Of course, it is necessary that you differ, although I appreciate the manner of objection. That income taxes were resisted for a long while is true, and that they grew beyond what was originally envisioned is true. On the other hand, it is not clear why taxes on property or consumption should be acceptable, but income tax should not, and commonly sales tax is collected at the source without objection. Thus, the acquiescence in the general form of the income tax seems sound enough.
I do not see the regulation of drugs as "legislating morality", and I think the comparison with Prohibition, which sought to curtail an activity steeped in custom, and which could be easily gotten around with some home brew, is faulty. Drugs are dangerous substances that subvert personal responsibility through addiction and other side affects, and have a deleterious effect on society. Whether or not the drug laws are too harsh, or the current focus on interdiction should be rethought, are different issues.
Also, in one sense we legislate morality whatever we do, as when we decide that murder is wrong, or uphold the right of contract. What we try to do is differentiate between those things which have sufficient social importance to be "our business", and those things which should be left alone........ |
