> You can blame everything on individuals: "they're lazy", "they're dumb", "they didn't work as hard as I did", "they could save themselves", that's very easy to do, and reassuring in a way. But that's also a very bleak view on our social organization.
I think the lazy people are those who think they should attempt to fix social ills by levying regressive taxes, rather than doing the actual work of convincing and helping people to do better.
> Or you can admit that we're all infinitely small parts of a gigantic machinery, that we're all mutually responsible for the system we live in, and that some of the issues raised here are direct consequences of "the state" and its policies.
But you are not responsible for, nor entitled to, deciding what people do to themselves in private. When a lone free man hurts himself, no injustice is carried out in the act.
> Just like some people are born in good conditions, probably a majority of hn readers are, a lot of people are not. You don't have to care, you don't have to help them, but at least don't criticize people trying to better society.
You can try to better society all you want, but do it without worsening the part of society where people drink responsibly but live on a budget. Minimum pricing punishes all people who buy alcohol for the perceived benefit of those who are presumed to be prone to abusing it, that is why it is unjust. If you just want to better society, work with your local chapter of alcoholics anonymous. If you're just going to sign off on the minimum pricing laws and feel morally righteous about it (because you have no skin in the game), then surely you are the one who is failing morally; the compulsion to "do something, anything!" about each perceived societal ill does not make you a good person.
> Even if you don't care about people and just think in numbers, getting these people out of misery/addiction is a net positive for society on purely a monetary perspective.
I think the whole thing is an exercise in not caring about people and just thinking in numbers. It is not your right to go around imposing your vision of the moral duties one owes to oneself.
The moral wrong of imposing a regressive tax on your personal pet peeves is long lasting, and indicates a lack of commitment to principle. Society does not benefit, on the whole, from standing in favour of an endless stream of petty tyrannies.
Your compulsion to control other people's alcohol consumption by fiat is purely selfish, no matter what you tell yourself, and no matter what word games you choose to impugn the character of those who don't agree.
I think the lazy people are those who think they should attempt to fix social ills by levying regressive taxes, rather than doing the actual work of convincing and helping people to do better.
> Or you can admit that we're all infinitely small parts of a gigantic machinery, that we're all mutually responsible for the system we live in, and that some of the issues raised here are direct consequences of "the state" and its policies.
But you are not responsible for, nor entitled to, deciding what people do to themselves in private. When a lone free man hurts himself, no injustice is carried out in the act.
> Just like some people are born in good conditions, probably a majority of hn readers are, a lot of people are not. You don't have to care, you don't have to help them, but at least don't criticize people trying to better society.
You can try to better society all you want, but do it without worsening the part of society where people drink responsibly but live on a budget. Minimum pricing punishes all people who buy alcohol for the perceived benefit of those who are presumed to be prone to abusing it, that is why it is unjust. If you just want to better society, work with your local chapter of alcoholics anonymous. If you're just going to sign off on the minimum pricing laws and feel morally righteous about it (because you have no skin in the game), then surely you are the one who is failing morally; the compulsion to "do something, anything!" about each perceived societal ill does not make you a good person.
> Even if you don't care about people and just think in numbers, getting these people out of misery/addiction is a net positive for society on purely a monetary perspective.
I think the whole thing is an exercise in not caring about people and just thinking in numbers. It is not your right to go around imposing your vision of the moral duties one owes to oneself.
The moral wrong of imposing a regressive tax on your personal pet peeves is long lasting, and indicates a lack of commitment to principle. Society does not benefit, on the whole, from standing in favour of an endless stream of petty tyrannies.
Your compulsion to control other people's alcohol consumption by fiat is purely selfish, no matter what you tell yourself, and no matter what word games you choose to impugn the character of those who don't agree.