j4: (BOMB)
[personal profile] j4
I don't blog about the news, but this baffles me:
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 [livejournal.com profile] 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.

Date: 2007-01-10 11:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caramel-betty.livejournal.com
One potential answer (though not exactly counter) to the libertarian argument is that if you smash your head open and spew grey matter everywhere, you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet, using up doctors, consultants, surgeons and nurses who could be dealing with something else - on average, at least.

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.

Date: 2007-01-10 12:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet

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?

Date: 2007-01-10 12:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caramel-betty.livejournal.com
This sort of thing has come into the news recently, such as "Should people who take up smoking get lung cancer treatment?" or "Should fat people all just die?"

There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.

Date: 2007-01-10 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.

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.

Date: 2007-01-10 12:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] olithered.livejournal.com
A smoker once told me that the tax they pay on tobacco is vastly more than their cost to the NHS.

I wonder if you could tax everything in accordance with the probable cost to society (or the environment) rather than its value?

Date: 2007-01-10 12:51 pm (UTC)
lnr: (flowers)
From: [personal profile] lnr
Awww, bunny.

Date: 2007-01-10 01:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] j4.livejournal.com
I wonder if you could tax everything in accordance with the probable cost to society (or the environment) rather than its value?

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).

Date: 2007-01-10 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] olithered.livejournal.com
If there is a word I'm not aware of it. Do you have any suggestions?

I like your extension (and had not thought of it), but I fear benefit is much harder to quantify than cost.

Date: 2007-01-10 08:20 pm (UTC)
aldabra: (Default)
From: [personal profile] aldabra
> Is there a word for it?

Internalising externalities?

Date: 2007-01-11 06:35 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
Tax raised from smoking per annum, approx = £7.5bn Cost to NHS of smoking related illnesses (some of which are caused by, for example, car fumes anyway) approx = £2.5bn.

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 [livejournal.com profile] chris_dillow_fd for a real answer, I just read what they say...

(blame [livejournal.com profile] caramel_betty for my presence...)

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 30th, 2026 03:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios