> Where do we draw the line Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be

> Where do we draw the line Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be taxed to pay for the burden it places on the healthcare system; the same goes for cigarettes; carbon emissions should be taxed to cover the cost of subsequent extraction; and so on. > It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design. Erm, what? You started by arguing against stricter laws (framed in a JAQing off manner); then blame weak laws for not preventing the damage. How does that make any sense?