Passage Summary: Just because something like owning a parrot or riding a motorcycle is dangerous doesn't mean the government should tax it, especially since we already agree not to tax parrot owners.

Conclusion: The government should refrain from placing special taxes on risky recreational items like hunting gear or motorcycles.

Reasoning: Since society generally agrees that parrot owners should not be taxed despite the health risks of owning parrots, other risky activities should be treated with the same leniency.

Analysis: The columnist relies on an analogy between parrot ownership and high-risk hobbies to argue for tax consistency. Since this is an 'EXCEPT' question, we are looking for any principle that supports the columnist's hands-off approach; the correct answer will be the one that contradicts it or introduces a reason to tax these items. It’s a classic 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' argument, assuming that all risks are created equal in the eyes of the taxman. Look for an answer choice that suggests the government *should* intervene when certain types of risks are involved.