Saving Ones Citizens From The Tyranny Of.....BOTTLED WATER!!! (NSFW)

[KhayesMSU]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel better now, gov?

Good. Now go back and read the part of my post where I said I didn't support banning bottled water. Then, see if you can work up a comparable amount of mouth-foam over the idea of an ad campaign or a moderate excise tax. I'm rooting for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that you support local govt using my tax dollars to run a campaign against my decision to drink bottled water?

And that you are ok with that same govt taxing me on a product that I choose to use out of convenience?

Please to be clarifying these questions....

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on exactly what we're talking about here. I wouldn't support, say, a city-wide ban on bottled water, but a competing ad campaign and/or a moderate Stupidity Tax on the product both seem reasonable. It depends on where you live, of course; if you're in central Florida and your tap water comes from a well and tastes like sulfur, then bus in that bottled crap. If you live here in NYC or San Francisco, however, where the tap water is great tasting and clean, people are making a really dumb decision by buying lots of bottled water, and it's a decision that, writ large, has a negative effect on everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have to pay a Stupidity Tax for this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. Incentivising good decisions -- and offering a counterpoint to marketing firms that are promoting dumb decisions -- is really off-the-wall ridiculous.

I know you have philosophicla objections, and I respect that, but people who are willing to work within the framework of the market and the government are going to get a lot more accomplished.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on exactly what we're talking about here. I wouldn't support, say, a city-wide ban on bottled water, but a competing ad campaign and/or a moderate Stupidity Tax on the product both seem reasonable. It depends on where you live, of course; if you're in central Florida and your tap water comes from a well and tastes like sulfur, then bus in that bottled crap. If you live here in NYC or San Francisco, however, where the tap water is great tasting and clean, people are making a really dumb decision by buying lots of bottled water, and it's a decision that, writ large, has a negative effect on everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have to pay a Stupidity Tax for this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. Incentivising good decisions -- and offering a counterpoint to marketing firms that are promoting dumb decisions -- is really off-the-wall ridiculous.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I forgot we made you king of our decisions. I'm gonna have a pizza later it's full of grease and cheese is that ok or is it too much of a dumb decision? Can I have your email for future reference?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that you support local govt using my tax dollars to run a campaign against my decision to drink bottled water?

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain cases, yes. Raising awareness about the benefits of choosing tap water over botled water is one of those things that the free market doesn't do particularly well. Spending (in relative terms) a few bucks to endorse an action that it beneficial both financially (on an individual level) and ecologically) (on a communal level) has the potential to do more good than harm.

[ QUOTE ]
And that you are ok with that same govt taxing me on a product that I choose to use out of convenience?

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain cases, yes. The free market is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent. Incentivising good decisions (collectively) when the market is promoting only (or mostly) bad ones has the potential to do more good than harm.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know. Incentivising good decisions -- and offering a counterpoint to marketing firms that are promoting dumb decisions -- is really off-the-wall ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who gets to decide what is a dumb thing to do and what is a smart thing to do for everyone? Why can't individuals decide for themselves?

[ QUOTE ]
I know you have philosophicla objections, and I respect that, but people who are willing to work within the framework of the market and the government are going to get a lot more accomplished.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a bottled water tax was implemented, you would consider that an accomplishment?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh I forgot we made you king of our decisions. I'm gonna have a pizza later it's full of grease and cheese is that ok or is it too much of a dumb decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're assuming pretty much al of the negative consequences of that decision, so that's between you, the pizzaria, and maybe your insurance provider. OTOH, you're assuming virtually none of the negative consequences for the production, transportation, and disposal of billions of water bottles, so it might make sense to treat that differently.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And that you are ok with that same govt taxing me on a product that I choose to use out of convenience?

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain cases, yes. The free market is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent. Incentivising good decisions (collectively) when the market is promoting only (or mostly) bad ones has the potential to do more good than harm.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the government somehow IS either omniscient or omnibenevolent?

Give me a freaking break !!! Advocating using an agency that has never solved or simplified a problem is now somehow going to solve a problem? WTF?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
So who gets to decide what is a dumb thing to do and what is a smart thing to do for everyone? Why can't individuals decide for themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes it makes sense to make collective decisions and to take collective action, and often the state is the most convenient apparatus for these kinds of decisions and actions. Not everyone will agree with collective actions, and sometimes collective actions will be poorly conceived and/or executed. However, abandoing all collective action to avoid these mistakes is probably more inconvenient that suffering through the occasional collective mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
So if a bottled water tax was implemented, you would consider that an accomplishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. It depends on the specifics, and I'm not sure how effective it would be in any case. Seems like a close decision to me.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I forgot we made you king of our decisions. I'm gonna have a pizza later it's full of grease and cheese is that ok or is it too much of a dumb decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're assuming pretty much al of the negative consequences of that decision, so that's between you, the pizzaria, and maybe your insurance provider. OTOH, you're assuming virtually none of the negative consequences for the production, transportation, and disposal of billions of water bottles, so it might make sense to treat that differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a system where people have to take full responsibility for the true economic costs of their decisions? The fact that there is common land means that the economics costs of transportation disposal etc can be passed onto the general population. In a free market bottled water may well be more expensive but it won't be up to you to make that call something which I think would make us all feel much happier.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And that you are ok with that same govt taxing me on a product that I choose to use out of convenience?

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain cases, yes. The free market is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent. Incentivising good decisions (collectively) when the market is promoting only (or mostly) bad ones has the potential to do more good than harm.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the government somehow IS either omniscient or omnibenevolent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, but sometimes civil society and the free market produce unfortunate situations that can be fixed (or at least ameliorated) with some state intervention. There are problems, both moral and practical, with that intervention, but those problems don't always trump the benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a freaking break !!! Advocating using an agency that has never solved or simplified a problem is now somehow going to solve a problem? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, I disagree that the state has never contributed something positive to the solution of a problem. I'm not going to get into specifics, however, since that would only lead to a flood of "The market would have solved that problem way better!" posts, and I'm not interested in having that discussion at this moment.