Please Oppose Alcohol Tax Increase!

If by "debates" you mean "long-winded lone Libertarian ranting," of course. If you actually want to debate your poorly-made points, I might be game, but c'mon. That sentence you wrote is nonsense.

And now queue the vague insinuations that my points are either poorly made or nonsense, without any real substance backing them up. This is starting to feel like the Bush administration all over again.

Nevertheless, if you want to debate sometime then I'm down for it. I'll spare poor Jeremy's thread further derailing and say that this is not the place to do it. Perhaps we could meet up at NABC sometime and debate this over a few pints of Roger's fine brews. Coffee would also work if you're opposed to the ingestion of alcohol but fine with the ingestion of caffeine. As a last resort, we can meet for smoothies.

PM me if you're interested. Also, this is an open invitation to anyone, so just let me know if you want to come. The more the merrier.

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine

Well said and well timed Rob. I couldn't agree more.

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine

Well said and well timed Rob. I couldn't agree more.

Paine writes better than you do (better than I do too).

Just thought I would clarify would you said in a more clear way.

Nevertheless, if you want to debate sometime then I'm down for it.

I'd love to have a conversation on this topic, but it's quite clear you have your mind already made up. Hence, your desire to debate. For having so many issues with the current government model, you sure seem to fall into the trap of our model's largest shortcoming -- debate in the place of constructive conversation.

You've made your Libertarian leanings quite clear, and, honestly, repeating them is not adding much to the "conversation." Soon you will be debating with yourself, which, I'd argue, is the ultimate Libertarian goal.

Conversation, to me, is two people bantering ideas in the hopes that both people may learn something new, if not shift their viewpoint. Debate is the ritualistic, masculine activity with the sole goal of proving yourself right while proving the other person wrong. To converse you first have to be OK with maybe changing your mind.

I'd love to have a conversation on this topic, but it's quite clear you have your mind already made up. Hence, your desire to debate. For having so many issues with the current government model, you sure seem to fall into the trap of our model's largest shortcoming -- debate in the place of constructive conversation.

You've made your Libertarian leanings quite clear, and, honestly, repeating them is not adding much to the "conversation." Soon you will be debating with yourself, which, I'd argue, is the ultimate Libertarian goal.

Conversation, to me, is two people bantering ideas in the hopes that both people may learn something new, if not shift their viewpoint. Debate is the ritualistic, masculine activity with the sole goal of proving yourself right while proving the other person wrong. To converse you first have to be OK with maybe changing your mind.

I'm afraid that I have to point out that the word 'debate' was initially used by Joel. I prefer conversation personally. I also have to point out that you while you criticize me for sticking to my beliefs, it is painfully obvious that you're quite set in your ways as well.

As for your hostile insinuations about libertarians wanting to debate themselves, I'm going to turn it around and put a positive spin on it. I already debate myself. Whenever I come across a new piece of information or a new situation that doesn't seem to fit in with my established beliefs, then I reevaluate beliefs in this new light and discard points that I know longer agree with. If you think that I'm some sort of libertarian junkie who walks in lockstep with party ideology, then you are sorely mistaken. No one party encapsulates my beliefs because I'm a unique person who is constantly growing. I suppose the term that comes closest to approximating my belief system is 'minarchist.'

So in that light, if you want to converse sometime, let me know. I'm game provided further ad hominem attacks and vaguely demeaning arguments are kept under lock and key. "We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech."--Cicero

I'm afraid that I have to point out that the word 'debate' was initially used by Joel.

What? No, it wasn't. You first used it here:

Ah, the ad hominem attacks. So much for good, friendly, spirited debates.

Your post is time-stamped at 2:41 PM.

I engaged your words seriously in the New Albany smoking thread. I also cracked a quick joke at one utterly incomprehensible sentence, and I think you overreacted to it (not that that bothers me, though). But now you're making things up? Not that it matters -- let me be clear that it doesn't -- but please don't attribute your own words to other people, even something as inconsequential as who used "debate" first. That's more annoying than whatever political philosophy you'd like to bloviate about.

As for what this thread's actually about, I really have no opinion yet on this proposed tax. I would like a higher tax on cigarettes, if mainly because Kentucky has the second-highest smoking rate after Nevada, and we really cannot afford to keep that rate up and still hope to pay for the medical care smokers will invariably need.

The alcohol tax increase is basically a way to force the "wet" counties to fund the entire state, including the "dry" counties.

As a resident of Jefferson County, where we pay much more in state taxes than we ever receive in state funding, I'm a little tired of subsidizing the rest of Kentucky.

What? No, it wasn't. You first used it here:

You are correct and I withdraw my previous statement. I somehow missed that I had used it there, and I was looking at your post offering to debate, because I my response to that post was the one that Matthew was referencing. I therefore withdraw my previous statement, and offer my sincerest apologies.

Nevertheless, I think accusing me of 'making things up' and labeling my actions as annoying is a bit harsh considering it was a simple mistake over something that even you admit is inconsequential.

The alcohol tax increase is basically a way to force the "wet" counties to fund the entire state, including the "dry" counties.

As a resident of Jefferson County, where we pay much more in state taxes than we ever receive in state funding, I'm a little tired of subsidizing the rest of Kentucky.

Couldn't agree more. If they really want to increase revenues, our lawmakers should consider making all dry counties wet in order to broaden the tax base.

The alcohol tax increase is basically a way to force the "wet" counties to fund the entire state, including the "dry" counties.

As a resident of Jefferson County, where we pay much more in state taxes than we ever receive in state funding, I'm a little tired of subsidizing the rest of Kentucky.

Couldn't agree more. If they really want to increase revenues, our lawmakers should consider making all dry counties wet in order to broaden the tax base.

I pretty much agree with this, the wet/dry distinction is pretty much based in lame 19th Century morality, and actually leads to people being arrested and jailed for the essentially meaningless crime of "bootlegging."

That said, for argument's sake, it's a bit disingenuous for us to be wailing about our tax dollars being used in poorer counties. I'm sure New York, California, and other big tax revenue-producing states (most of whom coincidentally happen to be so-called "blue states") would like some of "their" money that we've spent in Kentucky back, too.

Wet/dry decisions are made by voters on a precinct by precinct basis. There are areas in Jefferson County that are dry. Law makers in Frankfort do not make these decisions.

As someone who give Kentucky a lot of money for alcohol licenses every year, and also for tax on individual products, let me weigh in.

My friend Lawrence, founder of Otter Creek Brewing in Middlebury, Vermont (where I interned as a brewer), pointed out to me once in a conversation a fundamental difference between cigarettes and alcohol. Alcohol, when properly used, is not harmful. But cigarettes, even in low doses, do cause harm to the body. So there is a fundamental difference there. Which leads me to want to tax cigarettes much more than alcohol. But I realize alcohol is also extremely harmful to many people, so there is justification in raising taxes on it to try to reduce the damage it causes to it's addicts and innocent victims.

That said, as a Socialist, EAT THE RICH....

Thought that might be appropriate on a foodie forum. Yup. Tax 'em. I voted for Ross Perot more than once, and even campaigned for him. He said he's happy to pay higher taxes. It just means he's making more money is how he looked at it. So raise the income taxes on the wealthy brackets to generate more income, rather than gouging the poor (sales taxes, etc). There is your alternative. You don't have to literally eat the rich, but you can equalize things somewhat...

-Nimbus, willing to pay his fair share no matter how much money I make....
Ray's Monkey House Coffeeshop

I'm afraid that I have to point out that the word 'debate' was initially used by Joel. I prefer conversation personally. I also have to point out that you while you criticize me for sticking to my beliefs, it is painfully obvious that you're quite set in your ways as well.

There's no way for you to know this, but I've actually saved a draft of my response to your response to me in the Cigarette ban thread over in the "All About Louisville" forum. I agree with you that I contradicted myself regarding my claim about the majority, and I think that's because I'm having trouble articulating what I want to say. I have not checked that conversation in over 24 hours, so maybe my chance has passed (or maybe you will receive a PM with that information). I tried to get off a quick response, but found I needed some time to process some information. Yesterday was one of those days where I had more to do than time to do it in, so I didn't get a chance to dedicate anytime to contributing to that conversation, but I do think you made a few strong points and I'm reconsidering a few points I said. I'd also agree that my stance came off as somewhat dogmatic, which, I think, is more a result of the context we are writing in (discussion boards) than how I actually intended my material.

"We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech."--Cicero

One of the great things about conversation is there is room for muddied, yet-to-be completely figured out contributions. That's not the case with debate. Debate is more about performance than participation. I note that Paul is not the only one doing this, but the "out-of-context" quoting of dead people has got to stop. It's too easy to cut and paste some random quote you grab off of some random quote page, found through some Google search. It's lazy and adds little to your ethos (and to repeat, this is not directed merely at Paul). I'd rather read your sometimes poorly presented material than to see you pull some authoritarian power-play and defend claims through out-of-context quotes.

Wet/dry decisions are made by voters on a precinct by precinct basis. There are areas in Jefferson County that are dry. Law makers in Frankfort do not make these decisions.

But they (the state) could if they wanted to. All they would have to do is pass a law, no?

Wet/dry decisions are made by voters on a precinct by precinct basis. There are areas in Jefferson County that are dry. Law makers in Frankfort do not make these decisions.

But they (the state) could if they wanted to. All they would have to do is pass a law, no?

Well, that sort of depends. I'm not sure offhand how it's structured in Kentucky, but if the power given to the individual precincts and counties to decide the wet/dry decision (I'm pretty sure in smaller counties, this is decided county-wide, not voting precinct by precinct) comes from the Kentucky Constitution itself, then no, Frankfort could not simply pass a vote. The Constitution would have to be amended, which is a much more difficult task.

It's also possible that a simple statute gives this power to the counties, and in that case, a new statute could make the state as a whole wet. The bottom line is that most likely, Frankfort could make this happen, but it depends on how difficult it would be. Also note that there's really nothing inherently internal about county "powers" (to be contrasted with federal vs. state powers). There's nothing that I am aware of that gives all powers to the counties not expressly reserved by the states.