Why not have government feed the People?

Post Reply New Topic

So the government has failed in it function to guard public health. Think of what the government would do to us if they ALL the power.

ruveyn

I remember you made this slippery slope argument elsewhere and someone pointed out "Government already feeds people with Food Stamps, so your slipper slop argument doesn't work".

Sure it does. Whatever the government does, it does badly.

ruveyn

Which, if all that brain power of yours was functioning properly would lead you to want to fix the government. I agree it certainly needs fixing.

Why is it that the worst civil services in the industrialized world always seemed to be staffed by people who agree with your sentiment?

And it was private industry taking shortcuts that caused the problems to begin with. You can't vote out some of these private industries because they're too big to be avoided but you certainly can change who is in government...in theory, anyways. I still think the media dictates elections more than covers them.

We already do.

I'm actually proud to live in a country where we are wealthy enough to provide a basic safety net (food stamps in whatever form) such that we don't just let people starve on the streets. I think the safety net should be a little lower than it is though and only provide basic cheap essential foods to those that can't afford it. And the food should be the cheapest, blandest crap as a motivator for those to do whatever they can to get out of the safety net, yet nutritious enough for a health diet. We want to prevent people from starving, but instead we have an obesity problem.

Now to compare this to health care, I think most people support a bare minimum system to prevent us from letting people die on the street when they simply need some antibiotics for an infection. And in USA we do already have this in an ugly form by banning hospitals from refusing lifesaving treatment when someone can't pay. It's an ugly system because once you use it, you can be in debt the rest of your life, but we don't just let people die.

It's a bare minimum that I think most people can agree on having the government provide.

Unless you're a socialist who believes in economic equality for all. Then food rationing for all people makes sense. You'll end up with the soviet style breadlines, but hey it's ok because will all be treated equal(equally crappy that is). And a goverment run medical system for all people makes sense to them. But the problem is that you end up with rationing, log waits, and this http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt141908.html.

You can stop doing business with them. Try that with the government, especially if they wish to collect taxes from you.

ruveyn

Not necessarily. You CAN, however make moves in elections and through referendum to control government.

You and a million others.

ruveyn

You look like you're being facetious. Anyway, yah, for basic safety netting, I agree that a democratically controlled government should do this. The government, as well as society, shouldn't allow mass starvation to happen. The government should do something, as well as everyone else. I don't believe you have to be grateful or look as government as a provider as one who believes in social democracy. The government should just be viewed as a tool to help society run smoother on behalf of the people, nothing more nothing less. I'd rather single mothers be able to feed their children during times of joblessness than not. As someone who has friends that have been on food stamps, its no picnic for them. The goal should be that people be able to provide their own food without government. However, in times of crisis, whether small scale or large scale, the government should do something.

Last edited by JNathanK on 05 Nov 2010, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yah, that's the point. There are certain things that are social rights, that everyone has a stake in, and there's some things that aren't. Your car, house, television, etc, shouldn't be owned by anyone but yourself, but when it comes to national parks, universal health care, universal education, roads, etc, those are things that concern everyone.

I challenge you to a Monsanto-free diet.

Exactly, if they have a monopoly, there's little you can do about it. If you're dissatisfied with the way the government is spending money, you at least have the ability to vote them out of office. Market liberals, I swear, are as ideological as the state communists they denounce.

QFT
I was going to say something along these lines, but you beat me to it: food stamps should go for whole wheat bread, fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, and unprocessed dairy - and not much else. I'm fully in support of NY's proposal to take away the ability to buy sugary drinks with food stamps.

Unfortunately, these foods are more expensive so it would take a lot more in food stamps to feed a family than is currently alloted. I agree with the omitting junk food part, but I suspect this is a lot easier said than done. There are strong motives for food companies to ensure that the poor keep consuming their crap.

I recently saw a documentary about a school for homeless kids in California. The school provides breakfast and luch for the students through donations from the processed food giants. They are provided with poptarts and pastries for breakfast and packaged corn dogs for lunch. How nice of them . I can't imagine why many of the kids can't seem to focus at school...