Pred and breakfast
Jan. 10th, 2007 10:29 amI don't blog about the news, but this baffles me:
vinaigrettegirl for a nice variation) the anti-discrimination laws might mean that running a B&B would not allow you to guarantee being able to act according to your faith, if your faith were to dictate that, for example, you may not offer shelter even unto the least and most helpless of gay people, brown people, etc. But how do you get from that position to the idea that you have a God-given right to run a B&B in the first place, and that the state must therefore defend that right? I look forward to hearing Zoroastrian librarians insisting that the Bodleian has no right to prohibit them from kindling therein any fire or flame.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.I can see how (to take an example that's already becoming extremely irksome, so thanks to
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 11:47 am (UTC)Of course, if the person making the argument is a libertarian who doesn't believe the state should take any taxes at all and certainly not for medicine, that's not going to fly. That attitude is generally less prevalent in Britain than in (for example) America, though.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:00 pm (UTC)True. So, do we stop people doing things that might make them need medical treatment, or do we refuse to treat people who could have avoided their illness/injury?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:02 pm (UTC)There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:08 pm (UTC)Me either -- just interested in the questions. Though I feel that the answer should often involve a reminder that the existence of grey areas in the middle does not necessarily prevent people being able to come to some kind of majority consensus on the really-quite-distinct colours at the two ends of the scale. (It's sort of the opposite of the excluded middle, and I wish I knew a word for it.)
Not arguing with you in particular, just arguing, really.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:40 pm (UTC)I wonder if you could tax everything in accordance with the probable cost to society (or the environment) rather than its value?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 01:10 pm (UTC)I like that idea. Is there a word for it?
For bonus points (this may have been implicit in your suggestion -- if so, my apologies for unnecessary subtitling!) it should be taxed according to the probable net cost to society (most things have some benefit to somebody as well).
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 06:03 pm (UTC)I like your extension (and had not thought of it), but I fear benefit is much harder to quantify than cost.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 08:20 pm (UTC)Internalising externalities?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 06:35 pm (UTC)Ergo, as a non-smoker, I thank smokers the country over for keeping the taxes I have to pay down, and think they can have whatever they need.
A sort of tax to cover what you mean is, I think, a Pigouvian tax, but you'd need to ask someone like
(blame