3 ms·

Could someone against the idea of providing food for children at school explain their position? I'm interested to hear why you think children should go hungry i

Could someone against the idea of providing food for children at school explain their position? I'm interested to hear why you think children should go hungry if their parents don't give them cash to bring to school.

HarryHirsch 4y ago
The keyword is "immanent justice" and its twin sister "unconditional grace". Bad things happen to those who deserve them, and also, since bad things do not happen to you you are counted amongst the good guys and are visibly favoured by the Lord God who looks out for his own. If that sounds sick in the head, that's because it is.
XMPPwocky 4y ago
I think I can do a decent job of steel-manning this- I might be a bit unfair because I think it's rather morally reprehensible and deeply harmful (and also suspect these are only the stated motives of folks pushing this idea), but I can try. Everybody generally agrees children going hungry is bad. What we're really arguing about is whether the government should be spending taxpayer funds on feeding them. In fact, because the overwhelming majority of people see child hunger as bad, private charity would step in to feed those kids who aren't fed by the state. This is better in two ways: first, it's more voluntary (instead of "donations" being compelled by force), and second, private (market-driven) charity can be more efficient than a state monopoly. So it's not that kids should go hungry, and I (n.b. this is me in-character!) am a bit surprised that you think I seriously believe that. Rather, kids necessarily go hungry if nobody feeds them, and the debate (OOC: note i'm deliberately reframing the harm here as a natural thing!) is really over who should step in if the parents, the natural caretakers, aren't able to support their child. Should the government use taxpayer funds to do so, or is voluntary charity a better option for everybody? Additionally, there's a moral hazard here where the state effectively subsidizes having kids that a parent might not be able to take care of on their own.
zajio1am 4y ago
As someone who grew up in country with such policies it is easy - it creates bad incentives for school cafeterias. They can push quality of food down, because they have monopoly for government food money. So the food is barely eatable, you could buy much better food over the street (or just eat at home), but then you have to pay the full price. Also it discriminates against people with strong dietary preferences. E.g. if you are a vegetarian, and school cafeteria does not offer vegetarian food, it is no government food money to you. Also, fair question is not 'free food in school cafeterias or not', the fair question compares equally expensive alternatives: 'should this government money go to parents as child benefits, or to school cafeterias for free food'.
LarryMullins 4y ago
The premise is bullshit, schools in America always give the kids lunch whether or not they have money that day. Kids who forget their money still get fed, the schools insist on it. Even if the kid pleads that he's just not hungry today, the school will put a tray of in front of him anyway. If the kid isn't getting free lunches already through the National School Lunch Act (which gives free or reduced price lunches to 30 million kids a year), then the money they owe will be recorded and their parents will be asked to pay it later. If the parents can't pay, the kid will be signed up for free lunches reimbursed by the federal government. But at no point does the school not give the kid a lunch.
- skyyler 4y ago
  Maybe things are different now, but several times between 2000 and 2007 in the USA I was denied a lunch because my lunch debt was greater than $20.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    It's sort of baffling that people could be angry about the mention that this sort of thing exists when there are school districts that not only racked up gigantic deficits from parents but also refused to allow third parties to pay off those deficits. It's clear that this was never a financial issue for those school districts. They wanted these people to individually suffer for the sin of being poor.

HarryHirsch 4y ago

The keyword is "immanent justice" and its twin sister "unconditional grace". Bad things happen to those who deserve them, and also, since bad things do not happen to you you are counted amongst the good guys and are visibly favoured by the Lord God who looks out for his own. If that sounds sick in the head, that's because it is.

XMPPwocky 4y ago

I think I can do a decent job of steel-manning this- I might be a bit unfair because I think it's rather morally reprehensible and deeply harmful (and also suspect these are only the stated motives of folks pushing this idea), but I can try. Everybody generally agrees children going hungry is bad. What we're really arguing about is whether the government should be spending taxpayer funds on feeding them. In fact, because the overwhelming majority of people see child hunger as bad, private charity would step in to feed those kids who aren't fed by the state. This is better in two ways: first, it's more voluntary (instead of "donations" being compelled by force), and second, private (market-driven) charity can be more efficient than a state monopoly. So it's not that kids should go hungry, and I (n.b. this is me in-character!) am a bit surprised that you think I seriously believe that. Rather, kids necessarily go hungry if nobody feeds them, and the debate (OOC: note i'm deliberately reframing the harm here as a natural thing!) is really over who should step in if the parents, the natural caretakers, aren't able to support their child. Should the government use taxpayer funds to do so, or is voluntary charity a better option for everybody? Additionally, there's a moral hazard here where the state effectively subsidizes having kids that a parent might not be able to take care of on their own.

zajio1am 4y ago

As someone who grew up in country with such policies it is easy - it creates bad incentives for school cafeterias. They can push quality of food down, because they have monopoly for government food money. So the food is barely eatable, you could buy much better food over the street (or just eat at home), but then you have to pay the full price. Also it discriminates against people with strong dietary preferences. E.g. if you are a vegetarian, and school cafeteria does not offer vegetarian food, it is no government food money to you. Also, fair question is not 'free food in school cafeterias or not', the fair question compares equally expensive alternatives: 'should this government money go to parents as child benefits, or to school cafeterias for free food'.

LarryMullins 4y ago

The premise is bullshit, schools in America always give the kids lunch whether or not they have money that day. Kids who forget their money still get fed, the schools insist on it. Even if the kid pleads that he's just not hungry today, the school will put a tray of in front of him anyway. If the kid isn't getting free lunches already through the National School Lunch Act (which gives free or reduced price lunches to 30 million kids a year), then the money they owe will be recorded and their parents will be asked to pay it later. If the parents can't pay, the kid will be signed up for free lunches reimbursed by the federal government. But at no point does the school not give the kid a lunch.

skyyler 4y ago
Maybe things are different now, but several times between 2000 and 2007 in the USA I was denied a lunch because my lunch debt was greater than $20.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  It's sort of baffling that people could be angry about the mention that this sort of thing exists when there are school districts that not only racked up gigantic deficits from parents but also refused to allow third parties to pay off those deficits. It's clear that this was never a financial issue for those school districts. They wanted these people to individually suffer for the sin of being poor.