Anders Chelgren, Chapter 3, Question #4

Chapter three covers externalitys, both positive and negative. The chapter explores how we can most efficiently move forward as a society. Wheelen argues that externalitys are of innumerable importance, and that nothing can be done without some positive or negative benefit to someone or something. I liked his comment about smoking and how it can be both a negative and a positive. While some people suffer second hand smoke- negative, others receive more social security due to their premature death- positive. The difficulty with intervention on the governments behalf is the fact that the externalitys so often go both ways, with wide spread roots on each side. The idea of forcing someone to pay a fee based on the negative impact on others around them seems logical enough. However, it becomes difficult to see where a line may be drawn. If taxes are proposed for all kinds of externalitys soon everything we do will be limited or taxed in some way. If people with unappealing houses, and unnecessarily large vehicles, should we also tax those unappealing or overweight people for being ugly and fat? While a government on some scale is important to facilitate necessity's, is it really its job to evaluate every tiny detail of your life, preferences, genetics, and hobbies? On another note, I applaud the idea of switching the tax burden away from the middle class by reducing the income tax or payroll tax. I am glad he recognized that high taxes for workers incentive them to work less. While externalitys could in theory encourage people to turn away from societal undesirable activity's, I fear the frequent wide spread taxes would lead to a loss of freedom. I am unconvinced that the government is efficiently spending the money it currently collects from taxes and have a hard time believing that the profits made from externalitys would always end up in the publics best interest.