Monday, October 15, 2007
People like this scare me to death
I had an interesting debate with a coworker today. Some of us in the office were talking about idiots who buy big pickups and don't bother to learn how to drive them. Innocuous enough talk, right? Unfortunately, no...because the conversation soon turned to how terrible it is for the environment to drive anything larger than a sedan. And how people "don't have the right" to drive big trucks or SUVs. And of course, I said that actually, they do have that right. The government has no authority to regulate what I can purchase.
Then, of course, like all good liberals, one of my coworkers suggested a new tax. Specifically, he said the government should tax SUVs. There's a tax on cigarettes, he claimed, because smoking pollutes the air around you - which is incorrect, actually, since cigarette taxes have been around far longer than concerns about second-hand smoke. But anyway, from there, he continued to say that if we're going to tax smokers, we should tax SUVs because they damage the environment. He also said there should be a "special tax for alcoholics" because they harm "society", there should be a tax on pornography for the same reason, and it sounded like he was about to keep going with this insane litany when I raised a hand and said "Excuse me, but why don't we take this just half a step further and tax anyone who's different?"
He protested that I was putting words in his mouth, then proceeded to make a Tourettesian outburst about "swaggering drunken rednecks" and move on to attacking me personally, calling me "completely blind" and "uneducated". Which is amusing to say the least, given the fact that only last Friday I was at an awards ceremony being congratulated on the 4.0 average I earned last semester.
Anyway, he tried to claim that he wasn't advocating taxing difference, as I suggested, but really, wasn't he? People who smoke are bad; tax them. People who drive big cars are bad; tax them. People who drink are bad, people who buy porn are bad; tax them too. These are societal judgements about how people are "supposed" to act, and he advocates enforcing them financially. And so government controls what we do, what we buy, what we drive, how we spend our time and our money. How much further from there is it to government controlling what we say? And from there, it's barely any distance at all to controlling what we think.
Then, of course, like all good liberals, one of my coworkers suggested a new tax. Specifically, he said the government should tax SUVs. There's a tax on cigarettes, he claimed, because smoking pollutes the air around you - which is incorrect, actually, since cigarette taxes have been around far longer than concerns about second-hand smoke. But anyway, from there, he continued to say that if we're going to tax smokers, we should tax SUVs because they damage the environment. He also said there should be a "special tax for alcoholics" because they harm "society", there should be a tax on pornography for the same reason, and it sounded like he was about to keep going with this insane litany when I raised a hand and said "Excuse me, but why don't we take this just half a step further and tax anyone who's different?"
He protested that I was putting words in his mouth, then proceeded to make a Tourettesian outburst about "swaggering drunken rednecks" and move on to attacking me personally, calling me "completely blind" and "uneducated". Which is amusing to say the least, given the fact that only last Friday I was at an awards ceremony being congratulated on the 4.0 average I earned last semester.
Anyway, he tried to claim that he wasn't advocating taxing difference, as I suggested, but really, wasn't he? People who smoke are bad; tax them. People who drive big cars are bad; tax them. People who drink are bad, people who buy porn are bad; tax them too. These are societal judgements about how people are "supposed" to act, and he advocates enforcing them financially. And so government controls what we do, what we buy, what we drive, how we spend our time and our money. How much further from there is it to government controlling what we say? And from there, it's barely any distance at all to controlling what we think.
Comments:
<< Home
Congrats on your 4.0! (esp, those dang lib profs make it hard *heh*
Secondly, I am liberal on most things..but I drive a big ol pickup, smoke a pipe and consume my share of spiritous liquors. If your coworkers raise my sin taxes,
I will have to go straight, damn!!
Secondly, I am liberal on most things..but I drive a big ol pickup, smoke a pipe and consume my share of spiritous liquors. If your coworkers raise my sin taxes,
I will have to go straight, damn!!
Yeah, but you're a SENSIBLE liberal, BB. Not an ivory-tower nutcase with a knee-jerk reaction to tax anything that moves.
You're right about BB, JB. He's one of the few liberals whom I actually enjoy! I second his congratulations on your 4.0!
Yes, the only thing the sort of liberals you are referring to aren't against is immoral behavior. This is proven by the acceptance of homosexual parades and other disgusting public behavior in the streets of America. Incidently, I haven't heard any of them suggesting we raise taxes on porn.
By the way, I have a truck with an 8' bed, and I drive it a lot. :)
Interesting post!
Yes, the only thing the sort of liberals you are referring to aren't against is immoral behavior. This is proven by the acceptance of homosexual parades and other disgusting public behavior in the streets of America. Incidently, I haven't heard any of them suggesting we raise taxes on porn.
By the way, I have a truck with an 8' bed, and I drive it a lot. :)
Interesting post!
I'm with Churchill (as I frequently am): "there is no such thing as a good tax."
I must disagree with your point about homosexual parades. I personally am not against homosexuality in the slightest, though the point of "gay pride" has always escaped me - if, as we're told, being gay is not a choice but a simple biological fact, then why be "proud" of it, any more than I might be "proud" of having blue eyes or being 5'11"? But I digress. My point is that while I think "gay pride" parades are a bit silly, I don't believe they hurt anyone (beyond messing up traffic), so there's no reason for the government to get involved. Just as there's no reason for them to get involved in pornography, alcohol, tobacco, or whatever. Beyond preventing people from hurting each other, no politician has the right to determine my morality.
I must disagree with your point about homosexual parades. I personally am not against homosexuality in the slightest, though the point of "gay pride" has always escaped me - if, as we're told, being gay is not a choice but a simple biological fact, then why be "proud" of it, any more than I might be "proud" of having blue eyes or being 5'11"? But I digress. My point is that while I think "gay pride" parades are a bit silly, I don't believe they hurt anyone (beyond messing up traffic), so there's no reason for the government to get involved. Just as there's no reason for them to get involved in pornography, alcohol, tobacco, or whatever. Beyond preventing people from hurting each other, no politician has the right to determine my morality.
Speaking of safety, I wonder if they've thought of the fact that cars smaller than SUVs, trucks etc. are less save than little cars. So much for protecting the public. Unlike the left, however, I wouldn't advocate taxing Hondas or whatever. (I'm not Ralph Nader after all.)
Anyway, tell your liberal friend me and my big polluting Jeep say hello.
Anyway, tell your liberal friend me and my big polluting Jeep say hello.
Well, they argue with that too. This same liberal, and one of his more affable friends, tried to tell me earlier in that same conversation that trucks and SUVs are just as dangerous as cars because they roll over more easily. My retort was this: they're safer if you bother to learn how to drive them, which is what's important! But of course, personal responsibility doesn't really strike a chord with these people....
This just goes to show that for liberals, taxation isn't about revenues -- it's about social engineering. It's about control of the populace.
Post a Comment
<< Home
subscribe
