> Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of

> Charging someone a small fraction of what their choice costs isn't hurting them its actually bringing the economic consequences of their actions into scope of their decision so they can make intelligent decisions whether or not to bear them If it isn't hurting them then it isn't incentivizing them to change their behavior, and any tax painful enough to drive wealthier people to change is going to disproportionately impact the poorer people who can least afford it and who are also more likely have the least opportunity/ability to change. Charging smokers more for health insurance wouldn't be any better if we'd structured our entire society around forcing people to smoke in order to function and while many were still left with no other viable alternatives besides smoking. People generations before we were born allowed the auto industry to shape our cities in ways that made their products essential to our day to day lives and it doesn't do much good to punish people today. For most people, the entire idea that it's "their decision" to drive cars is questionable at best. Many people would already prefer for things to be different. Give people an alternative solution that meets their needs and actually improves their situation and there'll be no need for flagellation.