zlacker

I dont think stopping companies from polluting rivers is playing nanny. It is against the law, destroys others property, and the government should act.

Drunk driving is illegal too, for good reasons.

Im not against laws.

What I am against is the state taking things that are explicitly legal, and making your life hard and penalizing you if you do them.

The role of the government should be enforcing law. Enforcing social judgement and incentives on legal behavior should be left to non-governmental society.

Sin taxes are a classic example of this.

>>s1arti+(OP)
I'll admit that sin taxes imposed on the general public aren't usually a very good idea. For example, I'd much rather see government subsidizing the costs of healthy foods rather than add a tax on sugar.

I can see taxes and tariffs imposed on corporations being useful to limit the amount of certain harmful goods or to help offset the costs of externalities caused by those products. I'd still rather see companies regulated and held accountable for what they do more directly in most cases.

>>autoex+c3
I think that is most closer to my position.

In my mind, the government is a heavy hammer, backed by lethal force. As such, it should be used sparingly to prevent concrete damages, enforce laws, and enforce property rights.

If a person or company is causing people real harm, that should be actionable by the government. If they are poisoning someone or killing their land, that is well within the remit.

Inversely, the government should not be a tool for optimizing society, or increasing the subjective efficiency or morality.

Government is a powerful tool, but that doesnt mean it the right tool for everything. Restraint and respecting other people's autononomy is a difficult skill to lean when you have the power to simply force compliance and "know" you are right.

>>autoex+c3
Subsidizing the cost of health foods and adding a tax on sugar are exactly equivalent due to how monetary policy works.

>>pclmul+N62
How are they roughly equivalent, let alone "exactly equivalent"? It seems to me that are vast differences any way you compare them.

Economically, there are major differences in who pays them, There are differences in impact/cost. There are also huge moral differences between subsidizing desired behavior, and penalizing undesirable behavior.

>>pclmul+N62
Subsidizing the cost of health foods would actually be a lot more expensive. In fact, ideally it'd include increasing the accessibility of healthy foods while a tax on sugar would be much easier to implement.

It'd result in more people eating better though (instead of just eating slightly less worse, or eating worse differently while still not getting enough healthy food) and so there'd also be savings in the cost of health care and improvements in productivity.

>>s1arti+Vl2
Subsidies increase the amount of money in circulation and taxes decrease it. The price of goods is set relative to the amount of money in circulation (this is what inflation does). Hence, exact equivalence of taxing sugar and subsidizing foods without sugar.

>>pclmul+Xc3
Seems like a very narrow definition. If I take $100 from your wallet, or give $100 to your neighbor, is that exactly the same to you?

>>s1arti+pg3
No, the effect is amortized over everyone. If you elect to take $100 from half the country or give $100 to the other half it's pretty much exactly equivalent. We saw this experiment with COVID helicopter money causing inflation. You weren't seriously suggesting taxing or subsidizing only one person, were you?

>>pclmul+xv3
taxes are generally levied on a small portion of people and subsidies normally go to even smaller portion.

Taxes and benefits are extremely unequal in their application.