Dumb. Students of rich parents should not be given free meals and their parents should be taxed more heavily to fund this.
FTFY
Why? Let people who have the means spend money on how they want. People with the means should be able to buy other food instead of whatever garbage they’re fed in public schools.
The delusion that being rich means you are omniscient, rather than just good in one field and equally as ignorant as everywhere else (including nutrition), is poisoning the US and the world.
No other country in the world would see such pushback toward Walz's humanitarian idea.
So you want the state to regulate the meals of every person, because apparently some people are ignorant in nutrition? That’s a very authoritarian idea.
But when you take away money from people, you are limiting their options elsewhere. I’m all for raising taxes on the wealthy- but not coupled with handouts for them as well.
Oh FFS, this is such an easy thing to understand.
1. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be necessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for free lunches for low-income students. This is a good thing.
2. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be unnecessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for lunches for rich students who don’t need it at all. This is a bad thing.
These two things are not in contradiction with one another at all.
I responded to the post you made. I don't feel inclined to strain my brain trying to piece together a better version of your post. Anyway, your argument is not as obviously correct as you seem to think it is.
First of all, there are a lot good reasons to support free school lunch for all kids even if you accept your ideas about taxes and freedom. Universal government benefits are much harder politically to cut back than means-tested programs. Messing with universal social security is a third rail in US politics, while means-tested welfare is pretty unpopular AFAIK, and certainly not a dangerous thing for a republican to rail against. Means-testing free school lunch costs quite significant amounts of money and manpower, forces poor families to jump through a bunch of hoops, and leads to a lot of poor kids falling through the cracks and not getting food. All that just so you can charge some families for lunch. It also makes actually getting the food from the cafeteria take longer since lunch servers have to manage "checking in" and charging for every kid. And some people aren't fans of forcing kids of rich parents to pay for basic s**t out of spite
Secondly, have you thought through the implications of treating taking money away from someone as equivalent to "reducing their freedom". That implies that having more money means having more freedom. Wouldn't some people having more freedom than others purely because they got lucky in the lottery of life be unfair and completely counter to what freedom is supposed to be about? And since freedom goes down when you lose money, that makes freedom necessarily a numerical quantity. Making freedom a numerical number is dumb and makes a mockery of the concept. It's an emotion, a state of being.
