|
|
|
|
|
by rTX5CMRXIfFG
941 days ago
|
|
Well you dismissed the idea of defining it before the commenter had a chance, so are you really making an honest argument here? If a policymaker wanted to ban “unnecessary consumption” they would come up with a list of what that is and whether your purchase would be banned or not would depend on whether you’re buying something from that list, which they can also incrementally grow over time. |
|
Constituents will accept taxes and other disincentives (see alcohol), they will not tolerate some political rep telling them what is unnecessary consumption and banning their desired products (broadly speaking, there are always exceptions and nuance).
Walk the pavement like you would for a day running for office, ask your potential voters if they would like this policy. I’ve canvassed multiple times for US political reps, so I have an idea what this looks like.
A small amount of fiat to offset harm is far more palatable. Look at this dashboard spin. Don’t yell at humanity, provide it better options.