Re: Why "progressive" tax schemes are evil

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Tue Mar 20 2001 - 13:59:40 PST

> 1. Eating meat. HIGH RISK of food poisoning at the packing plant, where
> the consumer has no control. This was graphically illustrated in
> Sinclair's "The Jungle", which led to the first meat inspection laws. It
> is still true today to some degree, to judge by Schlosser's "Fast Food
> Nation". Gov't regulations needed? Yes.

No. Streamlined, extremely punitive tort laws would incent producers to proactively
be responsible. Regulatory agencies are expensive, subject to rampant corruption,
and obviously ineffective.

> 2. Drinking apple juice. LOW RISK of E. Coli; I never noticed a case
> before Odwalla. Gov't regulations needed? I could go for requiring a
> warning on unpasteurized juices; that seems proportional to the risk. I'd
> like to be free to purchase unpasteurized juice if I choose.

Darn tootin'.

> 3. Investing in stocks. HIGH RISK of loss of capital. However, when you
> sign up with your online broker, they not only warn you about the risk,
> but they ask you questions to see how experienced an investor you are.
> This reduces investor risk, and guess what? It's there because of
> government regulations. Just as people selling investments are not
> allowed to lie to you about risk. Gov't regulations needed? During account
> setup, yes. During each trade, no. Tom's suggestion is like a credit card
> company that asks you to re-apply before every purchase.

BS. Everybody should be free to buy whatever they want. Again, tort is the right
control lever, for the same reasons.

BTW, again, this doesn't imply that we don't need dramatic tort reform. It's just
it's a better tool.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:31 PDT