Why not have government feed the People?

Post Reply New Topic

Especially when the party in power is trying to 'reduce it to a size that one can easily drown in the bathtub.'

When the Democrats are in power incompetence also abounds.

Party makes no difference. The kind of people who succeed in politics in the U.S. couldn't run a lemonade stand at a profit.

ruveyn

^
I was about to say, 'at least the Democrats don't actually TRY to fail,' but after the last two years I'm not sure that's accurate.

The democrats do try to fail, but it's not their fault of course. It's all the fault of Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Could you explain that? Thank you.

ruveyn

i totally agree with ruveyn we should just let everyone die if they haven't taken care of everything or are just f****d by fate.

I think the government should only feed CITIZENS in good standing (no record, or at least nothing too serious). As it stands now, criminals get better support than the disabled or Military veterans - it's so messed up.

Given that government exists (as an anarchist I'm compelled to stipulate this condition, because of course I'd prefer a condition in which it didn't, but given that it does...) I think it would be better for government to act so as to empower the people to feed themselves and each other, rather than feeding the people directly.

Here's an example of what I mean. First, four facts about the city in which I reside.

1) Over one third of the populace collects SNAP benefits (food stamps).
2) The region's food pantries are chronically over-utilized.
3) We have local under-utilized hydroelectric generation capacity.
4) We have lots of vacant retail and industrial real estate - warehouses, strip malls, big box stores, all sitting unused.

So the approach I think government ought to take is to provide aid in starting up non-profit cooperatives to produce food locally in hydroponic gardens set up in currently-vacant buildings, while at the same time further developing hydro power infrastructure to offset the increased energy consumption.

In the short term, this creates jobs and injects food into the local economy, easing the burden on the food pantries. In the longer term, the hope is for the community to become sustainably (i.e. without relying on either agricultural subsidies or SNAP benefits) food-secure.

I would agree with this, but you worded it much better than I probably would have also I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist. It does seem in the case of food it would make more sense for the government to support people feeding themselves rather than directly feeding the people...somehow I imagine it would then be like waiting at the social security office for food.

We need to get rid of the "old similar threads" thing...

Governments should feed the people, and moreover, many do. The United States has a program explicitly designed to feed the hungry, but governments that don't, do run programs that aim to keep staple foods affordable for all.

Well, considering I'm currently (and temporarily) on food stamps, the government technically DOES feed me.

Thanks, government!

I hope the Oort Cloud government is generous to you. You need optimal nutrition to moderate this forum!

Thank you!

Yeah, direct distribution of food from the government seems inherently inefficient and degrading (not to mention ripe with opportunities to exploit the subject populace). During emergencies, or prolonged famine, it might be necessary but it shouldn't be a regular feature of a food distribution network.

SNAP benefits are already indirect - rather than providing beneficiaries with food directly, government provides beneficiaries with limited access to the cash nexus for the purpose of food acquisition. The upside of this is that (1) distributing food via white-market (i.e. the legal and officially approved market, e.g. licensed retailers) transactions strengthens the economy-as-a-whole, and (2) a strong economy-as-a-whole thereby strengthens the food distribution network.

On the downside though, giving poverty-stricken local economies (communities like my city) access to food delivered from around the globe via heavily-subsidized transportation infrastructure dis-incentivizes local production to meet local demand. As a result, even if the individuals and families in a poverty-stricken local economy come and go over time, the local economy itself continues to receive significant amounts of SNAP benefits.

This is the welfare dependency that conservatives speak of. Communities are incentivized to rely on outside aid for sustenance. But unlike (at least some) conservatives I think the solution to that problem is not to reduce the aid, but to subsidize and incentivize local production to meet local demand, thereby rendering the aid unnecessary. While the costs of this approach are significantly greater initially, long-term savings would be realized by ending the presently-indefinite monthly payments to these communities.