Well, yes. The government does believe that it knows better than you - and it is backed by an unholy legion of ignorant medical professionals (sadly, not an oxymoron) and an even bigger legion of nannyists which hangs on its (white) coat tails, screaming for "action".

But the only even vaguely logical excuse they have for such an attitude is that "we all pay for each other's health care, via the NHS. So we pay for your self-indulgence."

There are more holes in that argument than in a mountain of Swiss cheese. The remedy is easy: get rid of the NHS . Any why not? It only pretends to offer adequate healthcare, anyway.

>sod 'em.

I'll drink to that.

I've taken to using the same reasoning to excuse my underaged drinking. Nothing better than combining political righteousness and gin.

I would not mind following their advice quite so much, if I had any respect or regard for their intellect or wisdom, but there is not a single one of them that merits any degree of respect, either as professionals or as people.

And don't they get so indignant when we choose not to listen or take notice of their 'advice'. Poking the proverbial stick through the bars of their cage, is becoming quite amusing in it's own perverse way...

Long gone are the days when people such as Doctors, Bobbies, or any other 'pillar of the Community', had the automatic respect of the populace at large. As in any other field of endeavour, respect has to be earned, and our present bunch of 'betters' just dont know how to do that...

Here in the States such taxes are termed "sin taxes". The sin tax is dear among the authoritarians of both left and right. Mostly the left, though.

It is a practice that is in line with the idea of interpreting old laws in such a fashion that new "rights" are the result. (See US abortion "law")

The reason for legislation by tax and judicial interpretation is that the electorate needs to be worked around in order for the promised land of social justice to come about. No need to consult the average citizen- they're "victims" of Big Industry and thus cannot be relied upon to outlaw the products that their Ivory-Tower betters have decided are dangerous.

encouraging me to switch from gin to, say, orange juice

No need, Alex. A healthy measure of gin (healthy as in good as in large), some freshly-squeezed orange juice and a hearty dash of Angostura bitters, shaken over ice in a cocktail shaker and served with some mint leaves. Plymouth Gin call it the 'Orange Blossom Special,' and very good it is too.

> Or are politicians really just better people than me, more competent in deciding my choices than I am?

No, you're a smart guy, so you know what's best for yourself. This isn't an entirely safe line of argument though, since it's probably not too hard to show that most people *aren't* competent to decide what's best for themselves. But the issue of competence is irrelevant: the government might be the best decision maker in the land, but that still gives them absolutely no right to make your decisions for you.

Oh Alex, it's this socialism bit, you just don't get it....

I am in total agreement Alex.

From the 'you get the government you deserve' section.

I agree. But the question is why do they continue to make inroads? It seems that most people resent being told what to do, but yet the Nanny State expands. The only answer I can come up with why the nannies are not attacked with vigor is most people, deep inside, want that 'safety net'. It's irrational, and likely borne from the same superstitions that had people bowing before the Church for centuries. Nothing has really changed all that much. The tentacles of superstition wind themselves into and back out of the Halls of Power man creates.

I suppose democracy, at this large of a scale, is really nothing more than tyranny of the irrationalists. Oblique fear turns into one entering a musty voting booth in a school gymnasium once every few years to pull a lever and feel better about things. The grandiose schizophrenics on the other end feel anointed from on high (or low) to step on a few necks in name of Good. Nobody really knows exactly what is being created or destroyed by this process. It's just comforting.

So I agree, but I feel I resent the Nanny State whenever it manifests itself much more than the average Joe or Josephine (women especially adore Nanny-dom and while I would not want to turn back the clock, there is a noticeable correlation between the prominence of women in politics and the degree of Nanny-ism - women adore Kerry). But I don't see it changing unfortunately. Since the 'left' and 'right' here in the US merely means the 'left' and 'right' side of a soft left-center middle that 90% of the population evidently buys into. Not exactly the culture from which one expects a stake to be driven into the heart of Nanny-ism.

Toolkien, there's a well-known explanation for the expansion of bureaucratic power even though. in the aggregate. these impositions are net harmful to us all. It's Milton Friedman's idea of 'concentrated benefits and diffuse costs'. The upshot is that single issue fanatics and lobby groups intrinsically have the upper hand as society at large cannot hope to combat all their demands. Once a concession is made, it is virtually impossible to withdraw it. Thus the ratchet turns. Couple this with the quite deliberate Gramscian entryism of the professions and the situation for minarchism is bleak indeed.

Excise taxes are a dreadfully regressive form of taxation. The purpose of any tax should be revenue generation. To dress a tax up as a tool of social engineering makes it even more iniquitous.

To add insult to injury, Alex, where I live a litre of Tanqueray costs about £9.00. :)

It is not just that I was starving Britain's public services...

I find the suggestion that tax avoidance, or even evasion, is wrong, to be about as ridiculous as the idea that shooting at burglars is wrong. Tax, burglary, it's all the same to me.

The only fault I can find in your behavior is that you didn't purchase a CASE of gin at the lower tax rates.

While it may be enjoyable to rant otherwise, the primary reason for heavy taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc. is NOT to discourage their use.

The real reason for these taxes is just the opposite: the "best" taxes are those that impact consumer behavior the least. Demand for alcohol and tobacco is highly inflexible. That is, you can tax them heavily, but it does not distort behavior much.