You justified such a tax on grounds that Americans today eat too much “junk food.”
Believing Americans to be too dimwitted or lacking in self-control to choose for themselves what to eat, you obviously also believe that college professors possess the moral authority to propose that government dictate the contents of other people’s diets.
What to do about it? He proposes a most fair solution:
I, too, can play by these rules.
I propose that all articles and books advocating that government intrude into people’s private choices be taxed at very high rates. Socially irresponsible producers of such “junk” scholarship churn out far too much of it. As a result, unsuspecting Americans consume harmfully large quantities of this scholarship – scholarship made appealing only because its producers cram it with sweet and superficially gratifying expressions of noble goals.
He carries the analogy further - and does it well - but that's the gist.
It is, needless to say, a point I sympathize with. For some reason, being a "scientist" in this country seems to give you not only the platform, but also the duty to tell others why they're too stupid to save themselves. And furthermore, how doing what you tell them is the the only way they can be saved.
