Sin taxes

If I want to kill every anarchist or give out condoms with holes poked in them?

And there we have the arguement! I knew it would come along eventually . Quite frankly if the poor need to get shitfaced then we are in more trouble as a society than simple taxation.

Oh no, only the rich can afford to smoke or drink alcohol...I'd feel really really horrible for what reason now??

You might make a better case if it were checkers, or books, or other things, but you're really casting a broad net there, and I really can't see why I would ever want people to drink alcohol or smoke. It's never done anything but cause me harm.

edited 8th Jun '11 8:27:10 AM by blueharp

For laying down de facto prohibitions on what the working class can or can't do?

Or, say, for causing greatly increased poverty, because people won't renounce their vices even when you ban them/tax the Hell out of them, and they'd rather cut on necessities?

From overall causing harm... just for the evulz of bossing people around and punishing habits you don't like?

edited 8th Jun '11 8:34:44 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Maybe they could, I dunno, quit and save money, enjoy a better quality of life, and let the rich waste money on pointless illness-causing substances. Or just take up a more productive vice, like Magic or D&D or something.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I'm not sure if you resolved the universal healthcare problem. I pay my taxes and then people who want to destroy their health can soak up the money so that if I have a problem, the system is too weighed down to help me? That doesn't make sense. If you smoke, drink, do drugs, go ahead but pay your dues so that the system can handle it.

It is not prohibition. Drinking/smoking has secondary effects you are not paying for if you are not taxed. It's pretty much the same as a factory spewing garbage into the environment that everyone else has to clean up but them, unless you make them pay a pollution tax to pay for it.

Hu, yes it has. Until we are effectively entirely autonomous and immortal, yes, it fucking has.

@ Blue Ninja: Maybe the poor should just submit and do what they're told?. It sucks as an argument.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

If I choose to have a drink or several, and I often do, that's my business and no one elses. Why should I have to pay a Tax just so that self-rightous, holier-than-thou types can have an even higher horse to look down on us, er, "Sinners" from?

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Because drinking alcohol has a demonstrated harm to the rest of us, and proving that you yourself are not causing any such harm would probably be more expensive.

Still, if you want to do that, go ahead.

x6

It seems you keep overlooking the harm caused, which you apparently don't want to pay for, so you try to frame this as some argument against your liberties and freedoms. But you never once want to admit that by smoking, your actions cause injuries to others.

So, no, I can't sympathize with people who choose to undertake actions that cause me injury, then don't want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, change yourself, don't expect me to swallow the costs.

Heavens no! People choose not to do things because they can't ignore the external costs? My word, apparently that's wrong...somehow.

edited 8th Jun '11 8:55:30 AM by blueharp

Heathen: No, my arguement is "Maybe the poor should get smart and stop wasting money to kill themselves faster."

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Well in my case its because your costing me money . But if you don't drink constantly then its no concern of mine.

Huh? This is the first time I've even seen the subject come up here.

It's a tax I don't have to pay. Seeing as how I'm opposed to anarchism and libertarianism, the state making money strikes me as a good thing, and if they can make it from people who aren't me, that's even better.

But what are their negative consequences?

Are you implying that abuse is OK when it has positive consequences for the society? Sounds pretty damn totalitarian

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

If it has positive consequences, is it abuse?

Of course. If you kill someone extremely rich, like Bill Gates, steal all his money and give it to people searching for cure for cancer, it will still be abuse (more specifically: murder and theft), even if they find cure

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

I think the question that was meant to be asked was:

Is it really abuse, if there are no negative consequences?

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

If I have a night out with some mates and get drunk, or if I have a few drinks before the football, or if I have a drink with dinner, how exactly is that bringing harm or cost to anyone other than myself?

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

It depends on what you consider negative consequences. Is limitting freedom a negative consequence? For me, it is.

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

You do realize that in some circumstances it is lawful to kill a person? There's a reason for that.Of course, taking their wealth is not a reason to kill somebody, because you can do it without killing them.

Did you not see my reply to your question?

edited 8th Jun '11 9:11:09 AM by blueharp

Yes I did, and I'm calling into question how I bring "harm to the rest of [you]"

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Assuming nothing else you did then...

Healthcare.

No matter how you want to argue it, there are external costs to your vices that you don't care about because it's not your problem. You smoke, you cause second hand smoke. You drink, you put weight on the healthcare system. You do drugs, you put significant costs on healthcare. Doctors aren't free.

It's not freedom when you start costing me money.

EDIT: For instance, say you live in an apartment and the guy downstairs smokes. His own home, so he has the freedom to smoke. Yay freedom. Feel good about the liberty? You paying for the health damage you are doing to the person upstairs? Are you paying for the property damage you cause to all the tenants in the building?

edited 8th Jun '11 9:13:52 AM by breadloaf

Is taking someone's hard-earned money for no reason a good thing? Of course, you could take money from the richest people and give them somewhere else. It doesn't mean it will be a good thing to do. It will be theft, even if well-intentioned theft

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

Well it depends what you do. If it involves going out every so often then none. On the other hand if you are throwing up in the street, inconveing people by waving genetalia at them or damaging your liver through constant abuse of alcohol then it harms me.

Unfortunatly you can't have a tax on binge drinkers only, so you spread it out amongst everyone. I buy a new beer every week to try with my dinner, but I don't mind paying slightly more for it.

Stealing what? You know the price of cigarettes beforehand, you chose to pay that price.

Freedom ends when you start hurting other people.

edited 8th Jun '11 9:15:15 AM by breadloaf

@breadloaf

I pay into the NHS. I reckon that covers me. You pay in your due, I pay in mine, healthcare for all. The "you're costing me more money!" argument is nothing more than hyperbole.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)