[mkempe]

False alternative.

Maybe it is none of the city government's business whether a corporation provides on-premise food to their employees, regardless of what you may imagine consequences might or might not be to the aspirations of other people and corporations.

However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" then anything goes. There would be no limits to interference by local government.

[dragonwriter]

I think you just illustrated my point that it is much easier to answer the question “is the proposed policy a reasonable way of acheiving the stated goal” without running into clashes of moral first principles than it is to answer “is the proposed policy a legitimate function or government”.

Which answers your upthread question about why answer the former question without first addressing the latter question.

> However, if the standard is "internalize externalities"

I'm not saying that is the standard, I am saying that this policy can readily be rejected without even reaching that question.

[mkempe]

You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency.

When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)

[dragonwriter]

> You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism

Thank you.

> the rejection of principles

Pragmatism does not in general, or here in particular, involve rejection of principles. It may reject arguing about abstract principles when there is a simpler and less divisive means of addressing an issue.

> When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)

We could argue all day about whether you are right or whether it is, despite not being a legitimate independent power of the executive under the Constitution, nevertheless a statutory power of the Executive under laws duly passed by Congress under unquestioned commerce clause power—this isn't regulating intrastate transactions that might distant impact interstate or foreign trade, but directly regulating foreign trade—and, as such, a legitimate executive power.

Or we could just agree that it's an idiotic counterproductive policy regardless of whether or not it's within the President's legitimate scope of legal power.

[mkempe]

Natch.