You get what you wish for

[CaptainQuintero]

A Populus poll in Britain has found that more than 40% of people would support a tax on sugary drinks, while 59% said warnings on packaging-similar to those on cigarettes-would encourage them to eat more healthily.

Not much to say about that is there! Who was it who said your leaders are a reflection of your population?

[Pedro2486]

Nanny, here is your state

[CaptainQuintero]

Who asks for more taxes!

[Pedro2486]

Dunno man. Maybe the same people that make it so carrying a butter knife gets you charged for carrying a concealed weapon. Or Volvo drivers.....

[Blakes]

Who asks for more taxes!

.....the taxman

[AndrewNR]

... Wow.

[OkieJoe]

I'm assuming "minding ur own f-ing business", wasn't an option?

[DoubleDD]

The dumbing down of society. It's a global trend. Soon we'll have warnings on just about everything. Can't wait for a bottle of water to say "warning, contents wet."

[Natedog]

The warnings on the lables are just a precursor to a knock on the door. Vee have eenformasun dat dare iz soda in dis home. Vee have dee atority too zearch now.

[gigabyte056]

I would ask to see the questions, they usually dictate the answers.

I think this will shine a light on opinion polls:

[Philprop]

I have no problem paying more taxes on things like soda, as long as the cost of those healthier choices, like milk, go way down.

2 litres of milk here costs $4.30, and 2litres of Pepsi is around $2 and goes on sale every second week or so for $.99 for a 2 litre.

And people in NL wonder why we have the highest rate of heart disease in Canada.

[Smallclub]

Taxing soda (which isn't exactly good for anyone's health) does not seem shocking in a society that offers universal health coverage like in Britain…

[PigFish]

… so you are saying that 40% the population of Britain (or any other country for that matter), under the guise of democracy would be happy to vote away the rights of others; to that, I would say I am not even slightly surprised. Rights are easily voted away by presumed legal processes in just about every country today. I just love seeing a dictator get 99% of the vote and claim "democracy in action."

Whether I am enslaved by a dictator or by any state under the guise of the democratic process, the result is still the same to me! Tyranny!

Lastly, I will believe a poll when I can write the questions and choose who gives the answers.

-the Pig

[Smallclub]

… so you are saying that 40% the population of Britain (or any other country for that matter), under the guise of democracy would be happy to vote away the rights of others; to that, I would say I am not even slightly surprised. Rights are easily voted away by presumed legal processes in just about every country today. I just love seeing a dictator get 99% of the vote and claim "democracy in action."

Sorry but I fail to see the relation with a "possible" tax on sodas that cause obesity, diabete, etc.

[mncz]

… so you are saying that 40% the population of Britain (or any other country for that matter), under the guise of democracy would be happy to vote away the rights of others; to that, I would say I am not even slightly surprised. Rights are easily voted away by presumed legal processes in just about every country today. I just love seeing a dictator get 99% of the vote and claim "democracy in action."

Whether I am enslaved by a dictator or by any state under the guise of the democratic process, the result is still the same to me! Tyranny!

Lastly, I will believe a poll when I can write the questions and choose who gives the answers.

-the Pig

I don't believe that their "right" to consume whatever, however they want is being violated in the least. They still have that right to the fullest extent of the law. It just so happens that the law now discourages their activity through suggestive (dare I say educated?) marketing. Have such measures ever stopped, say, spirited Americans from smoking their preferred CCs? </2 cents>

[DWC]

Is it the soda that causes obesity, diabetes or peoples overindulgence of it?

I'm tired of the government making rules, laws or taxes to take care of the population because they know what's best for us.

Even if we are too stupid or callous to be responsible for our own actions, I believe it's our God given right to be stupid and suffer the consequences.

[mncz]

Is it the soda that causes obesity, diabetes or peoples overindulgence of it?

I'm tired of the government making rules, laws or taxes to take care of the population because they know what's best for us.

Even if we are too stupid or callous to be responsible for our own actions, I believe it's our God given right to be stupid and suffer the consequences.

If the rules are being imposed by way of popular vote, I would argue that it is the people, and not government, who are responsible for the rules. The government is simply a proxy and popular vote the catalyst.

If (a portion of...) "we" know what's best for us, then we are acting upon our "God"-given right to protect, love, and honor our fellow brother.

[PigFish]

If the rules are being imposed by way of popular vote, I would argue that it is the people, and not government, who are responsible for the rules. The government is simply a proxy and popular vote the catalyst.

If (a portion of...) "we" know what's best for us, then we are acting upon our "God"-given right to protect, love, and honor our fellow brother.

You make a good point for the justness of stoning and genital mutilation in some countries. I guess if the populace thinks that it is okay, then it is okay!!!

All right mate, I'll play the democracy game with you. How about a majority votes to strip you of your property and your rights? Is that okay with you?

How about a majority that thinks that your business should be fined to benefit another? That is what this type of abuse in the tax code does. It just picks winners and losers, big donors and politically connected business over that of another under the guise of leadership, altruism and "the right thing."

Democracy is mob rule. Just because a bunch of people think it is all right because it does not appear to effect them, does not make it just, nor altruistic, nor a good idea! Eventually the so called 'altruistic' catch up with everything and everyone; what is not mandatory is forbidden. There is no freedom of choice. Manipulation of the tax code is simply tyranny wrapped up so that folks like you will buy into it.

Don't believe me, read a little history…

As I see it, a government is supposed to defend individuals' rights over that of the mob! Funny how fast the mob forgets the meaning of civil liberty… That is until their iPhones get unplugged…

Sorry you cannot see it!

-Piggy

[mncz]

Sorry you cannot see it!

-Piggy

Mr. Fish,

You make excellent points there. I will excuse the occasional condescending tone on the premise that your rebuttal trumps mine in most of its arguments.

However, the post that you responded to meant less to me than the one I made in direct response to your point. My intention there was only to underline the fact that the rules being discussed do not originate within the government, which is an observation that we seem to agree upon. I would take it further to say that if a government's role is to defend citizens from being subjected to poor rules from being made, we have the benefit in this case that the proposed rule is actually in the best interest of the people. If nobody is proposing rules at all for the governing body to put into place, how would positive change ever arise? We need the people, or the "mob", as you put it, to constantly challenge ideas. That is how positive evolution is achieved.

I would care more to see your rebuttal to my previous point, which you've failed to address.

I don't believe that their "right" to consume whatever, however they want is being violated in the least. They still have that right to the fullest extent of the law. It just so happens that the law now discourages their activity through suggestive (dare I say educated?) marketing.

A proposition to make change, whether it be good or bad, has the intrinsic property of potential good. That is why the right to propose change exists and it is one of the core values of a voting democracy. Cynicism is a valuable response to these propositions and I am glad that you are confident in your opinions. I wouldn't say that you and I are too different in that regard, I'm simply arguing a position in favor of positive change.

Lastly, your point about big business and targeted investment leverage is a sound one. I admit that I have no response to the abysmal effect of its leverage.

Respectfully,

Matthew

[PigFish]

Sorry but I fail to see the relation with a "possible" tax on sodas that cause obesity, diabete, etc.

Look further into the realm of what manipulation of the tax system really accomplishes. Government never achieves its professed goal. If it did the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, the war on illiteracy, etc., etc, etc, would be won by now.

Those wars will never be won because they cannot be won by taxation and other legislative forms of discouragement.

I would like to think that someday everyone will figure out that these 'battles' are not designed to be won… They are just designed to move one group into power over another and move private wealth into the hands of those 'most intelligent' individuals smart enough to tell us what we should be doing with it!

I have to look no further than my own government to realize that they hardly ever do the right thing. And considering we are moving up onto 18 trillion in debt, not including unfunded liabilities, they have no idea how to balance income with liabilities either.

Cheers! -the Pig

[kwsaw63]

I just have 2 things to say:-

1. The Nanny state has created a culture where people expect to be protected from their own stupidity and don't want to think for themselves.
2. Democracy as currently practiced is flawed as obligations/duties are trampled over by the mob demanding their rights.

[PapaDisco]

Just for the sake of argument . . . since y'all clearly aren't arguing enough what about this proposition:

In a social system that provides for universal healthcare, isn't it more fair to make the consumers of high amounts of sugar pay for the cost of their obesity and diabetes to the healthcare system?

And, while I'm not a fan of universal healthcare (I believe healthcare should be a cost of labor, not of government), I do believe that governments can and do accomplish a lot (universal education being one of the biggest benefits to society). I would speculate that it is the 'nanny state' initiatives that end up making government unable to afford to do the things it's good at (infrastructure, education, civil rights, national defense, space exploration, fundamental research). I believe, without evidence I admit, that if we were to dial back the budgetary clock to a time when there wasn't Medicare and Medicaid, and when Social Security was still supported by many more workers than today; that we'd see higher quality public schools, roads and damns being built at breakneck pace, along with power stations, ports and airports. Oh yeah, and rockets to the moon.

So, it would appear, that as we've ramped up the Nanny State, that all the other important initiatives of government have become underfunded and suffered.

Government is of course necessary. And the more of us there are, they more government you need. If a country had but two inhabitants, each living on opposite coasts, you wouldn't even need a law against murder. Build a city of 8mm however, with folks living on top of one another in apartments and suddenly you need laws on public sanitation, noise ordinances, building codes, fire safety and more.

And, to put even more at risk, the frightening truth is that most of the "rights" everyone presumes to possess are not inalienable at all and exist by grant of the majority. In the U.S. only "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are proposed as inalienable; all the rest, the Bill of Rights, the Articles in the Constitution can be repealed or amended by super majority vote. The super majority is there to make it difficult for the majority to change things on a whim, but it doesn't make it impossible. We've used the amendment process 27 times for all manner of things (prohibition, congressional pay).

I agree that we over legislate things in the developed world. It's how politicians justify their existence and fitness for further advancement. We no longer have "The rule of law," we have, "The Rule of lawyers."

[kwsaw63]

We no longer have "The rule of law," we have, "The Rule of lawyers."

+1. Too many law schools and too many lawyers these days.

I'm also a supporter of the proposition to limit government involvement to the areas outlined above. I strongly believe in the principal of allowing individuals to do whatever they want as long as that does not affect other people's ability to do the same. For example there should be no speed limits, but the book should be thrown at drivers that cause accidents.

[PigFish]

Mr. Fish,

You make excellent points there. I will excuse the occasional condescending tone on the premise that your rebuttal trumps mine in most of its arguments.

However, the post that you responded to meant less to me than the one I made in direct response to your point. My intention there was only to underline the fact that the rules being discussed do not originate within the government, which is an observation that we seem to agree upon. I would take it further to say that if a government's role is to defend citizens from being subjected to poor rules from being made, we have the benefit in this case that the proposed rule is actually in the best interest of the people. If nobody is proposing rules at all for the governing body to put into place, how would positive change ever arise? We need the people, or the "mob", as you put it, to constantly challenge ideas. That is how positive evolution is achieved.

I would care more to see your rebuttal to my previous point, which you've failed to address.

A proposition to make change, whether it be good or bad, has the intrinsic property of potential good. That is why the right to propose change exists and it is one of the core values of a voting democracy. Cynicism is a valuable response to these propositions and I am glad that you are confident in your opinions. I wouldn't say that you and I are too different in that regard, I'm simply arguing a position in favor of positive change.

Lastly, your point about big business and targeted investment leverage is a sound one. I admit that I have no response to the abysmal effect of its leverage.

Respectfully,

Matthew

Matthew, please call me Piggy! Everyone else does! I do try today to stay out of these arguments as they are a giant waste of my time. I prefer to post and move on (and hardly ever do) but it may be only fair to you to reply.

Matthew, you stated, "I don't believe that their "right" to consume whatever, however they want is being violated [in the least]."

I read this as, "Their right(s) to consume what they want, when they want and how they want has not at all been effected." "Violated in the least," I have interpreted as, "not at all been effected." Feel free to tell me if I have misunderstood the quote.

As I read it, (you are stating) that one cannot imply that a targeted tax is an obstruction to act freely, and is not an infringement on freedom because it is not in fact, abolishment. That only a absolute abolishment of "said" freedom is to be a concern because there are always pathways, such as breaking the law... that effectively preserve your freedom! I take this from your point about Americans consuming Cuban cigars.

When I see a statement where an absolute argument is apparently made (when the obstruction of an individuals natural rights is the topic) I assume some ignorance on the part of the one making the statement. I don't use the term ignorance as a derogatory term. I use it in terms of its actual definition, from the position of experience in discussing these topics with those that don't understand natural law.

I am not going to go on and on about the philosophy of natural law, I will only leave you and the readership with an analogy.

Government can state that I cannot move from location to location freely and abolish my right move (assuming that they have legal power and the physical power to do so). It can also write laws which impede it or infringe on it, that accomplish the same result without the ocular ugliness of absolute abolition.

If laws are written that reduce my speed of travel to 3 mph (for my safety) it has in 'effect' eliminated my right to move freely without abolishing my right to move. Someone can still state with certainty that my rights to move freely have not been taken from me. However, there is a point somewhere, for everyone I would guess, that the threshold of impingement constructively equals abolition.

All that one needs to do is take this example and move the number down to the point where you or anyone else thinks that it becomes close enough to zero to effectively be zero! Impediment therefore is infringement (IMHO). Infringement is a violation. Historically, societies have moved from the position of the benevolent provider to altruistic impingement, to genocide of portions of the population, often within very short periods of time. The link between government overreach and hard tyranny is not being made by me, but by history!

Please don't ask me to explain every law on the books. I am not an anarchist and I understand ordered liberty and the civil society!

Soft tyrannies do not pen these absolute abolishments of freedom, not in the beginning anyway. This is too obvious and to the point and generally would not be tolerated by the populace (the majority). Instead they segregate the population and pit it against itself. They begin to subject certain groups and business to incremental laws that limit their freedoms and empower the central authority one small step at a time. You see, each law is an assignment of rights. You cannot limit it to the individual without conferring it upon the party that has the ability to limit it! Once the process is done with majority approval against the minority, a precedence has been set to move against the next group, then another, until the majority itself becomes the minority.

Looking through history it is not a stretch to see societies that segregated individuals, such as a targeted tax does, apply laws to selected individuals, such as a targeted tax does, and see the same governments of those societies rounding up "some group" and eventually bussing them to concentration camps. This is a key problem when governments discriminate and divide the populace into groups.

On a personal note, from how I read what you write, we just appear to have a different view of government. I don't see government as a means to regulate and legislate for the purpose of 'potential good.' I see the 'potential good' argument as a core misunderstanding of the concept of natural law and enumerated governmental powers. My desire to 'have good done for me' is overshadowed by my fear of 'having bad done to me!' It is a matter of odds. You see, bad done to me happens more often than good done for me throughout history…

I will grant you that my interpretation of what you have written could very well be wrong. It does not preclude us from being friendly or even friends. I therefore apologize for my tone and tenor, it is just how I speak and write...

Cheers -Ray

[OkieJoe]

How I enjoy juxtaposed views of the social contact. Good stuff