• 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'

The People's Republic of Cambridge is demonstrating their blue state mentality.
 
OK, let me say this again then. YOU CAN STILL EAT MEAT ON MONDAYS. The city is just trying to support a different life style choice. They aren't forcing anyone to change anything.

LaMidRighter, you can tell them to go **** themselves, because plenty people are. But those people also understand it is just about supporting choices and for one or two days out of the month they are trying to get people to try something else.

Like I said earlier, it isn't that big of a deal and people are making it into something that it isn't. Cambridge isn't forcing anything on anyone aside from having to deal with those Harvard kids.
 
soccerboy22 said:
OK, let me say this again then. YOU CAN STILL EAT MEAT ON MONDAYS. The city is just trying to support a different life style choice. They aren't forcing anyone to change anything.

LaMidRighter, you can tell them to go **** themselves, because plenty people are. But those people also understand it is just about supporting choices and for one or two days out of the month they are trying to get people to try something else.

Like I said earlier, it isn't that big of a deal and people are making it into something that it isn't. Cambridge isn't forcing anything on anyone aside from having to deal with those Harvard kids.
Click to expand...
It is a big deal, because it sets precedent to encroach on something else relatable.
 
American said:
It is a big deal, because it sets precedent to encroach on something else relatable.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that if it looked liked a right was being even close to being taken away. But it isn't. Sorry, I have been over there and I have asked and that is just not what is happening.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I would agree with that if it looked liked a right was being even close to being taken away. But it isn't. Sorry, I have been over there and I have asked and that is just not what is happening.
Click to expand...
So none of these taxes are being implimented?
 
soccerboy22 said:
OK, let me say this again then. YOU CAN STILL EAT MEAT ON MONDAYS. The city is just trying to support a different life style choice. They aren't forcing anyone to change anything.

LaMidRighter, you can tell them to go **** themselves, because plenty people are. But those people also understand it is just about supporting choices and for one or two days out of the month they are trying to get people to try something else.

Like I said earlier, it isn't that big of a deal and people are making it into something that it isn't. Cambridge isn't forcing anything on anyone aside from having to deal with those Harvard kids.
Click to expand...
Even a soft encroachment is encroachment. While the government in this case may be taking an "advocacy" role, people's diets are none of their business, and it's an insult when some scumbag deigns themselves worthy to suggest to others how they should live, it is the government taking an unwarranted advocacy position for no good reason. So it is a big deal, and as American stated, this is the government of that city dipping it's toe in the water.....so to speak, if it is found it is their business(from their opinion) then eventually it does have the potential to metasticize into something more onerous. And again, those busy bodies have no business in authority if that is how they are going to use it.

Edit- And if I'm not going to let an individual vegan that I already don't respect what to eat, I'm certainly not going to take it from my employee("Representative")
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
it's an insult when some scumbag deigns themselves worthy to suggest to others how they should live, it is the government taking an unwarranted advocacy position for no good reason. So it is a big deal, and as American stated, this is the government of that city dipping it's toe in the water.....so to speak, if it is found it is their business(from their opinion) then eventually it does have the potential to metasticize into something more onerous. And again, those busy bodies have no business in authority if that is how they are going to use it.
Click to expand...

Agreed! The government busy bodies have no right to tell us how to live our own lives and make decisions for us!

Uh, you are talking about abortion, gay marriage and prayer in schools, right?
 
Even a soft encroachment is encroachment.
Click to expand...

Communities have the right to self-determination. Only not to the extent that individual self-determination becomes impossible.

Outlawing or making the punitive tax unaffordable for regular use among the middle income bracket of the community is the only unconstitutional encroachment.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Even a soft encroachment is encroachment. While the government in this case may be taking an "advocacy" role, people's diets are none of their business, and it's an insult when some scumbag deigns themselves worthy to suggest to others how they should live, it is the government taking an unwarranted advocacy position for no good reason. So it is a big deal, and as American stated, this is the government of that city dipping it's toe in the water.....so to speak, if it is found it is their business(from their opinion) then eventually it does have the potential to metasticize into something more onerous. And again, those busy bodies have no business in authority if that is how they are going to use it.

Edit- And if I'm not going to let an individual vegan that I already don't respect what to eat, I'm certainly not going to take it from my employee("Representative")
Click to expand...

I would agree if the meat was getting an extra tax, but as it stands right now it is just the name of the day.
 
Groucho said:
Agreed! The government busy bodies have no right to tell us how to live our own lives and make decisions for us!

Uh, you are talking about abortion, gay marriage and prayer in schools, right?
Click to expand...
As well, it's not right v. left with me. I think that the government should only intervene in gay marriage as far as protecting a particular religion choosing whether or not to perform a ceremony(as is their right) however licensing should only apply to civil unions and sanctified marriage should be recognized for benefits(either or, both protected). Prayer in schools is tricky, it should be voluntary and the decision of that particular community. Abortion is something I disagree with, but would defer to the states as would be more proper.
 
Morality Games said:
Communities have the right to self-determination. Only not to the extent that individual self-determination becomes impossible.

Outlawing or making the punitive tax unaffordable for regular use among the middle income bracket of the community is the only unconstitutional encroachment.
Click to expand...

soccerboy22 said:
I would agree if the meat was getting an extra tax, but as it stands right now it is just the name of the day.
Click to expand...

I think the point we are missing is it is not the elected authorities business to advocate for a lifestyle choice as far as diet or lifestyle choices go, it is not my councilman's nor any other representatives business in how I choose to live as long as it does not immediately pose a threat to the rights of others.
 
LaMidRighter said:
As well, it's not right v. left with me. I think that the government should only intervene in gay marriage as far as protecting a particular religion choosing whether or not to perform a ceremony(as is their right) however licensing should only apply to civil unions and sanctified marriage should be recognized for benefits(either or, both protected). Prayer in schools is tricky, it should be voluntary and the decision of that particular community. Abortion is something I disagree with, but would defer to the states as would be more proper.
Click to expand...

So you think local communities should decide certain personal issues -- but not others (such as a healty diet)?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think the point we are missing is it is not the elected authorities business to advocate for a lifestyle choice as far as diet or lifestyle choices go, it is not my councilman's nor any other representatives business in how I choose to live as long as it does not immediately pose a threat to the rights of others.
Click to expand...

OK that makes sense. Do you think this particular law in Cambridge does that?
 
Groucho said:
So you think local communities should decide certain personal issues -- but not others (such as a healty diet)?
Click to expand...
No, but they have been protected in very limited instances by the court, I think it was a bad decision but until it's revisited we are stuck with it.
 
Groucho said:
OK that makes sense. Do you think this particular law in Cambridge does that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, it's no different than giving preferential treatment to a carpool for political purposes(planning in a massive city for congestion being the exception), or certain social initiatives to entice people to do things they normally would be opposed to. In this instance I see an attempt to use coercive social pressure, which is probably my least favorite social(edit-social=political) tactic.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
No, but they have been protected in very limited instances by the court, I think it was a bad decision but until it's revisited we are stuck with it.
Click to expand...

OK fine, got it! :)

I have no problem with people arguing against this because they disagree with it. What I take exception to are people who see this as something unconstitutional or an abuse of power or something. That's just silly.
 
jamesrage said:
It looks like the religious zealots in the man made global warming fairy tale religion are running amok.


FOXNews.com - Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate 'Emergency'

Going green will not be optional in Cambridge, Mass., if the Cambridge Climate Congress has its way. It will be mandatory.

There will be congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Curbside parking will be eliminated. There will be a carbon tax "of some kind," not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. And the Massachusetts city, home of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will advocate vegetarianism and veganism, complete with "Meatless or Vegan Mondays."

Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Congress, which was created in May 2009 to respond to the "climate emergency" plaguing Cambridge. Once the Congress settles on its recommendations, they will submitted to the City Council.

"This emergency is created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent warnings of climate scientists that substantial reductions are needed in order to reduce the risk of disastrous changes to our climate," the Climate Congress reported in proposals issued on Jan. 23. "This proposal is made in the belief that an effective local response is, if anything, made more urgent by so far inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emissions reductions. It is made in the belief that our City should lead by example."

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021210_cambridge.pdf

While the group's proposals remain a work in a progress, some experts say the potential measures it advocates are "heavy-handed" and incongruous. But others say the city just might be onto something, particularly if the taxes associated with the plan are used to make buildings and transportation more efficient.

Dr. Ken Green, a resident scholar on environment and energy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said he found an "overall redundancy" in the proposals, specifically regarding a carbon-based tax coupled with congestion pricing, increased parking meter rates and parking tickets.

"That's just a revenue-raiser for the city," said Green. "There's an overall incoherence of having a carbon tax and three or four indirect taxes."

To best reduce emissions in the near-term, Green suggested a revenue-neutral carbon tax, meaning that little -- if any -- of the funds raised would be retained by municipal government. The vast majority under such a plan would be returned to the public.

"It creates an incentive to become more energy efficient to either avoid the tax or keep as much of any rebate as possible," Green said. "But if they do the [carbon] tax, they should get rid of almost all of the other things. If the point is to put a price on carbon, pick one price, make it transparent and then get rid of the other regulations, which end up overpricing carbon. So if you had your carbon tax, you don't need your congestion pricing because people are already paying the tax in their gasoline."

Green also said the proposal to ban the production and distribution of plastic bags and bottled water in city limits is as "heavy-handed as government can get" and questioned Cambridge's proposal to institute disincentives for the purchase of non-regional food.

"Trying to grow something out of season in a greenhouse locally may produce more greenhouse gas emissions than having the same food shipped in from a place where it grows naturally," he said. "Studies do not come down uniformly on the side that local is better."

But Richard Rood, a professor of atmospheric, oceanic, and space sciences at the University of Michigan, praised Cambridge's proposal to create a "temperate zone" program, in which building are neither heated nor cooled during the fall and spring.

"That is a place where you might make a difference," said Rood, who writes a blog for Weather Underground.

He also praised the city's proposal to advocate vegetarianism and veganism.

"From a climate point of view, eating less meat would have a climate impact," said Rood, citing increased deforestation, methane production, fertilizer use and greenhouse gases associated with maintaining that land. "Eating less meat is for the environment in many ways.
Click to expand...

The feds will trump it. It violates the Constitution. The greenazis cannot force their BS on the public.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think the point we are missing is it is not the elected authorities business to advocate for a lifestyle choice as far as diet or lifestyle choices go, it is not my councilman's nor any other representatives business in how I choose to live as long as it does not immediately pose a threat to the rights of others.
Click to expand...

I will admit I didn't think of it this way and I understand where you are coming from. I think the difference between you and I and the people of Cambridge that I talked to is that to us it isn't the government advocating a lifestyle choice, but recognizing a lifestyle choice. But if it changes and it looks more like they are advocating veganism then I will be the first in line to join you.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I will admit I didn't think of it this way and I understand where you are coming from. I think the difference between you and I and the people of Cambridge that I talked to is that to us it isn't the government advocating a lifestyle choice, but recognizing a lifestyle choice. But if it changes and it looks more like they are advocating veganism then I will be the first in line to join you.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom