"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

That's nothing short of spin, plain and simple. Fiscal policy is ways and
means. Punitive taxation is nannyism.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity contributions, and for
legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also nany-ism?

Nope. They aren't punitive, nor designed to protect citizens from
themselves.


Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework within which
we all function, and all businesses & corporations too, is a result of
"legislation" if you use it as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth
a dollar, why do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.
When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why
is this such a tough concept to grasp?


In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad gummint
interference (which I am also against) is friggin' stupid. There is
*alread* a huge web of rules & practices in place, which gave rise to the
situation as it exists. Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine
about how changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.

See my response immediately above.

... And it would not work unless the level of punitive taxation would
exceed the financial benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable
idea.

I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations & R&D are also bad
unworkable ideas?

Oh dear. (sigh)

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?


Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The "Medicare Reform
Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big pharm corps was prejudicial,
as are speeding laws. Heck, the recent Supreme Court decision to make the
Treasury put Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people with
good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group.
Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly.
Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking. Phillip Morris
kills more people each year than murderers, and McDonalds, through the
Ronald McDonald Foundation, helps myriad needy families throughout the
country. My point is that when such prejudicial decisions as to whom to tax
and whom to exempt are made by those idiots in Washington we commonly refer
to as 'legislators,' the end result will be a morass.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.

I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life.
Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a
wide margin.

... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to promote their
'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for pushing
Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody tried that.

Knock yourself out. Personally I just choose to avoid the products of both.
What a novel idea! I believe it's called self-reliance.



And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite
in this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor pretending to be
against nannyism while demanding that a Race Committee protect me from too
much wind.

LOL. You sound like a friggin' broken record. Whatever.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from
ourselves, that *is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far enough with this
approach, then you might as well get rid of gov't. After all, it's only a
great big nanny to protect those who shouldn't need it or want it if only
they had enough backbone.

Actually the government is really just one big nanny. They protect us from
armed combatants (the armed services), they provide for the welfare of the
needy (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc.), and they mandate such things
as seatbelt laws, gun laws, labor laws, drug laws, etc. ad infinitum/ad
nauseum. They also mandate social security rather than allowing people to
invest that money in something that earns income. With the exception of the
military, I generally turn a jaundiced eye to what our government does.
That makes me a libertarian, like it or not. You, OTOH, abhor the concept
of self-reliance (your vitriolic rancor toward the GOP's attempt to
privatize retirement funds as opposed to social security a typical example)
(socialism), which makes you a socialist. Of course you claim to be a
conservative. So who's the hypocrite here?

... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive taxation
or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or profoundly
prejudiced against looking at the situation rationally.

And your definition of rationality would be *being in unswerving agreement
with you?*

You are not fractionally as bright as you believe yourself to be. You are
interminably steeped in hypocrisy and denial. Can you spell 'dogma?'

Max