palou said:
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. and therein lies part of the problem, is our government of today always acting in such a fashion or are they too busy serving corporate interests (i.e. see lining their own pockets) rather than We the People.... |
In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
You establish precedent with such things as the tobacco tax flouted as money that "would be used for healthcare" ( in reality - see: new revenue stream) and then use that as precedent for other health taxes such as this one and you have your slippery slope, not a logical fallacy but the way things work. I could easily be wrong but you seem the type to see things in black and white, people are not code to be optimized and they often behave and exist in the gray rather than the black or white.
