Q-Tip could you make a more concise argument here? This is, as usual, to arbitrary.
I thought I was pretty clear. And honestly, I don't even know what you mean by "arbitrary" in this context..
The argument I see in your post is that people aren't rationally/objectively looking at this issue;
No, my argument is twofold, and founded in an opposition to excessive paternalism.
First, I don't believe there is a logical reason to single out
sugary foods in particular for taxation simply because "they're bad for you," Because obviously, there are a whole host of things that we eat, drink, and do that are "bad" for us. You could go with fatty foods, red meat, alcohol, whatever. And in most cases, the rationale for selecting one over the other is simply the personal biases of the particular government goombahs with the authority in that instance. They're essentially using the state as an agent for their pet crusades because
they know better than the rest of us.
Second, I do not believe that governments are the right entity to be making these kind of cost/benefit analyses for individual people. The amount of pleasure -- the "benefit" each of us gets from any of these "vices" varies widely. Who am I (or anyone else) to say someone else's unhealthy preference for sugary foods should get taxed more highly, but my unhealthy preference for red meat should not?
I've had enough of busybodies lecturing the rest of us on what they think is good for us, but I draw the line at using the power of the state to steer our individual conduct towards what they believe is "good" for us.
