Illinois sweetened beverage tax goes into effect July 1st 2017-moved to the 12th now

[palou]

The_Yoda said:

palou said:

You're arguing with a slippery slope, that makes the debate pointless. I mean, it can work both ways. In Afghanistan some families turn their kids into opium addicts when they're 8, that's fine right? I mean, they aren't forcing the kid, and the parent can give their kid what they want.

 

But you never said that, so it's pointless for me to bring it up in an argument.

 

I'm a utilitarian, at the core - meaning, I believe in no absolute moral values (freedom, virtue, order...) but perceive all ethcial dilemmas as optimization problems, balancing different concepts to maximize global happiness (bit more complicated than that, since there are a lot of factors to consider, which is the main problem with utilitarianism.) I don't oppose freedom, I just see it as a tool to make people more satisfied, rather than something with inherent value. Removing children from their families very clearly does not improve quality of life, overall, so I'm against that. 

 

But a child that does not consume soft drinks has an easier time avoiding obesity (and associated cardiobascular problems), lower chances of diabetes, less problems with dental care (both for sugar and acidity), stronger bone structure and overall better health. That's positif. A utilitarian would then weigh these benefits against the instant gratification and freedom associated with allowing soda. And, perhaps, come up with an intermediate solution, allowing some freedom to purchase the products, but deincentivizing excessive consumption. 

I see the slippery slope as granting the government more and more power in our everyday lives.  The US government, like many governments, are not fond of giving up power.  We broke away from England over unfair taxation, here a couple hundred years later we are taxed nearly every time money changes hands. I believe a good deal of that is government inefficiency as it becomes bigger and bigger reaching more and more into our everyday lives.

A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Allowing this does not necessarily open the gate to further intervention. Laws/measures are argued uppon case by case, and, if you (and a vocal majority of the electorate) are opposed to any future propositions, you still have the ability to push it through. 

 

The U.S. broke away from England for unfair taxation, which, if you remember correctly, was taxation without representation. This is not the case of a modern democratic government - responsible towards the population.