<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Apr 4, 2017, at 7:15 AM, William Flynn Wallace <<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com">foozler83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Here is a real poser for libertarians: the toxin most damaging to our health is tobacco. As nonsmokers we are paying a lot of our taxes for the health care of smokers and that just chaps my ass!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Second is alcohol. Third is whatever is making people fat.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">The rest of the toxins are very minor players indeed compared to those above. That we know of.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">What is a libertarian to do? He doesn't want to dictate on other people's choices, but other people are infringing on his wallet!</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a libertarianism 101 problem. The usual solution offered is to not have anyone pay taxes period. Then no one is forced to pay for other people's health choices -- like smoking, drinking, overeating, skydiving, and the like. (Of course, libertarianism 201 would also consider things like government interventions in healthcare, imports, insurance, etc. that also restrict people's choice -- often making embrace riskier choices.) This is the general answer too: don't force people to subsidize something others do -- an obvious diminution of their freedom -- and then argue that those others' freedom must be restricted because the first group has to pay.</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, the kind of justification you're hinting at is similar to have conservatives argue about recreational drugs or open immigration. In the former case, they'll argue they have to pay for the health consequences of recreational drug use -- so they should be able to restrict or prohibit such use. And they argue that they have to pay for whatever government services immigrants use -- so they should be able to restrict or prohibit immigration. In both cases they accept a restriction of freedom as a justification for restricting more freedom.</div><div><br></div><div>This post reminds me of Bill's bringing up libertarian paternalism. I expect a similar reaction should he decide to read my reply.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;">Later!</div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">http://author.to/DanUst</a></font></div></div></div></body></html>