4 ms·
As another mentioned, its easy to make arguments for several of those having extended effects on others. And we legislate around that, we legislate those things
by vokep 6y ago
As another mentioned, its easy to make arguments for several of those having extended effects on others. And we legislate around that, we legislate those things to generally be allowed but socially engineered to bias away from with things like "sin taxes"
In the same way, it may be a lot more palatable to have such laws around covid, (higher tax on businesses which refuse to require masks for customers, but they're allowed to refuse if they choose etc, employees would likely still be require to mask) instead of mandated requirement to wear a mask
- ashtonbaker 6y ago> it may be a lot more palatable I somehow doubt it! I can hardly imagine a smaller burden to place on a person than to compel them to wear a mask, and yet look at the endless bickering it's caused. The idea that the people protesting mask mandates would find this tax more palatable seems completely implausible. The whole idea about taxing away undesirable behavior is fine in general I guess, but if you think of the major effect as reducing the R0 of the virus, then why not just go further and make a full mask mandate? The smoking thing for example might have secondary effects, but not the way a /virus/ does. Is there no burden so small, no benefit to society so large, as to justify a mandate?