Punishment

[Cramulus]

New York, and several other states, are having trouble balancing their budgets. (surprise!) One balancing act which is being juggled around in Albany is a SODA TAX. If you haven't heard of the soda tax, the reasoning is this:

• There is research which correlates the price of soda with diabetes rates. If we make soda more expensive, there will be less diabetes
• Diabetes rates are related to the cost of health care. So by taxing soda, we pay less for hospitals.
• Soda is bad for you and Americans should drink less of it. See also: Obesity

Reasoning sounds okay. And yeah, I'd like the average American to drop some pounds, if only so that I have a little more room in the elevator.

But here's what I don't like about it: This is the state's way of trying to regulate our behavior through financial incentives. And people are in support of it because "soda is bad for you". It seems that we're okay with behavioral controls as long as they're being used to punish somebody that's doing something wrong.

This is a greater pattern I've been paying attention to, this idea of punishing people who "deserve it". In a recent discussion, we talked about how people would love to enact brutal and grisly tortures upon your children's molesters. Parents have an understandable "mother bear" response when their children are threatened, and that seems to justify all sorts of inhumane behavior to be inflicted upon perceived threats.

Nietzsche, in his Genealogy of Morals, talks about this phenomenon. He thinks that it comes from the ancient relationship between creditor and debtor. In the old days, if somebody screwed you on a debt, you'd be able to take a pound of flesh from them. Nietzsche thinks that this is the real essence of it, that the autonomous individual wants to inflict suffering as compensation for breaking a promise. This punishment is carried out without regard to the culprit's free will, autonomy, accountability, etc. The consequences of this punishment are swept under the rug of justice.

For example, this guy Aaron Vargas was sexually abused as a child, and later in life, killed his molestor (Darrell McNeil). McNeil, an active member of the Big Brother / Big Sister program, was shot to death in front of his wife. While I sympathize with Vargas, who seemed to believe he was protecting his infant daughter, I also feel bad for McNeil's wife and the kids he mentored, who didn't seem to live in the same universe as McNeil sick side. The community has turned out in favor of Vargas. The fact that Vargas was molested does not excuse the murder, it only confirms the motivation and degree of premeditation.

I think that we can agree that while child molestation is wrong, murder is also wrong, perhaps even more wrong. But the local community is defending Vargas because of that "mother bear" instinct. We feel very strongly about protecting our children. And in our minds, that makes it okay to do things which we would normally condemn.

And we feel very strongly about the economy, so it seems justified to tax behaviors we don't agree with.  But where do we draw the line? Soda raises the cost of health care. So does cheese, red meat, and alcohol. In 15 years, when everybody's driving hybrids and electric cars, maybe they should tax the fuck out of gasoline just to encourage people to be more environmentally conscious. Or buy domestically manufactured products. Maybe they should medicate you so that your behaviors and preferences don't create a financial burden for the rest of us.

My roommate is missing a video camera. He has stated that if he finds out who stole it from him, he's going to put him in the hospital. My roommate described, at length, the horrible things he'd do to this alleged thief.  Because you can't just let people steal from you, you know? You gotta send a strong message.

(BTW - I think he probably just lost the camera)

I agree, I just find it a little weird that behaviors we would normally find reprehensible are totally okay as long as somebody deserves it. Nietzsche suggests this is 'cause deep down, we're hunters, and we don't have an outlet for this violence. We want to be fucking tearing people up, but we have to sublimate these urges in order to participate in society. And Punishment is this gap in the civilized world into which we can channel our animal rage.

[Elder Iptuous]

since people have different reasons for seeking punishment, as a reference, here are the reasons that wikipedia lists:

Rehabilitation
Incapacitation / societal protection
Deterrence / prevention
Restoration
Retribution
Education
Denunciation / condemnation

in the Vargas case that you mention, is seems that there are several possibilities. (assuming that he went there with the clear intention of killing him)

as far as Nietzsche's reasoning, that seems odd to me...  is he implying that a hunter society would not feel the need to punish those who transgress societal norms, as their violence is properly channeled to the hapless quadrupeds that sustain them?

[Richter]

I like that the lsit incorporates "Denunciation" there, because I think there's a real sentiment of that going around.

Smoking is BAD for you, and wanting to smoke is getting villanized to an extent.  Tax cigarettes?  No problem, you're only hurting smokers.  Similar with the Soda example.

How much are you willing to accept resposibility for what you put in yourself and accept the consequences when it goes bad, is a key question there  If I smoke my lungs into charred bricks and die, well shit that's MY fault.  I lit it up and took the drags, no one forced me.  I drank the soda until my pancreas huddled in a corner sobbing like an abused child, ooops.  I'd rather die of my own stupidity and poor choices than from the ones made for me by people who "know what's best"

Same token, if I have a sexual fetish for fucking bricks out of my house's foundation, I shouldn't be surprised when the wall falls down.  If I ask fellow apes for help rebuilding, I think they'd be within their rights to say "NO.  You fucked you OWN house down fool.", or "OK, but you need to cut that shit out."  They don't exactly have the duty to support my poor choices.

 

[LMNO]

Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days.  It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially.  Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.

[Cramulus]

as far as Nietzsche's reasoning, that seems odd to me...  is he implying that a hunter society would not feel the need to punish those who transgress societal norms, as their violence is properly channeled to the hapless quadrupeds that sustain them?

I think wikipedia can explain nietzsche's better than I can:

Nietzsche develops the "major point of historical methodology" that one must not equate the origin of a thing and its utility. The origin of punishment, for example, is in a procedure that predates punishment. Punishment has not just one purpose, but a whole range of "meanings" which "finally crystallizes into a kind of unity that is difficult to dissolve, difficult to analyze and [...] completely and utterly undefinable" (§13). The process by which the succession of different meanings is imposed is driven by the "will to power"—the basic instinct for domination underlying all human action. Nietzsche lists eleven different uses (or "meanings") of punishment, and suggests that there are many more. One utility it does not possess, however, is that of awakening remorse. The psychology of prisoners shows that punishment "makes hard and cold; it concentrates; it sharpens the feeling of alienation"...

his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...

Vargas probably should have gone to the law. And the state should find better ways to balance its budget than taxing sin. (an expert I heard interviewed on NPR said, "It's not going to curb soda drinking at all, it's just going to make people buy the cheaper brands, which are generally manufactured outside of the US.")


A form of social organization, i.e. a "state," is imposed by a conqueror race. Such a race is able to do so even if those they subject to their power are vastly superior in numbers because these subjects are "still formless, still roaming about", while the conquerors are characterized by an "instinctive creating of forms, impressing of forms" (§17). Under such conditions the destructive, sadistic instincts of man, who is by nature a nomadic hunter, find themselves constricted and thwarted; they are therefore turned inward. Instead of roaming in the wilderness, man now turns himself into "an adventure, a place of torture". Bad conscience is thus man's instinct for freedom (his "will to power") "driven back, suppressed, imprisoned within" (§17).

[AFK]

I don't see the soda tax, or an alcohol tax, or a tobacco tax as punishment.  I see it as asking those who wish to participate in an activity or behavior that creates cost burdens for their community to contribute to the funding of programs that try to offset those costs through treatment and prevention.  Now, it turns out that taxes on tobacco have served to get people to quit smoking.  And eventually, yes, health promotion organizations (like my own) have championed that effect of a tax increase.  But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc.  In my state the racino is required to contribute a scant 3% of their slot proceeds to a fund that helps people with problem gambling.  It wasn't a punishment, it was to make sure we could provide services to the portion of gamblers who will develop a problem.  And the racino was happy to provide the funding and is continuing and expanding their operations.  

The important piece is where is the money going.  If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product.  If there weren't mechanisms in place to get money to fund these programs, they would cease to exist.  Left to their own devices the general public would not volunatrily contribute enough funding, if any, to allow these programs to exist.  It would get into Tragedy of Commons territory.  Nobody would have any incentive to contribute to the costs because their neighbor isn't contributing either and the problems would be worse than they already are.  

[Cramulus]

But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc.  ......

The important piece is where is the money going.  If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product. 

You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.

While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc.  ......

The important piece is where is the money going.  If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product. 

You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.

While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!

Sumptuary Laws, have been around for thousands of years. I'm surprised that we've survived for a few hundred years without them. It used to be the nobility's way of controlling what choices the populace made, now its the governments way of controlling what choices the populace makes.

Silly populace, they need someone to tell them what to do and what not to do with the freedom.

[LMNO]

Now, what about all those insidious marketers?  They have found ways to bypass the critical thinking mechanisms in our heads and can make the "masses" consume all sorts of fucked-up things.

Some of these laws can be seen as a corrective to unethical marketing practices.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Now, what about all those insidious marketers?  They have found ways to bypass the critical thinking mechanisms in our heads and can make the "masses" consume all sorts of fucked-up things.

Some of these laws can be seen as a corrective to unethical marketing practices.

So the marketers behave evilly and to correct that, we tax their 'victims'? Seems to me that with that mindset, we should tax the soda company rather than the consumer. Or educate the public about insidious marketers?

[LMNO]

Given today's current climate, good luck with that.

[Elder Iptuous]

...
his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...
...

Cram,
I wonder if any govt.'s principal documents state a specific goal for punishment in order to shape the methods and application of them?

also, as far as the reformative ability of incarceration, i would previously have said that it is inneffective, however, my personal experience has so far been limited to two instances where i knew somebody that was sent to prison.  in both cases, the punishment (they claim) did lead directly to evoking remorse over the action itself that they feel they would otherwise not have had.  one guy stole a car while on drugs and the other was caught as an accessory to selling amphetamines.  they are now reformed in regards to these behaviors.
I realize that these may be minority cases, but they are a big data point on my thinking of the subject.

my mind is in a very fluid state of flux regarding the role of the state in punishment....

[AFK]

But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc.  ......

The important piece is where is the money going.  If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product. 

You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.

While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!

It could be a slippery slope.  The thing is though that these taxes are proposed one at a time, generally.  And so each one has to go through the legislation process.  So if the populace hates the idea, they get a chance to exercise that displeasure and vote out state senators and reps.  Or, if your in a state like mine, collect signatures and get the tax proposal put on the ballot.  So it could be a slippery slope in theory, but my feeling is that if a state legislature got a little too crazy and wanted to tax bagels, the populace would put the brakes on in one way or another, or if they don't, it obviously isn't enough of a problem.  

I've seen this in action.  Here in Maine there was a proposal to increase the taxes on alcohol which haven't been increased in many, many years.  Eventually Gov. Smeagol got his grubby paws on the initiative and added soda and flavored water.  Mainers said "fuck that noize" and voted it down.  Slippery slope stopped in its tracks.  

[Richter]

Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days.  It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially.  Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.

I agree there, guess I didn't assert it strongly enough in my initial post.  It's a point I've found myself touching on a LOT recently.  Even if it's impossible to make a truly independent action, without consequence for others, we are still able to define where we are resposible in our own morality and ways to say when, why, and how we do or don't assist or try to stop others.  Not that it's easy.  The current healthcare clusterfuck, I think, is a good example of the difficulty and touchy points in changing any system of who gets their asistance, reward or punishment and when.

[Jasper]

Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days.  It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially.  Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.

I agree there, guess I didn't assert it strongly enough in my initial post.  It's a point I've found myself touching on a LOT recently.  Even if it's impossible to make a truly independent action, without consequence for others, we are still able to define where we are resposible in our own morality and ways to say when, why, and how we do or don't assist or try to stop others.  Not that it's easy.  The current healthcare clusterfuck, I think, is a good example of the difficulty and touchy points in changing any system of who gets their asistance, reward or punishment and when.

What the nature of punishment, sin taxes, and morality speak of to me is the implicit themes of collectivism and individuality in society.  We're extremely individualistic as a culture, in our morality as well as in our punitive measures- but our laws are trending to collectivistic thought. 

An individualistic legislature would not tax these things because it would not look toward the larger impact on society.  An extremely individualistic legislature would look more to vigilantism and punishment of criminals in particular, would it not?  Our laws are ideologically at odds with our deeper cultural ideologies.  That's why the matter of when to punish and how much is so controversial.