Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
Taxing in proportion to externalities is sound policy.
I agree, but that isn’t what is being discussed. Pricing in externalities isn’t artificial though. That could be well argued to be the “true cost” of an item. The poster’s premise was artificially inflating the cost of something.
Further, and my main point, government policy affecting pricing simply to incentivize or disincentivize consumption isn’t authoritarian as a standalone act.
I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.
Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?
Taxing in proportion to externalities is sound policy.
I agree, but that isn’t what is being discussed. Pricing in externalities isn’t artificial though. That could be well argued to be the “true cost” of an item. The poster’s premise was artificially inflating the cost of something.
Further, and my main point, government policy affecting pricing simply to incentivize or disincentivize consumption isn’t authoritarian as a standalone act.