reuters.com— U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
Mar 8, 2010View in Crawl 4
I wonder how it would work out. Right now bottling companies fix their prices equally on all non-alcoholic products. 16 oz of water cost the same as 16 oz of Coke or Coke Zero. If only the normal coke is taxed, will the soft drink companies adjust prices to make them equal again. That is, charge more for diet and water to keep them from out competing the flagship products?
Neither building roads or creating a standing army were originally functions of the federal government. These functions were added later, with some controversy. Libertarians often wistfully refer to a magical "time of freedom" in the USA that never actually existed. More importantly, you didn't live through it so you don't have any idea what it was like. What is more honest is to argue that libertarian philosophy stands a a NOVEL idea that the USA should adopt in the 21st century. The problem is that modern examples of "libertarian" societies don't really look very good. We saw in the 20th century that radical "free market" reforms are usually accompanied by right-wing authoritarianism, like Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and Marcos' Philippines, which bring into question the supposed "freedoms" associated with this model.Feel free to come up with counter-examples.
To an extent they did have a time of freedom, just lots of fighting to maintain the freedom.But still you MUST agree that it would be nice to even be close to that "imaginary" time of freedom libertarians talk about. If the government just obeyed the laws of the constitution, we wouldn't be in the s**t we're in now.Still thanks for not being an ass and insulting me through this. Most Diggers here would.
As a former libertarian, I understand the appeal. It's said that somehow people with better off when they had more "libertarian freedom", but this is objectively not true. So the argument really must be: Libertarianism is the best system RIGHT NOW, regardless of the past. I disagree that "following the Constitution", at least as originally written, is a good idea in all cases. The Constitution originally allowed for slavery, for example. For most of the "freedom" period, only white men could vote. Other provisions may not actually work in practice. For example, I believe the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that private citizens are allowed to own military weapons (machine guns, tanks) and organize private militias. I also think this is a terrible idea. History has shown time and time again that the ONLY reasons people want to organize armed militias is overthrowing the government, vigilantism, and terrorism. And if you allow private militias, they will eventually do these things and given enough time will destabilize the government. I'd also have to say that campaign finance laws do seem to contradict the 1st amendment, but unlimited money in elections also seems to be very corrupting. Publicly financed campaigns may violate the spirit (at least) of the Constitution, but are probably better for democracy. This is the core problem with libertarianism, it's utopian. The ideas SOUND nice, but don't actually work in practice.
esc27Mar 9, 2010
I wonder how it would work out. Right now bottling companies fix their prices equally on all non-alcoholic products. 16 oz of water cost the same as 16 oz of Coke or Coke Zero. If only the normal coke is taxed, will the soft drink companies adjust prices to make them equal again. That is, charge more for diet and water to keep them from out competing the flagship products?
amnesianMar 10, 2010
Wait, how will this help cut obesity again?
rtechieMar 10, 2010
Neither building roads or creating a standing army were originally functions of the federal government. These functions were added later, with some controversy. Libertarians often wistfully refer to a magical "time of freedom" in the USA that never actually existed. More importantly, you didn't live through it so you don't have any idea what it was like. What is more honest is to argue that libertarian philosophy stands a a NOVEL idea that the USA should adopt in the 21st century. The problem is that modern examples of "libertarian" societies don't really look very good. We saw in the 20th century that radical "free market" reforms are usually accompanied by right-wing authoritarianism, like Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and Marcos' Philippines, which bring into question the supposed "freedoms" associated with this model.Feel free to come up with counter-examples.
thepl4gueMar 10, 2010
To an extent they did have a time of freedom, just lots of fighting to maintain the freedom.But still you MUST agree that it would be nice to even be close to that "imaginary" time of freedom libertarians talk about. If the government just obeyed the laws of the constitution, we wouldn't be in the s**t we're in now.Still thanks for not being an ass and insulting me through this. Most Diggers here would.
misskellyojMar 13, 2010
They should just add the tax to Snuggies.
shigMar 15, 2010
If not using services was a successful defense in tax delinquency cases, I'd f**king consider it.
rtechieMar 16, 2010
As a former libertarian, I understand the appeal. It's said that somehow people with better off when they had more "libertarian freedom", but this is objectively not true. So the argument really must be: Libertarianism is the best system RIGHT NOW, regardless of the past. I disagree that "following the Constitution", at least as originally written, is a good idea in all cases. The Constitution originally allowed for slavery, for example. For most of the "freedom" period, only white men could vote. Other provisions may not actually work in practice. For example, I believe the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that private citizens are allowed to own military weapons (machine guns, tanks) and organize private militias. I also think this is a terrible idea. History has shown time and time again that the ONLY reasons people want to organize armed militias is overthrowing the government, vigilantism, and terrorism. And if you allow private militias, they will eventually do these things and given enough time will destabilize the government. I'd also have to say that campaign finance laws do seem to contradict the 1st amendment, but unlimited money in elections also seems to be very corrupting. Publicly financed campaigns may violate the spirit (at least) of the Constitution, but are probably better for democracy. This is the core problem with libertarianism, it's utopian. The ideas SOUND nice, but don't actually work in practice.