Sodagate -- Response to the Hysteria

Just because libertarians are against something, doesn't mean liberals should automatically be for it. The cornerstone of liberalism is still liberty. Giving me liberty from higher insurance premiums because some consume too much of something does not trump the liberty of the people to consume as much as they want of a legal product. You can't equate soda to cigarettes or alcohol because neither of those things are required to sustain a person. People have to eat in order to live. You may not like soda, or glazed donuts, or candy bars, or the millions of other junk that people cram down their gullets but the implication here is that when you start to regulate what people eat, there is no end to it, and yes it is a significant issue that people should be getting hysterical about.

economics and government. They make a lot of sense on social issues, at least real ones do, not gynophobic cretins like Ron Paul.

The cornerstone of the libertarian ideology is maximum individual liberty vis-a-vis government power. However, they current crop of "libertarians" commit the fallacy of extending their "liberty" stance to cover corporations -- even though, under rigorous libertarian criteria, corporations are creatures of that very government power that they pretend to recognize as overreaching.

A "corporation" is, at its very core, a fictional legalism created by that loathsome government to provide an artificial legal barrier between the liabilities (including civil damages) of the corporation and its owner(s), protecting the wealth of those owners from any tort (a long-standing common law fundamental) committed by those owners under the cloak of the corporation. Now THAT'S power! (Some jurisdictions are slightly more candid and, instead of "Incorporated" or "Inc.," they use "LLC" or Limited Liability Corporation.)

Part of the evil we're seeing today is the greater appetite for irresponsible predation ... called "tort reform" ... no longer satisfied with the already-overextended protections afforded corporations by many decades of erosion in the laws governing both the legitimate activities of the corporation but also its longevity (originally limited to the term of a specific project or activity) and the scope of its activities, both substantive and jurisdictional.

Actually, better than "neo"libertarian, they should probably be called LiberIncTarians ... since they've been corrupted with the "Inc" virus.


As an independent liberal, I find the "Nanny State" flavor of "liberalism" as antithetical to the very essence liberalism as well. Indeed, I pale at the prospect of the range of laws coming down the pike as we make further 'progress' in attaining universal health care. God forbid!! It's gonna be horrible.

I agree with the social arguments libertarians make to a point. I think people should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. As I said in the video, if you drink a lot of soda, you affect other people by rising health care costs.

The idea that people "should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else" is a good one, but the premise doesn't mean just because one liberty starts to impose on another that action is required. You have to weigh one interest against another on the scales of liberty to decide who should prevail.

That's pretty much the basis for a pigouvian tax.

--imm

but if you want to reduce the amount of soda people drink, one way is to make it more expensive by taxes, and those taxes can be used to deal with healthcare costs.

Oh wait, no it's not.

I agree

Taxing caffeine makes no sense. There are plenty of sugary drinks which contain no caffeine. Then there is coffee and tea which have about 4 calories per cup.

Not only do they present their own health problems, but people often "wash them down" with a cheeseburger or a layer cake, or both!

--imm

However, caffeine is addictive. I'm not saying this is a solution to obesity, but giving an explanation as to why you can tax it.

and so do fatty corn fed 'hamburger' cows.

So a limit on beverage size is NOT addressing one of the perceived causes ? I don't follow.

Also: the suffix "Gate" implies an impeachable offense has been committed by an elected official (at least that is what it used to imply). The GOP started calling everything "_____-Gate" when they wanted Clinton impeached. Now it has a more broad implication which is simply scandal. That said, I don't think it applies here at all.