Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),
- urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
- agriculture is 48m km²,
so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that’s 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.
I’m slightly exaggerating, but it would absolutely empower reactionary conspiracy theories and give them ammunition to draw disaffected poor whites into their echo chambers. There’s already a persistent conspiracy theory that the (((global elites))) are conspiring to stop white people from eating meat (to make them weaker and less masculine) and this would just empower them.
Food prices are the #1 way governments collapse. You can’t just price poor people out of eating meat and expect it to work. They’ll hate you for it. They’ll want revenge. It would be a coup lead by the military, or a counterrevolution lead by businesses/ranchers.
I fail to see how your counterproposal to outright ban meat would not lead to this same scenario (probably faster).
Also, you’re ignoring the option to provide a divedend (monthly, if you like) to citizens from the tax revenue to offset increased meat prices. With the dividend, the poor would be largely unaffected, and mostly the result would be the middle class reducing their meat consumption from excessive to moderate.
Also also, you keep talking about how this scheme bans poor people from eating meat. But I have to say, this reminds me of the criticism that gas taxes hurt poor people since now they have to pay more for gas - ignoring the fact that many poor people simply don’t drive cars, because they are too poor to afford them. And so a gas tax spent on improving transit ends up helping the poorest, because what people need is transportation, not cheap gas.
Also also also, if this sort of scheme were ever implemented, I highly doubt it would result in widespread food riots like you see in a developing nation when they are literally starving in the streets. Worst case, it would result in the people who implemented it being voted out of office and having the policy rolled back. And with a dividend program and a gradual pricing rollout, this would be even less likely.
Meatless Mondays happened. It’s definitely possible to ration meat.
Now, see my other reply to you for why I think rebates are workable, but complicated.
Confused. I remember this being a volutary phenomenon with individual participation. Maybe a few university cafeterias participated. Not a government mandate for no meat sales on Mondays.
It was more voluntary during WW1.
In WW2 there was an explicit food rationing program, and though there were voluntary elements the Red Stamp program allotted a certain number of points for meats/fat/butter. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly in the form of war ration stamps, and the points expired if they weren’t used. This was done not only to help feed the war effort, but also to prevent the riots that would have happened if meat became too expensive for poor people to eat.
WWII rationing wasn’t meatless mondays, I don’t… buddy.
Whelp, I made a mistake, now nothing I say matters and you automatically win the conversation.
Come on. my point still stands even if I misremembered the exact name of the program. Rationing works, when it’s fair.
Why not just own the mistake, instead of presenting a totally separate concept as though you were correct in the first place? That would be fine, we all screw up. Getting hostile when someone gets exasperated because you’re trying to cover for a mistake in a clunky way is the opposite of productive.
(edit: You’ve edited your comment since I wrote this to include the second line. No, the two are extremely different programs that are not at all comparable and your meaning changes completely when moving between the two.)
Why not just point out that I made a mistake, instead of making-
-snide comments like that? It was clearly meant to humiliate me for making a mistake.
You mocked me, so I got hostile.
So we can’t do vegan social policies because the… white supremacists might use that as evidence of a secret jewish conspiracy to stop them eating meat in order to make them less manly.
And that’s your real concern.
We can’t make it illegal for poor people specifically to eat meat because they’ll be recruited by fascists to overthrow the government. A ban has to be all or nothing, or it will create resentment.
okay, nobody has proposed that as a solution. Also that’s… insane.
Making meat too expensive for the poor does, in fact, ban poor people specifically from eating meat.
… Is this a prank? Am I taking the bait? What is happening.
If meat is too expensive for someone to buy, then they can’t buy it.
If someone tries to eat meat they didn’t pay for, they get arrested.
Therefore, making meat too expensive for the poor is a ban with extra steps.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Once again that’s overly reductive to the point that it’s completely departed from anything resembling the topic as presented by everyone else. And I’m still confused about how the hypothetical jewish conspiracy fits into this.
The topic, as presented, was to make meat more expensive so people ate less. I say that’s effectively a ban on poor people eating meat. I don’t really know what part you disagree with, why you disagree with it, or how you think poor people would be able to eat meat they can’t afford. You’re going to need to clarify even a tiny little bit or else I don’t know how I can even talk to you.
There’s an active conspiracy that global elites want to take away real meat and make everyone eat lab grown meat. Ranchers and business owners in the meat industry are especially fond of spreading these conspiracies to lobby for bans on ban lab grown meat.