4 ms·

"good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments.

"good intentions are a road to hell" is false with some very basic thought experiments. For example, read the U.S. consitution, specifically on its ammendments. Freedom of speech is a good intention. Individual autonomy at all is a "good intention" just as much as fascism is. Everyone can have conflicting good intentions, therefore it's a poor argument that doesn't address the merits. You could apply that argument to other unhealth habits. Heart Disease is one of the most deadly and debilitating problems in the U.S., which should be met with significant tax on sugary products. The health costs are astronomical and deadly. However you're strawmanning my argument, there is a weight to when someone deserves regulation and does not. Many "unhealthy habits" do not rise to a great enough problem or have other benefits. For example, sitting at the computer is an "unhealthy habit", and it can be quite lucrative in certain work. Dystopia is when a private company advertises to children that they should take a substance that company designed to be heavily addictive and harmful to themselves and everyone around them. Social control is an natural part of humans and has always existed. Government regulations, when done in certain methods, demonstrably work. Other times, they do not.

rank0 5y ago
So who gets to be the arbiter? So many people seem to think we can tax and incarcerate our way out of every problem. Those are simple solutions to complex problems. Of course magnitude matters. Clearly we disagree on where the line is. Sin taxes are regressive. They disproportionately affect poor people and those who are most affected by an addiction. Societal benefit at the expense of the most vulnerable is not something I support, even if you claim some utilitarian gain. And surely you understand that the saying about hell and good intentions does not mean “all good intentions are backwards” EDIT: Do you truly care only about the total quantifiable cost of health care? I think there's more to the human experience. Also, ask yourself...who costs more? The healthy person who lives to be 100? Or the smoker who dies at 50?
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Who gets to make the constitution? Same answer. We can tax our way out of problems. Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Incarceration doesn't, because it doesn't properly address alcoholism - which is a medical and societal issue. Sin taxes don't disproportionately affect poor people, the substances that are being taxed, do. The profiteers of those substances reap the reward but not the societal cost. Therefore taxes are a necessary force to offset the effects. Let's think creatively. If someone had a child when they're 30, dying at 50 makes that child 20. Now you have a generational cost. You also don't just up and die, generally speaking. It is instead lung cancer, heart disease, disability, and overall failure of health over time. The effects by that point are not readily reversible. They will be less able to work, generating less to local and global economy. Less involved with their children, leading, again, to disparities in generational wealth.
  - rank0 5y ago
    > Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Yes because clearly we've beaten alcoholism /s > Sin taxes don't disproportionately affect poor people Do you know what a regressive tax is? I suggest you do a quick search. Sin taxes ARE in fact regressive. Poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on these taxes, even if they consume the same quantity. Its basic math. "There should be no debate about whether taxes on food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks (‘sin taxes’) are regressive. It can be easily demonstrated empirically, and countless studies have done so. As with most indirect taxes, they take a greater share of income from the poor than from the rich in all plausible scenarios."[1] [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 > You also don't just up and die, generally speaking. It is instead lung cancer, heart disease, disability, and overall failure of health over time. The effects by that point are not readily reversible. Why are you ignoring the cost of living longer? Smokers still live long enough to work into retirement, on average. "Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000... "This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science." [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748...

rank0 5y ago

So who gets to be the arbiter? So many people seem to think we can tax and incarcerate our way out of every problem. Those are simple solutions to complex problems. Of course magnitude matters. Clearly we disagree on where the line is. Sin taxes are regressive. They disproportionately affect poor people and those who are most affected by an addiction. Societal benefit at the expense of the most vulnerable is not something I support, even if you claim some utilitarian gain. And surely you understand that the saying about hell and good intentions does not mean “all good intentions are backwards” EDIT: Do you truly care only about the total quantifiable cost of health care? I think there's more to the human experience. Also, ask yourself...who costs more? The healthy person who lives to be 100? Or the smoker who dies at 50?

devwastaken 5y ago
Who gets to make the constitution? Same answer. We can tax our way out of problems. Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Incarceration doesn't, because it doesn't properly address alcoholism - which is a medical and societal issue. Sin taxes don't disproportionately affect poor people, the substances that are being taxed, do. The profiteers of those substances reap the reward but not the societal cost. Therefore taxes are a necessary force to offset the effects. Let's think creatively. If someone had a child when they're 30, dying at 50 makes that child 20. Now you have a generational cost. You also don't just up and die, generally speaking. It is instead lung cancer, heart disease, disability, and overall failure of health over time. The effects by that point are not readily reversible. They will be less able to work, generating less to local and global economy. Less involved with their children, leading, again, to disparities in generational wealth.
- rank0 5y ago
  > Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Yes because clearly we've beaten alcoholism /s > Sin taxes don't disproportionately affect poor people Do you know what a regressive tax is? I suggest you do a quick search. Sin taxes ARE in fact regressive. Poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on these taxes, even if they consume the same quantity. Its basic math. "There should be no debate about whether taxes on food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks (‘sin taxes’) are regressive. It can be easily demonstrated empirically, and countless studies have done so. As with most indirect taxes, they take a greater share of income from the poor than from the rich in all plausible scenarios."[1] [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 > You also don't just up and die, generally speaking. It is instead lung cancer, heart disease, disability, and overall failure of health over time. The effects by that point are not readily reversible. Why are you ignoring the cost of living longer? Smokers still live long enough to work into retirement, on average. "Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000... "This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science." [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748...