No products in the cart.

News

Should Government Impose Morality?

Should Government Impose Morality?

From Rare.us

Seattle attempts to impose morality with ridiculously high taxes on sugary drinks

Seattle, like Philadelphia, has put a high tax on sugary drinks sold within the city limits. The reasoning for doing so, it is said, is that sugary drinks are not healthy and their consumption should be discouraged. The same “reasoning” was used to raise taxes on tobacco products and alcohol products. Al Gore wants high taxes on carbon.

Many of the people who jumped for joy when tobacco taxes were raised sky high, are screaming bloody murder at the high taxes on sugar in Philly and Seattle. Go figure. Would it have made a difference if the tax were only a penny a bottle, instead of 1.75 cents an ounce? Sure. The real issue is that the tax appears outrageous. Sticker shock.

Forget any thoughts that the increased taxes are used to balance budgets. History has shown that governments usually spend any money raised from new taxes on new programs, not on balancing budgets.

They used to be called “sin taxes”, which gives you an idea what their purpose was. They are an attempt to impose a morality, or conduct, on the population. Governments want to discourage certain types of behavior by using the taxes to punish those who choose the types of behavior government finds offensive or detrimental.

California has high gasoline taxes, which they imposed, in part, it is said, to discourage driving. Driving pollutes the air, through the emissions from the exhaust. Other States also have high gasoline taxes. Have those high taxes really reduced driving? At what cost to society? At what cost to the independence of drivers?

The issue is really one of: Should governments legislate morality? If so, to what extent? Most people would agree that laws prohibiting murder, theft, rape, extortion, and the like are moral restrictions, but are there limits to the moral restrictions government can, or should, place on the people? When is enough, enough? Or put another way, when is it too much?

What about individual freedom to make choices?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates all drugs, of any type, and the sale and safety of the food supply. Why is it that they are discouraging the use of medicinal herbs that have been used for centuries? Why can’t those of us who would like to buy raw milk prevented from doing so? Why can’t we, the people, grow industrial hemp? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did. It is the power of “regulating behavior” disguised as a “concern for the public health”, that is at play here. The FDA is “owned” by the powerful drug companies and the powerful agricultural companies. It is the attempt by government to legislate morality. Is there any limit to this?

Is there a place for individual choice? Are we merely a cog in the wheels of the machinery of government? When is enough, enough?

0

Shorty Dawkins

Oath Keepers Merchandise

11 comments

  1. When will it end? NEVER. One uses the rest room, you pay a tax to wipe your butt. You pay a tax to blow your nose. You pay a tax to brush your teeth. Want to have sex? You pay a tax on condoms.
    Our government has their fingers in every aspect of our lives, they tax every aspect of out lives. They will continue to do so…………..forever.
    They mandated more fuel efficient cars, then when revenue dropped, upped the gas tax. People quit smoking, revenue drops, they tax something else. They spend money like there is no tomorrow, then hand us the bill.
    The only way to get rid of all the taxes, is to get rid of the “lawmakers”. Simple as that.
    Why they think we owe them money is beyond me,they are no better than all the people who migrate here, and think we owe them a living.
    Politicians dictating morality? Huh……….. that’s a hoot.

    1. James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

      Show me where they have that authority DELEGATED to the position they serve within. They do NOT; not the mandates, not most of the “laws”, etc, etc.

      Why are we allowing treasonous acts by those that SERVE WITHIN our governments at all levels? If most of everything that they do against the American people are outside of the delegated authority, then the ONLY way it can be implemented is BY FORCE, BY THOSE WHO WILL ENFORCE COLOR OF LAW, PRETEND LAW.

      I still thing we need to go back to the first version of Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381!

      Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.”

      Now it says this, can anyone guess why the change?;
      Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

      1. He pays a tax to cut your hair. Then you pay a tax to have him cut your hair. Then there is the tax to throw it away. The tax the guy who picks it up has to pay, to pick it up, and the tax he pays to dump it off………….
        They have a sweet deal worked out………………… for them.

      2. Yes. The license is a protection for consumers of that service that standards of sanitation and basic skills attained. Even with that “protection” there’s still no guarantee of satisfaction with the service purchased but the protection is an attempt at morality.

    1. “You can’t legislate morality ” rings in my ears – possibly coined by the pro-abortion people? I always scoffed, believing as you do, that all laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

Leave a Reply