• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate 'Emergency'

Groucho said:
Of course.

Now, do you have an example of that happening?
Click to expand...

This event is the beginning if such abolition of personal liberties.

First, they pass a tax, to see what kind of blowback they get. If that goes well enough, then they pass a law.

Personally, the tax alone is bad enough, because we shouldn't have to pay punitive taxes for excercising our civil rights.
 
apdst said:
This event is the beginning if such abolition of personal liberties.

First, they pass a tax, to see what kind of blowback they get. If that goes well enough, then they pass a law.

Personally, the tax alone is bad enough, because we shouldn't have to pay punitive taxes for excercising our civil rights.
Click to expand...

So the answer is "No."
 
Groucho said:
So the answer is "No."
Click to expand...

Actually, the answer isn't, "no". Unless you would be ok with a punitive tax placed on people for not eating enough beef.

Would you go along with that?
 
apdst said:
Actually, the answer isn't, "no". Unless you would be ok with a punitive tax placed on people for not eating enough beef.

Would you go along with that?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

So if you agree with a tax, it's a valid governmental power, but if you disagree then it's a violation of your rights. Got it.
 
Groucho said:
Ah, I see.

So if you agree with a tax, it's a valid governmental power, but if you disagree then it's a violation of your rights. Got it.
Click to expand...

Would you agree with a punitive tax placed on vegins for not eating enough beef?

Please, stop being optuse.
 
apdst said:
Would you agree with a punitive tax placed on vegins for not eating enough beef?

Please, stop being optuse.
Click to expand...

There is no such tax for non-vegans! There is Vegan Mondays, and there are no requirements to participate. Where is the loss of liberty?
 
apdst said:
Would you agree with a punitive tax placed on vegins for not eating enough beef?

Please, stop being optuse.
Click to expand...

It there were such a word as "optuse" maybe I'd agree.

Taxes are used for political purposes all the time. Taxes are higher on cigarettes, gasoline, and alcohol in order to discourage their use; businesses are given tax breaks in order to accomplish other goals.

This is nothing new. It's just that you personally don't like it so are crying like a baby.

It seems to me:

1. You agree with tax breaks and taxes when you like what they're used for but think that they are a violation of your rights when you don't like what they're used for.

2. You agree that localities should be able to vote for things that the people want but think that it's a violation of your rights when you don't like what they vote for.
 
Catawba said:
There is no such tax for non-vegans! There is Vegan Mondays, and there are no requirements to participate. Where is the loss of liberty?
Click to expand...


Next up: Cambridge suggests that its citizens set aside Mondays as "Let's help old ladies cross the street" day. Conservative rally in protest of the obvious loss of liberty.
 
Catawba said:
There is no such tax for non-vegans! There is Vegan Mondays, and there are no requirements to participate. Where is the loss of liberty?
Click to expand...

Ya know, it helps if you actually keep up with what's being discussed in the thread.

1) I never said that there was such a tax for vegans. I turned the tables to see if Groucho would be as acceptable to such a tax as he is to the meat eaters tax. But, changing direction to avoid the subject comes as no surprise.

2) Anytime a person is punished--such as with a punitive tax on food--to promote an agenda, then liberties are in jeapordy. Hence the reason I asked if a punitive tax on vegans would be cool. Would it?
 
Groucho said:
It there were such a word as "optuse" maybe I'd agree.

Taxes are used for political purposes all the time. Taxes are higher on cigarettes, gasoline, and alcohol in order to discourage their use; businesses are given tax breaks in order to accomplish other goals.

This is nothing new. It's just that you personally don't like it so are crying like a baby.

It seems to me:

1. You agree with tax breaks and taxes when you like what they're used for but think that they are a violation of your rights when you don't like what they're used for.

2. You agree that localities should be able to vote for things that the people want but think that it's a violation of your rights when you don't like what they vote for.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you're totally going in a different direction from the question I asked you.
 
apdst said:
Seems to me you're totally going in a different direction from the question I asked you.
Click to expand...

Because you don't want to respond?

Look, the bottom line is that you seem to think that every time something is taxed it is therefore a violation of your liberties. You're taking that as a given and then moving on from there.

I, and some of the others in this thread, disagree with your basic premise. A tax on soda or cigarettes or meat or gummi worms doesn't violate my rights at all. This is especially true when I don't have to buy whatever it is that is being taxed if I don't want to.

The rest of your argument only makes sense if one agrees in the first place that any and every tax is a violation of your rights.

EDIT: Now don't get me wrong: Object to taxes you hate all you want. There are taxes I hate too. But to say that it is a violation of your rights makes your argument less powerful, not moreso.
 
Last edited:
Groucho said:
Because you don't want to respond?

Look, the bottom line is that you seem to think that every time something is taxed it is therefore a violation of your liberties. You're taking that as a given and then moving on from there.

I, and some of the others in this thread, disagree with your basic premise. A tax on soda or cigarettes or meat or gummi worms doesn't violate my rights at all. This is especially true when I don't have to buy whatever it is that is being taxed if I don't want to.

The rest of your argument only makes sense if one agrees in the first place that any and every tax is a violation of your rights.
Click to expand...

If the tables were turned, would you still agree with a punitive tax?

It's a simple question.
 
apdst said:
If the tables were turned, would you still agree with a punitive tax?

It's a simple question.
Click to expand...

I agree with some and disagree with others. I agree that the government has the right to do punative taxes. I disagree with some of them.

Here's the difference between us, which you still do not get: I don't think that taxes I personally disagree with are violations of my rights. They're just taxes I disagree with.
 
Groucho said:
I agree with some and disagree with others. I agree that the government has the right to do punative taxes. I disagree with some of them.

Here's the difference between us, which you still do not get: I don't think that taxes I personally disagree with are violations of my rights. They're just taxes I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference between us, you seem to think that I disagree with this tax, because I don't like it. In fact, I would disagree with any tax of this sort that has no other purpose than to punish people for not getting in lockstep with political agenda. Punitive taxes are a violation of my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not only that, they open the door to an even more tyrannical use of punitive taxes. Much the same way that Hitler placed heavier taxes on Jews. Taxes were then and could very well be again, used to persecute certain groups.
 
apdst said:
Yes, there is a difference between us, you seem to think that I disagree with this tax, because I don't like it. In fact, I would disagree with any tax of this sort that has no other purpose than to punish people for not getting in lockstep with political agenda. Punitive taxes are a violation of my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not only that, they open the door to an even more tyrannical use of punitive taxes. Much the same way that Hitler placed heavier taxes on Jews. Taxes were then and could very well be again, used to persecute certain groups.
Click to expand...

1. Whenever you have to resort to Hitler, you lose the argument. Seriously, that works on all sides. It shows that you have no concept of degrees, when a tax is comparable to genocide. It just makes you look silly and crazy.

2. This is similar to taxes on gas, alcohol, and cigarettes, which are higher than regular sales taxes because we want to discourage their usage. It is similar to tax breaks we give people and businesses in order to encourage other things. It has been done in our country for many many years -- even at a time when we were fighting that Hitler guy you mentioned -- and somehow, despite all this, we still aren't killing Jews.
 
Groucho said:
1. Whenever you have to resort to Hitler, you lose the argument. Seriously, that works on all sides. It shows that you have no concept of degrees, when a tax is comparable to genocide. It just makes you look silly and crazy.

2. This is similar to taxes on gas, alcohol, and cigarettes, which are higher than regular sales taxes because we want to discourage their usage. It is similar to tax breaks we give people and businesses in order to encourage other things. It has been done in our country for many many years -- even at a time when we were fighting that Hitler guy you mentioned -- and somehow, despite all this, we still aren't killing Jews.
Click to expand...

I was using an historical fact to illustrate a point. I'm sorry that history foils most Leftist arguments. I can't help that.
 
Does Godwin's law apply to Czar Nicholas, as well?

In the 1840s, a network of special schools was created for the Jews since they had not availed themselves of the opportunity established in 1804 to study in the regular schools. These schools were paid for by a special tax imposed on the Jews. In 1844, a decree was established that the teachers would be both Christians and Jews. The Jewish community viewed the government’s attempt to set up these schools as a way of secularizing and assimilating the younger generation. Their fears were not unfounded as the decree to require Christian teachers was accompanied by the declaration that "the purpose of the education of the Jews is to bring them nearer to the Christians and to uproot their harmful beliefs which are influenced by the Talmud."

The Virtual Jewish History Tour - Russia
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure you would be cool with using punitive taxes as a way to return to the company store system. Yes?

Much like a serf renting/sharecropping land owned by a manor-house or nobility, the plantation worker needed to borrow money to buy food and other necessities at the company store, which just happened to operate as a monopoly and just happened to charge skyhigh prices. (The serf needed to borrow seed for the next planting, and money to buy food for the family in between harvests.) The rate of interest paid by the serf/worker was always much higher than market rates--another monopoly capital (and highly profitable) feature of the set-up.

The system's most pernicious feature: the worker/serf never escaped debt. Indeed, the system was constructed to increase the debt to the point it could never be paid off, insuring a lifetime of profitable servitude to the nobility/corporation.

charles hugh smith-The Company Store, Debt and Serfdom
Click to expand...
 
The government might tax meat. THAT IS THE SAME AS HITL- I MEAN STALIN!

edit: You know who also took away rights of homosexuals?

Isn't it amazing how much conservatives have in common with history's worst dictators?

For $*$%s sake, enough with those comparisons. They're putting you in danger of Conspiracy Theory subforuming.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Ya know, it helps if you actually keep up with what's being discussed in the thread.

1) I never said that there was such a tax for vegans. I turned the tables to see if Groucho would be as acceptable to such a tax as he is to the meat eaters tax. But, changing direction to avoid the subject comes as no surprise.
Click to expand...

Turning the tables means the reverse. You said,
"Would you agree with a punitive tax placed on vegins for not eating enough beef?"

Using that example implies that someone is taking the position for the opposite.

2) Anytime a person is punished--such as with a punitive tax on food--to promote an agenda, then liberties are in jeapordy. Hence the reason I asked if a punitive tax on vegans would be cool. Would it?
Click to expand...

I see it no different than traffic fines, or cigarette taxes, or what I would like to see a tax on food with corn sweeteners. These taxes have been known to reduce unhealthy behavior that lowers death rates and improves health thereby lowering medical costs.

Seems to be a healthy way of replacing some of the tax revenues lost by Reagan and W's tax cuts, but I'm good with going back to taxing the wealthy at the higher previous rates if you prefer instead.
 
So the city is politely asking people to "try" veganism. My response is to politely tell them "go **** yourself" with the business end of a red-hot branding iron just before trying cyanide. I truly hate these piece of **** nanny staters more than I thought was ever humanly possible and I hope their line of thinking goes the way of the dodo bird, quietly, with no fanfare, and before anyone even knows it's gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom