« Perfection Pending | Main | A belated welcome from the Baron + site news »
"I DEMAND the right to get drunk..."
Just last night, I saw another of those '1st amendment lager' ads on TV, which have been running steadily in Utah for the last year. '1AL' was created as a protest of sorts against higher beer taxes in Utah (currently-- and not at all surprisingly--the highest in the country)
For those of you who are a little confused (as I was), the first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Mmmm...nope, don't see anything in there about beer drinking OR taxes. Wouldn't '21st Amendment Lager" be more appropriate? (Apparently, the name comes from a spat between the brewer and Utah lawmakers who don't like his advertisements.)
Just wondering...why shouldn't I support higher beer taxes? Even taking a 'morally-neutral' standpoint on alcohol, if a new law is proposed that increases tax revenue for a state or federal government, but I wouldn't be paying any of the tax myself, why shouldn't I support it? They could suggest a $2 tax per can of tuna fish and I would support it, because I wouldn't be paying that either... Obviously, the high beer taxes are passed into law because there's a large percentage of the population who wouldn't be paying it, and have no reason not to support it. Can Wasatch Brew Pub or anyone else provide a philosophical, social, or moral reason why non-beer drinkers should oppose higher beer taxes?
March 20, 2004 | Permalink
Comments
Yes.
1. Just because you pass a law saying that stealing is ok...doesn't make it so. Theft by democracy is supposed to be prevented by the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I guess due process simply means that the terrible tyranny of the Majority can do as it pleases. Perhaps you could continue this discussion with Msr. Basiat, who wrote the elegantly concise and witty book, The Law.
(oops, sorry, you didn't list 'legal' as one of the acceptable 'reasons' why folks should oppose higher [x] taxes).
2. What would your reaction (other than moving) be if you lived in Maryland and they devised a sneaky way to tax Mormons but no one else [let us also assume that the law meets Supreme Court standards]. You, and Los Marriott, surely wouldn't have any philosophical, social or moral reasons why non-mormons shouldn't impose higher taxes on Mormons?
Posted by: Effiminate Heterosexual Law Student | Mar 22, 2004 10:50:47 AM
At first I thought that the Effiminate Heterosexual Law Student's 2nd reason was crazy. But I've decided that there is a way to tax Mormons exclusively: tax Jello. Well, it would almost tax us exclusively.
Seriously, I hate taxes, so my knee-jerk instant reaction is "yes." But that's only because I oppose taxes as a rule.
And the EHLS's first reason is why democracy is bad and why the US is a republic; when a government is set up for majority rule, the majority can do whatever it pleases regardless of whether it is good or bad. It's called Mob Rule. Just because we can unfairly tax beer drinkers doesn't mean that it's right to do so.
Posted by: Jan | Mar 22, 2004 11:36:35 AM
Jello. Great idea! However, I think that a sugar tax would more effectively target the Mormon population of the country and is broad enough not to attract religious suspicions. Sorry, I failed to find hard facts/#s, but...I have read studies showing UT eats more sugar/capita than any other state (don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? yummy sugah!)
For example, in Hialeah, the Supreme Court struck down a seeminly innocuous regulation prohibiting the slaughter of animals inside Chicago city limits. However, the law was passed after complaints against practioners of Santeria, who sacrifice chickens, and are a Caribbean belief group.
So, for non-Utah states to pick on those rich Mormons (maybe California...since they want to ban smoking on public beaches and are so health conscious...they could really hit Steve Young's pocket book, eh?)...a sugar tax is definately the way to go.
facts:
CA no beach smoking
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595050684,00.html
Utah & Sugar
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041323,00.html
http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/47706
http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/44918
Posted by: Effiminate Heterosexual Law Student | Mar 22, 2004 2:20:49 PM
You're right...I didn't mention 'legal'. I'm working from the assumption that any such law passed Constitutional muster, which as far as I know 'sin taxes' have. After all, it's not that Utah is the only state to tax alcohol, it just happens to be the highest.
Everyone knows taxes are needed for governments to function, but no one wants to pay them. What criteria should we use to determine whether or not to support new tax laws? Any taxes placed on a specific product such as alcohol, or tobacco, or jello, or sugar, or beef, or gasoline, or anything would of course be unequal; certain portions of the population would be contributing a larger percentage of the total tax funds, while other portions wouldn't be paying anything.
Should we philosophically oppose taxes that are unequal even if we belonged to the portion of the population that wouldn't be paying them? If so, what kind of taxes would be truly 'equal'? (I'm not convinced current income, property, or sales tax are really 'equal taxes')
Does 'choice' come into play in the discussion? (i.e. you can conclude taxing alcohol is fair because you can always choose to buy less alcohol and thus pay less taxes, whereas taxing only Mormons or Jews or Hispanics exclusively wouldn't be 'fair' since there's no choice in the matter)
Can/should we include personal feelings and beliefs in the discussion? For example, a vegetarian might support a higher beef tax not only because he wouldn't be paying it, but because he believes people shouldn't be eating beef anyway. An environmentalist might support a higher gasoline tax for the same reason. (Ditto for alcohol and tobacco) Is this kind of personal bias wrong?
I think this is an interesting and broad topic for discussion...
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 23, 2004 7:39:00 AM
It's been a few months since anyone poted to this thread, but I'd like to add a little to it.
1) Individuals make up the government. Individuals vote because of feelings, beliefs, biases, experience, education, ignorance, etc. It's part of the process and unavoidable. Blaming a mostly Mormon state for passing laws that support Mormon beliefs is like blaming water for being wet. After so many years of being tolerant, "if you don't like living here, move."
2) The assertion that governments require funds to operate, and therefore taxes are required, is quite right. So, what to tax? This question is incredibly difficult to answer, especially if you bring the word "fair" into it. What seems "fair" to one person might be incredibly "unfair" to another. Personally, I don't think it's "fair" to tax first-home residential property because the community has no right or access to it. On the other hand, I blieve it's completely "fair" to tax business property, because it relies on the community to succeed.
But, on a more practical note, I'm a believer (for a large number of reasons) that taxes should be levied for two reasons. (A) People who daily benefit from goods or services provided by government should be taxed for their use. (B) People should be taxed for luxuries.
Examples of (A) are roads (tax: gasoline & cars) and the economy (tax: income & corporate).
Examples of (B) are alcohol, tobacco, prostitution (where legal, c.f. Nevada), non-staple foods, homes after the first, etc.
There are people all over the world that will scream, "I shouldn't be taxed for something I like to do just because you don't like that I do it." This inherently self-serving logic can be applied to all taxes and is therefore meaningless. On the other hand, the effect of whatever it is you like to do on society should be considered when deciding what to tax. Maybe you like to drink alcohol, but its effects on society are devestatingly real and expensive. Do you have any idea how much society pays to accomodate the priviledge of drinking alcohol? Considering the number of people who die each year due to drunk driving, the damage caused by the same, its effect on insurance premiums, the lost productivity of the employee and subsequent losses to the employer, etc. Any human activity that negatively impacts society should be taxed, and taxed *heavily*.
And one more thing. The beer company using the First Amendment to protest the influence of society on his business is incredibly funny. The First Amendment protects my right to express myself through my religion, and I often choose to express myself through voting...
Posted by: Keith Howick, Jr. | Jun 25, 2004 12:11:01 PM
