Socialist candidate for the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders (or should we say 'one of the socialist candidates"?) is very big on the little guy. Or so he claims. But he, like all who support drastic action for climate change, turns that supposed concern upside when it comes to government action designed to control and re-engineer the behavior of individual human beings.
In this particular case, we're talking about Sanders' recent green thumb up to the idea of a meat tax.
Sanders was answering questions from the crowd when he said he was open to a meat tax. An audience member began her question by declaring that "animal agriculture is to blame for the majority of climate change and is the leading cause of deforestation, water and air pollution, and biodiversity loss."
The obvious activist had two parts to her question . First, she said, "with that being known, what do you plan on doing to ensure that Americans limit their consumption of animal products," a sort of giving away of the game regarding the social engineering here. "Ensure" she said. Animal products, she said. That was about half of the extremist eco-nut red flags in a matter of a few words.
The second part of her question is what roped him in. "Germany has imposed a meat tax in hopes of limiting this consumption. What are your plans to stop these large corporations from further usurping natural resources and polluting the planet."
In response to that obviously insane question, Bernie replied "it's a good question."
Then he opened the door to not just the meat tax but who knows what other crazy scheme the woman and other members of her cell can cook up to forbid you having steak. Watch:
"Thank you for the question and it's a good question all I can say is if we believe as I do and you do that climate change is real we're gonna have to tackle it in every single area including agriculture, okay?"
A long, long time ago, way back in 2016, there was an op-ed in Philadelphia Magazine ahead of the Pennsylvania primaries regarding the idea of a soda tax. The editorial said that the proposed city tax on soda would be regressive, disproportionately affecting lower and middle class families, and thus the author of the op-ed opposed it, even though Democratic luminaries like Hillary Clinton came out in favor of it.
That op-ed was written by Bernie Sanders. His argument, that taxing sugar drinks (like juice boxes and sodas) would cause a greater burden on those families than on wealthy families who could easily afford the price different, is of course exactly as applicable in the case of a meat tax. Any tax designed to force you to change your behavior by its nature depends on your action being dictated by price concerns. It's obvious.
Yet when answering this obvious extremist on her crazy proposals to avert the impending Armageddon her particular religion so fervently believes in and fears, Sanders said it was a good question and that he would "certainly" look at "agriculture" and take action. "You're right," he said in answer to her question about imposing a meat tax and other oppressive restrictions to force people to change their habits.
What a difference two and a half years makes.