The government has many tools to discourage behavior that it has determined to be undesirable. Among the least intrusive is a public education campaign, i.e. propaganda. The most intrusive is prohibition with the application of severe penalties.

Somewhere in the middle is increased taxation. This raises the opportunity cost of such behavior and reduces its practice while not prohibiting it entirely. In nations that value individual rights and personal freedoms this is the preferred approach.

If undesirable social consequences are to be avoided it would be wise to take a considered approach with a set program of escalating government intrusion that matches social expectations if the government is to be successful in the behavior modification. It is not a quick fix and can take a few generations before previously ubiquitous and acceptable behavior becomes socially unacceptable.

As far as smoking goes the government discouragement campaign is a fairly new thing since until lately smoking was not considered a problem by anyone. The public education campaign, a first step, is only one generation old but has had an effect both in decreased undesirable behavior and increased social expectations. These increased social expectations have pushed government to the next level, increased taxation specifically targeted to reduce undesirable behavior and mitigate its social costs.

We should pray that social expectations do not go so far as prohibition because the consequences of that will create new more grave problems that will be quite costly and socially destructive. It is questionable whether prohibition brings more social benefits than costs. The "war on drugs" should be a caution to those keen on prohibiting individual behavior that impacts others only indirectly.

As far as being overweight goes, that is in its infancy as a socially undesirable behavior and is more a biological problem for many people than a strictly behavioral problem. Not everyone is naturally skinny. Besides that, the perception that all fat people are an automatic health risk has not been proven. Inferences have been made and statistical studies point to an increased probability but that is about it.

Increasing taxes on certain foods to combat obesity is not targeted like increased taxes on cigarettes. Increasing health care premiums on overweight people who pose no health risk is discriminatory. Prohibition is out of the question.

So, what tools can the government deploy to combat obesity without encouraging discrimination against those who pose no risk and are thus innocent?

P.S.
There are also many smokers who require no increased health care than anyone else throughout their lives but that is a strictly voluntary behavior so any excuse to discriminate against smokers is far less fraught than the issue of obesity.

A flat tax on income assumes that this is a fair way to share the burden of taxes. A little thinking would bring the realization that the burden on those with low incomes would be disproportionate when compared with the burden imposed on those with high incomes. It is much the same with a sales tax.

One tax that does not do this is a transaction tax. People with low incomes tend to make fewer transactions while those with high incomes tend to make more. Some years ago a few economists did a study of electronic transactions and concluded that a transaction tax of %0.00002 on all electronic transactions would eliminate the need for all other taxes at every level of government, provide for paying off the federal debt within a few years and give the government a permanent surplus of revenue while eliminating distortions in the economy caused by current taxes.

Their idea was that to impose a tiny tax at the transaction point makes it virtually invisible and since there are so few companies that facilitate electronic transactions it could be implemented fairly quickly and easily. The only problem they saw was in the allocation of revenue among entities that traditionally collected their own taxes.

This was fairly widely publicized article. A Wall Street Journal editorial objected on the grounds that a $1Billlion transaction would be subject to an onerous $50,000 tax and that this would be a such a huge impediment to trade that world trade could grind to a halt and the economy would collapse. $50,000 is less than what each one of the many traders in a $1Billion transaction pocket so this is a specious argument.

In other words, a tax of 2 cents on every $1,000 you spend could free you from all other taxes but Wall Street is against it so it will never happen.

The flat tax has even less of a chance.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?

whitetrshsoldier wrote:

Unrealist42 wrote:

whitetrshsoldie r wrote:
Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?

Really? Let's break my statement down;

Premise: We are all free to do what we wish
Requirement: We must not violate other men's ability to do the same.

Does that help clarify your purported "contradiction"?

We've had many discussions, and I'm fairly certain that you're a bright enough guy to know what I meant [especially if you read it thoroughly].

Please try to avoid posting one-line red-herrings in the future, if you could, as I think you know where I stand on the concept of individual liberty.

I was only posing that question to begin an exploration of the limits and extents of individual freedom as you propose. I will ask more "relevant" questions from now on, I promise.

As we are all well aware conceptions of words like individual freedom vary widely. Where conceptions of individual freedom conflict is there a mechanism for peaceful resolution, is it just might makes right or is some other mechanism involved?

Meleagar wrote:When corporations and wealthy individuals can compete against any particular ideology in the administration of government, and compete against each other via free speech and a free marketplace, then such power is broken up over the political and economic landscape. While some might see this as imperfect, it's still, IMO, better than providing tyrannical forces the engine (socialism) by which they can accumulate and employ absolute power over a society.

That is all well and good but requires a real free market.

Scott wrote:That's a valid concern. But I think that the scientific method can be used with a fair amount of certainty to discern which activities are unhealthy. For example, I do not see much risk that future studies will show that cigarettes are actually not unhealthy. I can name things which most of us are convinced have been scientifically shown to be unhealthy, like cigarettes, but I wouldn't leave it up to me but rather up to scientists performing the scientific method which is necessarily reproducible meaning we do not have to take any one scientist or group of scientists words.

Science of this sort often takes a long time and is fraught with competing political and commercial agendas. For example I recently read of some long term very large longitudinal studies of diet and health that point to processed carbohydrates such as those found in bread as a factor in obesity and poor health that far outweighed fat and sugar. Even the researchers were surprised at the result. One of them said "The healthiest part of your morning toast is the butter."

This overturns contemporary conventional wisdom which was based on more limited and less comprehensive studies and then conflated by a relentless and ubiquitous media campaign by commercial interests seeking to cash in by creating fear and new products to assuage that fear. The people and then the government were just sucked into the vortex.

Fifty years ago oleomargarine was touted as better than butter. It is taking decades to get over that false information campaign.

I think all taxes constitute theft by definition. But, particularly if the revenue is being used to pay for government spending on health care, I would much rather, create or increase taxes on something I think has been scientifically shown to be unhealthy like cigarettes or soda than on trading income for labor or owning a modest sized home.

If taxes are theft then it is a strange sort of theft since people get to participate. It may be very indirect participation but that is just part of living with a lot of other people.

Why you particularly object to government paying for health care is a strange position since government is already paying for over 40% of the health care in the US.

So, Bastiat posits an individual conception of "natural rights" that come from god and then extends this right to the collective. He then goes on to realize that the collective is prohibited from coercion.

I am always happy to read Bastiat but I am skeptical that god or any "natural right" exists in the first place and besides, Bastiat leaves the "law" toothless where individuals disagree and no collective consensus for defensible action is forthcoming.