Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking, Alcohol etc

[flashgordonv]

I've spent a lot of time analyzing the whole anti-smoking campaign and looking at the attempts at social engineering through prohibitive taxes on tobacco. And I think it is quite clear that this taxation is a blatant attempt to influence people and force actions on the population by people who have decided they know what is best for all of us, and as we won't choose to do what they say, they will force us to do it but whatever means possible. nanny state paternalism at its worst. And we rightly protest these actions.

So I am perturbed to see articles on SOTT where in the comments we have editors applauding the heavy taxing of other items - e.g. sugar - and advocating that this is a good thing. Tax sugar, tax soda, tax alcohol - wonderful idea. Tax tobacco - terrible idea. I see this as contradictory and hypocritical.

I am not saying that sugar or alcohol or anything else is great and to be encouraged. What I am saying is that our approach, IMO, should be for people to be informed of the dangers and the risks, but not forced into a course of action because we think it is a good one and what they should be doing.

If we are opposed to the paternalistic nanny state, we should not advocate nanny state tactics for things we consider bad. SURELY?

 

[PhoenixToEmber]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

If we are opposed to the paternalistic nanny state, we should not advocate nanny state tactics for things we consider bad. SURELY?

I think you make an excellent point.

It would be interesting, though, to see similar "warning" labels that are slapped onto cigarettes put on all sugary products - "Warning: too much sugar causes obesity, feeds cancer, rots your brain, etc. etc. etc." :P

 

[monotonic]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

I think the question is, do people WANT to know if their food is killing them? In any half-sane society, I think yes. So informing them of such on package labels isn't necessarily bad in itself, it doesn't infringe the free will of the society as a whole. Outliers can't be avoided, our 3D is granular.

Another way to look at it is as government being one way a society enforces it's choice on what quality of food it will allow itself to consume. If feedlots were banned for instance, and it was the choice of the civilization to do so, then free will is preserved.

I think your hypocrisy argument is vulnerable to the consideration of free will. The only reason anyone listens to the government is because they believe the government is holding their world together. To remove warnings from tobacco products and put them on sugar/alcohol products would create a reality that matches the expectations of the people for the government to act in their best interest (setting aside the fact that it would clash with the views on sugar and tobacco that currently dominate).

paternalistic nanny state

Are you saying the state is genderfluid? :D

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

You're talking about this one, right?

https://www.sott.net/article/358624-When-crooked-govts-collapse-they-rob-the-people-Chicagos-Cook-County-imposes-sweetened-beverage-tax

If so, I think you've been triggered and are experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance, because the comment doesn't support a sugar tax. It points out the hypocrisy of people up in arms about a sugar tax and who passively accept tobacco taxes.

In fact, the comment starts by agreeing with the author's negative opinion on the tax: it is burdening an already burdened population with a tax on something they consider essential.

 

[flashgordonv]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

You're talking about this one, right?

https://www.sott.net/article/358624-When-crooked-govts-collapse-they-rob-the-people-Chicagos-Cook-County-imposes-sweetened-beverage-tax

If so, I think you've been triggered and are experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance, because the comment doesn't support a sugar tax. It points out the hypocrisy of people up in arms about a sugar tax and who passively accept tobacco taxes.

In fact, the comment starts by agreeing with the author's negative opinion on the tax: it is burdening an already burdened population with a tax on something they consider essential.

No, I was actually talking about this one where the comment promotes an aggressive tax on sugar
https://www.sott.net/article/358598-Brit-think-tank-concludes-smoking-is-good-for-the-economy

The point I am trying to make is this - if we object to taxing tobacco to prevent people using it, we by definition ought not be advocating the same position for other foods we might feel are really harmful. Nanny state behaviour is bad whether it is attacking tobacco, sugar, meat etc. - it still come down to social engineering and supporting such leaves us quite vulnerable.

 

[flashgordonv]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

You're talking about this one, right?

https://www.sott.net/article/358624-When-crooked-govts-collapse-they-rob-the-people-Chicagos-Cook-County-imposes-sweetened-beverage-tax

If so, I think you've been triggered and are experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance, because the comment doesn't support a sugar tax. It points out the hypocrisy of people up in arms about a sugar tax and who passively accept tobacco taxes.

In fact, the comment starts by agreeing with the author's negative opinion on the tax: it is burdening an already burdened population with a tax on something they consider essential.

Apologies. Rather than being vague I ought to have put the link top the actual article in the original post. Thoughtless of me, sorry.

 

[luc]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

No, I was actually talking about this one where the comment promotes an aggressive tax on sugar
https://www.sott.net/article/358598-Brit-think-tank-concludes-smoking-is-good-for-the-economy

The point I am trying to make is this - if we object to taxing tobacco to prevent people using it, we by definition ought not be advocating the same position for other foods we might feel are really harmful. Nanny state behaviour is bad whether it is attacking tobacco, sugar, meat etc. - it still come down to social engineering and supporting such leaves us quite vulnerable.

I can't see why this should be self-evident? If we oppose taxing stuff that is healthy for us, it doesn't logically follow we should oppose taxing stuff that is bad for us.

I get what you are saying here - that government authority is bad per se and will be abused once it is in place, even if the intentions were good at the beginning. Fair enough. But I think we should be a bit careful not to implicitely assume such things are "natural laws" just because some ideology (in this case, free market/Hayekian ideology) says so. We also need to be pragmatic.

The government needs to collect some amount of taxes, I think everyone agrees on that. So the question is - how and where does it collect them? It's not unreasonable then to say it could collect taxes in a smart way that has the best effect on society. In this sense, for example, making natural tobacco tax-free while putting heavy taxes on sugar sounds like a rather good idea to me.

Ideologically loaded words like "nanny state" can cloud our thinking here IMO. If we oppose any form of taxes, we oppose any form of government and end up with anarchy. Every tax is a form of government intervention, a policy decision. You can't have taxes without the government intervening. So we need to forget about ideologies and try to figure out the thorny details, which is very tough. That's why it's so tempting for ideologues such as socialists or free market Hayek types to come up with cut and dry answers like "free everything for everyone" or "government interventions are always bad". It doesn't help though - OSIT.

 

[Joe]

Re: Contradictions around Sugar, Smoking Alcohol etc

I think we need to separate your two statements:

Number 1:

The point I am trying to make is this - if we object to taxing tobacco to prevent people using it, we by definition ought not be advocating the same position for other foods we might feel are really harmful.

Number 2:

Nanny state behaviour is bad whether it is attacking tobacco, sugar, meat etc. - it still come down to social engineering and supporting such leaves us quite vulnerable.

Number 1 doesn't make sense on its own. It we object to punitive measures on something that is potentially good for people it suggests we advocate for human health. Therefore, it makes sense that we would encourage punitive measures on something that is potentially harmful to human health. It's logically consistent.

Number 2 seems to be your main point. That 'nanny state behavior' is bad, regardless of what it does. That the state should keep its nose out of people's business. Maybe, but if we live in a world where that is unlikely, and the state IS going to interfere regardless of how much we might wish it would not, then it makes sense that we would advocate that that interference is in line with our understanding of what is and is not good for human health.

 

[Niall]

If we are opposed to the paternalistic nanny state, we should not advocate nanny state tactics for things we consider bad. SURELY?

It depends what you mean by 'paternalistic nanny state'. We're not opposed to state intervention in principle.

I think we should generally try to minimize the extent to which we veer from social commentary/observation towards advocacy/activism. This would take the form of being circumspect and 'objective' - at least in tone - when suggesting proposals about how things ought to be.

You've compared our stance on tobacco vs sugar. I think a net-positive development for society would come from govts taxing the hell out of porn. Let's see how willing people are to get their soul-killing jollies if they have to work for it. What do you think of this idea?

Bottom line for me is that people, especially in numbers, are like kids who need parenting. The difference then between that stance and how psycho elites perceive people is that they see them as cattle to be reared, milked and culled, not children who should aim to realise their highest potential.

 

[Goemon_]

IMO, "they" don't want us to stop smoking tabacco, they want us to believe that tabacco is responsible for all our problems. If I am right that does make sense to advocate for warnings on sugar et al, because then there tacticts falls flat.

 

[flashgordonv]

No, I was actually talking about this one where the comment promotes an aggressive tax on sugar
https://www.sott.net/article/358598-Brit-think-tank-concludes-smoking-is-good-for-the-economy

The point I am trying to make is this - if we object to taxing tobacco to prevent people using it, we by definition ought not be advocating the same position for other foods we might feel are really harmful. Nanny state behaviour is bad whether it is attacking tobacco, sugar, meat etc. - it still come down to social engineering and supporting such leaves us quite vulnerable.

I can't see why this should be self-evident? If we oppose taxing stuff that is healthy for us, it doesn't logically follow we should oppose taxing stuff that is bad for us.

I get what you are saying here - that government authority is bad per se and will be abused once it is in place, even if the intentions were good at the beginning. Fair enough. But I think we should be a bit careful not to implicitely assume such things are "natural laws" just because some ideology (in this case, free market/Hayekian ideology) says so. We also need to be pragmatic.

The government needs to collect some amount of taxes, I think everyone agrees on that. So the question is - how and where does it collect them? It's not unreasonable then to say it could collect taxes in a smart way that has the best effect on society. In this sense, for example, making natural tobacco tax-free while putting heavy taxes on sugar sounds like a rather good idea to me.

Ideologically loaded words like "nanny state" can cloud our thinking here IMO. If we oppose any form of taxes, we oppose any form of government and end up with anarchy. Every tax is a form of government intervention, a policy decision. You can't have taxes without the government intervening. So we need to forget about ideologies and try to figure out the thorny details, which is very tough. That's why it's so tempting for ideologues such as socialists or free market Hayek types to come up with cut and dry answers like "free everything for everyone" or "government interventions are always bad". It doesn't help though - OSIT.

I understand that governments need taxes to function and I am not opposed to taxation per se either. I guess I got a bit wrapped up in my need to be logical if/when I am debating tobacco punitive taxation with people. For me, it is hard to differentiate between saying "No, government should not heavily tax tobacco"; "No government should not make vaccination compulsory" and then saying "Yes, government should tax the hell out of sugar"

From a personal perspective I'd prefer if government issued advisories and them left it up to people to make their own informed choices. After all, making vaccination mandatory is just another logical step, once you accept that government has the right to make people do things "for their own good".

And the worrying thing is that nobody sees any issues with what the government is doing with smoking. Public Health officials are deciding what is best for the country and then enforcing it. For example, in New Zealand where I live, the government has declared that the country will be smoke free by 2025. Was this decided by referendum? nope. Was it a policy plank at an election? No. It was just decided by zealous public health officials that that this was the right thing to do. So now we see tobacco tax rise 10% every 9 months or so.

People in general, being so brainwashed, are supportive of this. Next target is clearly sugar, followed by junk food. And after that, I can't see why they won't reach for mandatory vaccination - the way has been cleared, people have been brainwashed. Just seems like a really slippery slope and I am concerned not to further grease the slope.

 

[flashgordonv]

If we are opposed to the paternalistic nanny state, we should not advocate nanny state tactics for things we consider bad. SURELY?

It depends what you mean by 'paternalistic nanny state'. We're not opposed to state intervention in principle.

I think we should generally try to minimize the extent to which we veer from social commentary/observation towards advocacy/activism. This would take the form of being circumspect and 'objective' - at least in tone - when suggesting proposals about how things ought to be.

You've compared our stance on tobacco vs sugar. I think a net-positive development for society would come from govts taxing the hell out of porn. Let's see how willing people are to get their soul-killing jollies if they have to work for it. What do you think of this idea?

Bottom line for me is that people, especially in numbers, are like kids who need parenting. The difference then between that stance and how psycho elites perceive people is that they see them as cattle to be reared, milked and culled, not children who should aim to realise their highest potential.

Niall, I think a heavy tax on porn would be an excellent idea in concept, but it is just about impossible to implement from a technology perspective. And trying to do that would probably involve mandating and agreeing to even heavier censorship of the internet in order to determine who is accessing a porn site. So governments tend to reach for the easier things, like taxing tobacco - although they then throw their hands up in horror when robberies involving tobacco skyrocket as they have in NZ.

I think the biggest thing I take out of your response is that I have intellectually moved from social commentary to advocacy/activism. That is a valid point, I did not see that and I will adjust my behaviour and thinking accordingly. Thanks for the insight.