“Fifty years ago this month, Berkeley was the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement,” intones Robert Reich. “Now, Berkeley is moving against Big Soda” by imposing a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks.
Naturally, Reich fails to see the irony that a city known for freedom is now attempting to take away people’s freedom. Of course, a one-cent-per-ounce tax doesn’t really take away freedom to enjoy sugary drinks. Nor does quadrupling the price of housing take away freedom to live in a single-family home. The whole point is to reserve these privileges for the wealthy, who no doubt are considered refined enough to appreciate the homes and drinks they consume.
And because viagra online in canada it is automated, you will have time for important things. The patients used levitra no prescription http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/VIL-DIV-2010-2011.pdf to be deprived of love, sex and other health disorder. It also dilates the blood vessels to get more energized usa discount cialis and work more efficiently. But you have a choice to online order for viagra age well.
The same people who supported free speech are those who support taxing behaviors they don’t approve. They don’t believe the government should have the right to censor what we say, but they do believe the government should have the right to censor what we consume or where we live. I hope some cultural anthropologist has studied how the Progressives managed to transition from suspecting government to loving it.
Randall;
As you mentioned in the prior post, progressives continue to exercise THEIR free speech rights by calling you names like: “right wing,” “Koch brothers,” and “tea party.”
In addition to trying to shout you down with insults, they will try to tax you into silence or subservience. As US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote way back in 1819 (McCullough v Maryland): “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
These Berkeley people are educated and learned their lessons (on how to control others) very well.
Yet another example among millions of people who champion “free speech” when their opinion is unpopular, but then once they have power seek to stifle speech they disagree with. Both conservatives and liberals do it, but I think the hypocrisy of the 1960s radicals turning colleges and college towns into a new Victorian Era ruled by PC rules is particularly ironic.
I agree with the Antiplanner – Berkeley needs to stop telling people where to live. For too long, NIMBYs have been blocking high density housing by using lawsuits, zoning regulations and other Big Government instruments of coersion. Fortunately, however, these NIMBYs have been dying of old age or otherwise losing their influence on the City Council, and we are starting to see some market-based response to the demand for multi-family housing:
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/01/14/explosive-downtown-berkeley-housing-boom-underway
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/12/03/work-begins-on-controversial-berkeley-housingretail-project/
Berkeley is especially desirable for many due to its proximity to mass transit (BART), which makes it convenient to commute to the high-tech hub of San Francisco.
Thanks to the Antiplanner for calling attention to this important issue!
Another hopeful sign of change away from Big Government interference with the market is that Berkeley has also been to experiment with market-based parking pricing, to ensure that drivers pay for the actual cost of their car storage:
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/10/15/metered-parking-changes-launch-today-in-berkeley/.
“Of course, a one-cent-per-ounce tax doesn’t really take away freedom to enjoy sugary drinks. … The whole point is to reserve these privileges for the wealthy…”
As long as you can buy soda with a SNAP EBT card, the poor will continue to enjoy sugary drinks. Besides, studies show that rich people drink far less soda than poor people. (Here’s one.)
So everything will work out. Poor people will continue to get their free soda, the cost of which—including tax—will be paid for by productive people … who don’t drink soda themselves.
I LOVE GOVERNMENT!
The Antiplanner wrote:
The same people who supported free speech are those who support taxing behaviors they don’t approve. They don’t believe the government should have the right to censor what we say, but they do believe the government should have the right to censor what we consume or where we live. I hope some cultural anthropologist has studied how the Progressives managed to transition from suspecting government to loving it.
I do not approve of this tax for an assortment of reasons (for one thing, it smacks of social engineering). I do not drink such sodas because they are bad for my health, but other people may not have the medical issues I have had with such things. Oh, and what about sugar-free diet sodas?
But – I do not have a problem with taxes on tobacco and alcohol (and hopefully marihuana), and yes those are “sin” taxes.
Another example of “We have the answers, give us the power and we’ll fix everything” > > > elitists, control freaks, megalomaniacs, and/or psychopaths eventually running the government. History is chock full of this in one flavor or another – only the armband changes. What’s sad is that the general public has forgotten what to watch out for.
But – I do not have a problem with taxes on tobacco and alcohol (and hopefully marihuana), and yes those are “sin” taxes.
What is the ‘sin’ that their users are guilty of?
What is the ‘sin’ that their users are guilty of?
Free will.
Progressives are far from the only people who try to tax or forbid behaviors they do not approve of. What about conservatives banning drugs, alcohol (in the 20s), online poker, abortion, gay marriage, etc.?
A 1 cent per ounce tax would add 12 cents per can to the cost of something that is so cheap can be bought in the grocery store for the equivalent of 20 cents per can. At least I could still buy soft drinks. Conservatives think I am not smart enough to decide whether to spend my own money on playing online poker.
“Progressives are far from the only people who try to tax or forbid behaviors they do not approve of. What about conservatives banning drugs, alcohol (in the 20s), online poker, abortion, gay marriage, etc.?”
Which is why libertarianism is socially superior.
And it ain’t just conservatives banning drugs. The support for legalizing drugs other than cannabis—cocaine, heroin, E, meth—is at 11% or lower in the US. Evidence. It ain’t just conservatives who favor banning drugs; it’s liberals, too.
Prohibition against alcohol (which was at least done through a constitutional amendment) was supported by BOTH conservatives AND liberals. No way 2/3rds of states would pass an amendment otherwise. This is basic US history. Even the Library of Congress states that “Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms.”
Democratic Senator Feinstein co-sponsored a bill to ban online poker. As did Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), and Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo). So…
Yeah, social conservatives have battled abortion, but so have Democrats. Just see democratsforlife.org.
Keep believing there’s a difference. Keep making shit up. You’re really good at it!
What about conservatives banning … online poker…
You can blame conservatives fir a lot of things, but the on-line gambling ban is not one of them.
This has been blocked by liberal pols because they have not been able to tax it as of yet and people cannot do any activity without the progressives in government getting their cut. Once the taxation (extortion) issue is solved, on-line gambling will be allowed and encouraged by your friendly governments. And a very good wager would be to bet that they will let you use your food stamp card on line for this purpose.
The progressive movement has always been about coercion against freedom, except for a few freedoms allowed by the elite. It is a movement for and of the elite.
The free speech movement was also not about freedom, but rather about a power shift. The radicals of the time were inspired by communism and wanted control of society. The hippies were into freedom, but they were a side effect of the main movement of the 60s – a movement which I observed at the time and sometimes was part of.