Fat people cost EVERYONE money by taxing our health care system, using more fuel to get around, etc, etc. I used to drink tons of soda and had the gut to prove it. I’ve sworn off liquid calories and lost the weight. This tax doesn’t affect me, but fat people’s lack of self control does. Tax the soda and let those who indulge pay their own way.

While were at it, eliminate corporate welfare that only benefits the few. Stop subsidizing corn, and HFCS will no longer be cost effective, and it will stop harming the nations health.

I’m sure coca cola and pepsico are very much for this tax.

The liberals are trying to do things nice and slow so most government-educated Americans don’t realize what is happening to them.

Posted by Dvorak on a newer forum: http://tinyurl.com/yz5klqd

There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.

That made no sense.

#60, Personally, I would rather the liberals stop doing the dog and pony show and just vote in universal health care. This has never been about needing the votes. This has always been about minimizing voter retaliation in 2010.

Although I agree with the rest of your post, I hope they DON’T vote it in. Once it’s there, it will never go away — just continue to morph is another failed government program.

#61, Agreed.

This discussion is about on which areas the government should be permitted to impose upon the citizenry via tax and which they should not. Are you suggesting that there ought to be no limits on which the government can impose a tax? How about we tax liberal websites as they cause an atrophy of the mind? How about we triple the tax on the Prius as they aren’t paying enough in gas tax? How about we tax vegetarian restaurants and Yoga centers? How about we tax Cal Berkeley cause they’re wacky?

Fundamentally, the Federal government is only given power by the States. The Federal government has never been given the power to tax items they deem “unhealthy”.

Although I do agree we will unlikely ever have 100% agreement on anything with the nation, one thing is clear. The Federal government is growing beyond its enumerated powers. As for complaining that someone is spending money that Libertarians personally don’t agree with, you’re entitled to complain if it’s your money that’s getting spent. Socialists have a hard time understanding where the money comes from it seems. Ownership started somewhere. It’s a little disingenuous to imply the money spent didn’t start off as someone’s own money.

Personally, I would rather the liberals stop doing the dog and pony show and just vote in universal health care. This has never been about needing the votes. This has always been about minimizing voter retaliation in 2010.

Tough shit. That’s life in a big country. You don’t like it, leave, and create your own little libertarian society where no one has to do anything they don’t want to do. Stone knives and bearskins is what you’ll have, because one of the hallmarks of civilization is compromise. But I don’t expect a libertarian to understand that.

That’s why libertarianism doesn’t scale well.

Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”

There ya go, now, was that so hard? Why don’t you elaborate on that. Tell me what you think libertarians are doing vs non-libertarians. I’ll check back later, gotta run for now.

Therefore Libertarianism is anti-socialism or big government.

Libertarianism scales very well. It’s just compatible with redistribution of wealth.

There is a reason why these couch liberals refuse to answer whether they would let 10 people die to save their wives.

Forcing someone else to do something is ok as long as it doesn’t hit close to home. But let the problem show up at their doorstep and they start crying like little girls and scream “NOT FAIR!”

Hmm. I don’t recall ever asking that question or one like it. You seem to be confusing a question where the any answer assumes something and one that doesn’t.

With that in mind, here was the original question:

Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?

As you can see, neither answer assumes anything. It is a simple question to determine if one thing or another is true and assumes nothing.

But let’s move on past that for now:

Libertarianism scales just fine. Socialism does not.

For instance, under socialism, the more you give people, the more they want. This money has to come from somewhere and eventually the economy collapses because there is no more money to be taken.

Under Libertarianism, nobody receives anything for free thus the money is not taken by force from anybody else.

We formed a big club and we’re paying our club dues to make it happen. Only the club is called “government” and the dues are called “taxes”.

You are confusing a democracy and a republic.

I don’t think so. Libertarians really believe that. If 100 people band together and raise money for a cause, they’re OK with it. If 300 million people band together for a cause, they hate it. Libertarianism doesn’t scale well.

51, It’s called sarcasm. Regardless, this tax is just the tip of the iceberg for universal health care. Hopefully more discussion will come of this so people can wake up and smell the coffee and see that they are giving up personal liberties in favor of government control and penalties.

Heck, I just wished the liberals would be more aggressive about it. I would love to see public reaction for any future tax on beef because many liberals whine that eating too much of it is unhealthy and it contributes to “man-made” global warming.