"add lots of taxes" - How incredibly naive. Any tax money would be wasted. Some people would pay more, some corrupt people will find a way to spend that tax money, and almost nothing else would change.

Well maybe, you'll make it so poor people can't drive or cool their houses in the summer, but the middle class and up won't change their behavior.

I wish you "just tax it" people would hold your electives accountable for spending before you throw more money at them.

This is a Pigovian[0] tax so the tax by itself makes the world more efficient. Also since most governments can borrow lots of money, tax revenue is fairly decoupled from government spending.

And if people are concerned about an increase in tax revenue being spent on Social Security or Medicare they could just use the money to write everyone a lump sum tax refund.(or reduce the income tax etc...)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

As far as this scenario is concerned, it doesn't matter that the tax money is wasted. The point is to discourage consumption.

Discourage consumption by who? People without money?

You're busy looking up, and forgetting there's a class or two of people below you that would be [disproportionately] affected by your policy.

If you think everyone should have access to some meat, you can take some of that tax money and use it to subsidize a minimal amount of meat consumption for low-income families.

That's a scary thought. Think of it this way: in a corrupt society the wealthy upper class can do whatever they want and get away with it. If we continue controlling behavior like this through tax then we'd have the same behavior as the corrupt society: wealthy people do what they want and poor people can't do anything... The difference is you'd be codifying this into law. Instead of being 'corrupt' behavior we can work to abolish, it would be the acceptable expected behavior.

Maybe that isn't corruption at all, and we've been wrong this whole time. Maybe right and wrong are malleable enough to sway under money. Maybe we need corruption to survive as a species. I don't know.

I'm not much for Common Lisp, but I do think Scheme is the prettiest language in which people write ugly code. As such, while I am sympathetic to the virtues of s-expressions, this example is not going to win any hearts or minds. I don't much care for Python's performance or newer features, but your snippet screams for a comparison:

    if condition:
        a, b, c = c, a, b
        a, c, b = b, a, c

That really seems much more clear than the gymnastics my mind has to do manually pairing the assignments inside of psetf. I won't argue that it's objectively better syntax, but I still think it is.

Well...

  (define-syntax assign-group!
    (ir-macro-transformer
      (lambda (x i c)
        (let ((vars (cadr x))
              (vals (caddr x)))
          `(let ,(map (lambda (var val) '(var val)) vars vals)
             ,@(map (lambda (var) 
                      `(set! ,(i var) ,var)) vars))))))

Mind, I haven't tested this, because I don't have CHICKEN Scheme (the dialect this is written in) in front of me, and I may not have matched all the parens on the end, but it should work like this:

  (assign-group! (a b c) (c a b))

Giving you your nice assigment syntax you wanted.

That's the nice thing about Lisps: if you don't like it, you can change it.

There is in fact one error in the above macro: well, I think only one: in the map, (lambda (var val) '(var val)) should be (lambda (var val) (list var val))

That's why I mentioned rotatef:

   (rotatef a c b) ;; a <-- c <-- b
                   ;; `--->----->-'

You forgot "else:"

Funny that. In my head, I parsed it as two (odd) statements under one if statement. More like when than if.