If you'd really like an answer, please articulate the nature of the logical disconnect you see.
    - rosser 8y ago
      > ... in the hope that you will find some triviality that is easier to attack than my core premise. That "core premise" is the very thing I want to see articulated here. What you've offered is your conclusion: that sin taxes somehow entail a structurally divided society. > If you'd really like an answer, please articulate the nature of the logical disconnect you see. That's literally not how argument works. The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion — in this case, something about societal bifurcation and sin taxes and their causal relationship. I suppose you could say that means I somehow need to "prove" that I don't follow you, or amn't merely trolling you into tripping up as you assert, but that's a reductio and then some. If the connection is "obvious" to you, but you are unwilling or unable to articulate it, it isn't implausible for me to surmise that we're talking around unexamined axioms (or, as I often call them, "articles of faith") of yours. Which is fine; I have my own such. But what you're doing here isn't argument, and I have now spent more time explaining that than I think hearing whatever argument you might have to articulate is likely to be worth, in terms of the amount of my life spent. EDIT: Not trying to be mean. Just, with this dialogue as my sample, I'm not inclined to anticipate an argument that will enlighten me, or change (or even challenge) my perspective. I'd be delighted to have been mistaken, though.

abathur 8y ago

One person's "consequences" have minimal impact when spread across society--but when we talk about society-level action, we're never just talking about "one" person, but are instead talking about ratios. Sure, it doesn't impact us much if one person drinks themselves to liver failure. But if we're talking about 0.1% or 1% or 10% of people drinking themselves to liver failure by 50, we eventually have to start making hard tradeoffs. It might seem ideal from a maximal-freedom perspective to let anyone who wants to drink themselves to liver failure do so, but it's worth thinking ahead to whether those tradeoffs increase or reduce the maximal-freedom-per-capita.