[jckt]

While I am inclined to agree with you (government overreach? almost sounds like some form of censorship, as a law), I think it's fallacious to believe that new books have some intrinsic good. In fact, new books probably don't, if we take into account the vast number of them being written every year. And I do think that if someone has written something great, a discount is unlikely going to do it any real damage. The point is that good books will be good, and their newness has little to do with it. Conversely, classics are classics for a reason.

That probably leaves the question about books that become "accidental hits" or "sleeper hits". But even then, this discounts aren't going to completely wipe them out and I would believe that these sorts are the exception rather than the norm. Again, there are simply so many new books published all the time, and very little of it can possibly be good.

Gwern has some good thoughts that I feel are relevant:

http://www.gwern.net/Culture%20is%20not%20about%20Esthetics

[javert]

If someone pays for a book, that person wanted the book.

That is the only kind of "good" there is.

You are correct that new books are not intrinsically good because there is no such thing as intrinsic good, ever.

That view is based on invalid philosophical theories.

Thanks, Plato.

[NeverEnough]

I believe they mean good as in a consumer good, not a moral good.

that is, how should this good be taxed, is it something essential like food that should carry a low tax rate?