Candy is candy, right? Not if you’re trying to tax it. That’s when the definition gets a bit sticky. Suddenly a Snickers bar is candy but a Twix isn’t.

This is an issue as states like Colorado and Washington move to tax sweets to help balance their budgets.

According to Washington state, which just approved a candy tax, candy is a preparation of sugar, honey or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings, and formed into bars, drops or pieces.

So put into practice, that means Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are taxable. Mike and Ike candies are taxable. Kit Kat is exempt.

That’s because Kit Kats have flour in them, explains Patrick Gillespie of Washington state’s Department of Revenue. And flour is the not-so-secret ingredient that determines whether something is candy or not — at least if you’re the taxman. If it has flour, it’s not candy.

I predict the recipe for Snickers will soon include flour. The rest of the story is here.

Before knowing what XXX is (no peaking below), consider how you might feel about the following law:

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal [XXX] laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is [engaged in federally unlawful XXX activity], a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the [XXX] status of the person. The person’s [XXX] status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c).

Now try inserting either the workds the words “illegal immigration” or “gun ownership” for XXX in the two paragraphs.  The text is of course SB 1070, Arizona’s new immigration law.

My guess is that most people will approve of the state law for either gun ownership or immigration, but not for both or neither.

Most libertarians would choose neither.

The Plan, from NOFX

The lyrics are here.

Strikes across France delayed flights, closed schools and frustrated commuters Thursday as hundreds of thousands of workers protested government plans to raise the retirement age past 60 — one of the lowest even in Europe.

To me, increasing the age of eligibility for government retirement and medical benefits is the single best way to restore fiscal balance. Yet even this step seems politically impossible. My guess is that most countries will resist sensible adjustments like this one until their fiscal situations implode.

In the Commencement issue of the Harvard Crimson.

My main objection to Paul’s comments is that he backed down once challenged; I think he had it right in the first place. Here is what I wrote in LAZ:

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Advocates of bans on discrimination typically point to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned employment discrimination in the United States, as evidence that bans are crucial for ending discrimination. Essentially the argument is that the employment and wage outcomes of blacks relative to whites improved in the U.S. South in the decade after 1964, and this outcome is most readily explained as the result of Title VII.

            The role played by Title VII in improving economic outcomes for blacks is far from clear, however. To begin, adoption and enforcement of Title VII occurred against a backdrop of legally enforced segregation in Southern states, segregation that applied in education, public accommodations, and voting (the Jim Crow laws). Some of the improved outcomes for blacks undoubtedly reflect the toppling of this legal structure, which facilitated the culture of discrimination even in arenas, like employment, where segregation was rarely legally mandated.

            Adding further nuance, private efforts to end segregation, including boycotts and protests, occurred before and after passage of the Civil Rights Act. Likewise, the federal government intervened to end segregation even before 1964. For example, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision began the process of integrating public schools, and federal court orders repealed state segregation in transportation. Thus the degree to which Title VII itself caused the improved outcomes for blacks is unclear. 

            Whatever the role of Title VII in generating gains for blacks, it is not the whole story. These gains would likely have come anyway—perhaps somewhat more slowly—due to private efforts and the federal dismantling of Jim Crow. In addition, the Act’s ban on discrimination led to further interventions that have generated far more costs and produced far less evidence for their efficacy. In particular, the Civil Rights Act evolved into affirmative action, and the scope of anti-discrimination policy evolved from merely outlawing racism to promoting diversity and limiting statistical discrimination.

            Thus, the federal effort to eliminate discriminatory state laws was almost certainly desirable, but the efforts beyond this intervention have not been beneficial overall.

A further note: many provisions of the CRA are attempts to ban discrimination by state governments, as opposed to discrimination by private parties. For example, Title I bans unequal application of voter registration requirements; Title III bars state and local governments from denying equal access to public facilities; Title IV encourages desegregation of public schools.

It is an open question as to how much good these provisions accomplished.  For example, federally mandated busing to achieve desegregation caused serious polarization and may have increased de facto segregation. 

But the provisions of the CRA that apply to state goverments are not deeply offensive to libertarian sensibilities; they are attempts by the federal government to eliminate anti-libertarian policies run by state or local governments.

The libertarian argument against even these portions of the CRA would be that since federal interventions in most areas tend to be worse than state interventions, it is best to avoid federal interventions whenever possible to avoid slippery slopes. I have substantial sympathy for this view; I am not sure whether I would apply it in this instance.

The ongoing disaster in the gulf has spawned much debate about regulation versus tort liability as a way to prevent environmental diasters. Much of the discussion has not been that useful because it has been too broad brush.  The question that needs to be addressed is what specific regulations, or what kind of liability system, would balance the benefits of increased oil extraction against the risk of environmental damage?

Here is one possibility: if the government grants a company like BP the right to drill in an area like the Gulf, where enormous damage to both private and public property is possible, it should also require BP to post a bond equal to something like the expected environmental damage.

Then if BP drills without incident, it gets the money back when it closes its wells. If damage occurs, BP loses some or all of the bond.

This approach gives BP an incentive to be careful. It also means that if an accident occurs, those harmed do not have to collect damages from a company that might already be bankrupt.

The reqirement to post a large bond might deter most drilling. That is appropriate, assuming the bond has been set at the right level, since this would indicate that the expected benefits of the oil extraction were less than the expected damages.

This approach is far from perfect. It requires reasonable estimates of the expected damages, and BP might litigate against any payouts from its posted bond. But the approach plausibly has better properties than a regulatory scheme that nobody enforces or a tort liability system that is difficult to enforce for large diasters.

Addendum:  At forbes.com.

PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.

Sounds like the self-satisfied gloating of some libertarian blogger, right? Actually, it’s the New York Times.

A student who is about the graduate from Harvard sends me the following question:

What would a libertarian think about the College’s policy to not allow us to sell our extra commencement tickets to other students who need them?

The answer is that libertarians would not think about this issue at all, since it does not involve a government policy.  The College’s policy may be misguided, or not, relative to some criterion, but libertarians believe it is the College’s choice to make.

Libertarians do oppose laws that ban scapling.

If, however, a private institution sold tickets to a private buyer under a no-sale condition, and a buyer broke that contract, libertarians would support enforcement of a lawsuit for contract infringement brought by the seller against the buyer, assuming the seller could show damages.

A regular reader who is a medical resident writes the following:

Regarding the changes taking place in health care, from a physician’s perspective I think that our pay will be cut, the patient loads will be much higher, we will continue to face frivolous lawsuits, the paperwork will be worse, the older doctors will retire, and would-be doctors will be discouraged from going through medical school and residency. Thus, there will be a huge doctor shortage and those of use who remain will work under poor conditions.

 What recourse do physicians have? People have NO IDEA how hard we work (I work 70-80 stressful hours a week for about $700 per week) and they don’t seem to understand that we have to give up 10 years of our life socially and economically to purse a medical career). And don’t forget debt…I owe $200,000.

 Yet, I notice that nurses in [my city], who make over $70,000 per year and work only 3 days per week (three 12-hour shifts) are going on strike. They claims its for the patients (just like teachers only strike for the students) but its common knowledge that it’s about them wanting higher raises each year.

 Should doctors form unions? What other option do we have, other than continuing to have others make demands on our time and wallets without being able to stand up for ourselves?

Honestly, as soon as I pay off my debt I’m thinking about getting out of medicine. I do careful work, get good reviews, test very well on boards, and I’m interested in what I do, but I hate working my ass off with a lawyer on each shoulder for increasingly entitled patients who overuse the medical system (not all of them but far too many) while getting hammered with regulations and high taxes (in my not-distant future) from politicians who don’t know anything and buy votes to get elected. If we actually had someone representing us maybe I’d feel different, but we don’t and now they are about to tie our licensing to accepting government plans that screw us over.

 The entire health care debate was a joke because the truth is that “the poor” get all the free health care they want. They come into our EDs and walk-in clinics several times per month for complaints that aren’t even urgent yet we have to see them by law. We offer to set them up with regular doctors in regular outpatient clinics for free, but they don’t want it because with the EDs and walk-in clinics they get to be seen right away.

Sound expensive and inefficient? It is, and it’s only going to get worse (see RomneyCare, the father of ObamaCare). ObamaCare doesn’t address any of the drivers of health care costs and in fact will only make the underlying problems worse. It was all about political power over a large part of the economy.

 At some point physicians will have to stand up for themselves and organize, in my opinion. We DO care deeply for our patients, but unless there is a point where we say “enough” regarding the environment we work in we will continue to get squeezed.

 These days, unless you work for the government or are in a union (or both), you are getting screwed.

This is one person’s opinion, of course, but I suspect his views are shared widely.