I'm not sure where you came up with this argument that you attributed to me. Here, let me go again:
1) I don't personally use straws. I have no use for them. I recognize (as earlier, and clearly stated) that other people do and they are seen to have a certain value.
2) The issue is about unnecessary plastic waste, not the mere existence of straws. I don't know why you attribute that confusion to me
3) restaurants will always carry straws, just as grocery stores carry bags, even when legislation is in place and society largely accepts the shared waste inherent in the need for these items.
I'm not misattributing anything to you, but it's not a credible argument to say that restaurants will *always* use straws in refutation to policy A but then argue in favor of policy B because it will cause restaurants to stop using straws. If that argument was valid for policy A, it's valid for policy B.
The penalty imposed on the restaurant either happens or it doesn't.
I'm not proposing a penalty, I'm proposing a pigovian tax so that the consumers/produces who produce the externality are the ones paying for it.
There is no cost in not violating the law. You understand? Placing the cost on the producers of the straw raises the price for providing free straws, and thus the total prices on the restaurant menu.
Not if the restaurant stops providing straws. I don't understand why a consumption tax is such a foreign concept to you.
All of that cost: napkins, cups, straws, salt, ketchup, etc is part of overhead. This essentially costs the restaurant nothing because they don't violate the law, the restuarant orders less straws because they have less need, and thus the problem works it way back to the manufacturer, as you so desire, with the same effect on them, in the end, but at less cost to everyone as well as a direct, economic effect on the consumer, in that behavior has been conditioned into being less of a wasteful pig human.
This is just getting incoherent.
everyone is happy. Like you, I'm not interested in sending anyone to jail for this. obviously that is nuts.
Then I assume you're opposed to the measure.
You haven't explained anything about your thoughts on bag bans, if they have been successful or not. You just defended your libertarianism as an absolute position that is impervious to challenge or the prospect of being updated in light of better data, "for reasons." You are defending your noble crusade of pure, soulless math as a black hole of facts and data. Only the position matters, never the results. This is terrible science. Actually, it isn't even science.
I disagree with bag bans. I'd much prefer a tax on bags (these do exist in some areas) with the proceeds going to clean up the bag pollution. That seems more morally responsible to me, just as a tax on straws seems more responsible than throwing a waiter in jail for a year for moving a straw to a table.
Do you think the bag bans have effectively reduced pollution in these places, that people who live in these towns are becoming less wasteful? Does the cost of these programs represents an unreasonable burden on the noble consumer? If you do, that's fine--I just haven't seen you defend this position with anything other than platitudes about noble libertarianism.
I'd say the jury is still out on the bag bans:
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/banning-plastic-bags-great-world-right-not-fast/
Also, and I really don't understand why you can't get this, I'm perfectly fine with reducing environmental waste. In fact, the entire purpose of the tax I proposed is to either reduce waste or force the producers of that waste to pay the cost of it. Your deflection is another red herring because it assumes a position I'm not taking. Bans are bad, bans that throw waiters in jail even worse. Forcing parties to pay the true cost of their product, good.
You're like poor Polonius hiding behind that arras.
You don't seem capable of making an argument without resorting to insults. It's unnecessary and does not further your cause.