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 susp

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.