Thomas Molitor
In the intellectual battle for liberty, sometimes it’s a good idea to skip the latest high-brow attack on capitalism from the left or right and instead poke fun at a ridiculous news article.
The article “Soda Tax Uncaps a Fight,” published May 23 in the Wall Street Journal, provides a perfect target.
The article says makers and sellers of soda and other sweet drinks have intensified a fight against proposed taxes on their products, as a growing number of cities and states are weighing the measures to help fill depleted coffers.
Some states and cities debating new beverage taxes in 2010 include New Mexico, listed in the category of “proposed.” The only two states that have approved such a soda tax are Washington and Colorado. Several other states have existing small taxes on soft drinks, but those stirring controversy are the proposals for new, larger taxes.
Industry officials argue that taxes on soft drinks would penalize consumers at a time when people are already struggling and may lead to lost jobs for bottlers and distributors.
The article informs us of new reports in “scientific journals” that state that there’s “solid evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don’t just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it.”
Do we really need scientists to tell us that when two things happen at the same time, it suggests that there might be a cause-and-effect relationship? And, I’m sorry to say for these scientists that mere association is never ever proof of causation. The other “criterion” besides the “parallel trends” would be the complete absence of kids who drink soda and don’t gain weight.
Of course, such counterexamples exist: There are indeed people who drink a lot of soda and aren’t obese. Whoops, there goes the possible proof of a strict cause-and-effect relationship.
Where does it end?
Before continuing, I note with dismay that I am old enough to remember when libertarians and conservatives would object to government interference with tobacco and alcohol by asking, “What’s next? Will the government start taxing fatty foods and put warning labels on fettuccine alfredo?”
I starting thinking, ‘Where does arbitrary application and random taxation end?”
Should we tax the Hollywood movies studios for producing products that obviously dumb down our experience of being human and limit our insight into what is and what isn’t important to having a social conscious?
While we’re at it, I have a strong hunch that plastic forks cause people to eat unhealthful offerings at Taco Bell. Should we impose an excise tax on plastic forks?
The arbitrary taxation of certain categories of products and lifestyle experiences is clearly a matter of liberty.
But Gov. Gregoire of the state of Washington says he is trying to keep key state government services by taxing “discretionary purchases” to help plug a $2.8 billion budget gap.
“Things like cigarettes, candy and gum, bottled water and pop – I don’t think those things are going to hurt the economic recovery for consumers or the state,” Gregoire says.
It appears to me that it is open hunting season for politicians on “discretionary purchases.”
Future invasions of liberty
Why aren’t more taxpayers questioning the government’s authority to regulate against issues such as obesity? Is it the government’s role to regulate obesity? If we tax products that are high in calories, shouldn’t we also subsidize products that aren’t, such as vegetables?
Even so, it’s depressing that in an article in the Wall Street Journal, no one even mentioned the fact that consumers have a right to drink or eat whatever they please. Why should they be taxed on their consumptive preferences?
Beyond the injustice of more legal looting every time you buy a soda, these proposals would be yet more precedent for future government invasions of liberty. In 20 years, when someone proposes that slothful internet viewing be regulated, some scientist will no doubt say, “We did it with Coke.”
Molitor is a Republican candidate for the state House of Representatives, District 23.