how do I say this, but free school lunches are provided by the state, wanting less state is literally wanting no free school lunches, rights are also given by the state (the only inherent rights are natural rights, everything beyond might makes right is the state meddling in our lives)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t say they wanted less state. Just for the state to do less bad things/things that hinder its citizens. That doesn’t mean they must oppose school lunches, unless they also believe that school lunches fit into that category. You can argue whether or not they do, but ‘you don’t want the government to hinder us, but X is the government hindering us, therefore you must oppose X’ isn’t much of an argument on its own.
no they want less state because the ideology dictates that the state just does it worse, something that just isn’t born out by reality, case and point school lunches
I’m for small government so yes, I want less state. But school lunches is definitely one of the last things that should be cut. Since I’m fairly certain that in real world we’re never going to cut or fix the hundreds of things that are more wrong than publically funded school lunches, in practical terms I’m not advocating against them.
And as for the other items in zargotext’s list, I pretty much agree with them too. But also excessive regulation, market distortions of every kind, poor educational systems, bureacracy.
If the context is USA, it’s an old country in modern terms. A lot of cruft has accumulated in 300 years and it’s not getting better. Ditto for many others.
Hinder us how?
Off the top of my head:
Those are all pretty big ways in which the government hinders the population at large.
how do I say this, but free school lunches are provided by the state, wanting less state is literally wanting no free school lunches, rights are also given by the state (the only inherent rights are natural rights, everything beyond might makes right is the state meddling in our lives)
No idea what your point is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t say they wanted less state. Just for the state to do less bad things/things that hinder its citizens. That doesn’t mean they must oppose school lunches, unless they also believe that school lunches fit into that category. You can argue whether or not they do, but ‘you don’t want the government to hinder us, but X is the government hindering us, therefore you must oppose X’ isn’t much of an argument on its own.
Apologies if I misunderstood your comment tho.
no they want less state because the ideology dictates that the state just does it worse, something that just isn’t born out by reality, case and point school lunches
I’m for small government so yes, I want less state. But school lunches is definitely one of the last things that should be cut. Since I’m fairly certain that in real world we’re never going to cut or fix the hundreds of things that are more wrong than publically funded school lunches, in practical terms I’m not advocating against them.
That said, just because school lunch is publically funded aka “free” does not necessarily make it good. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/healthier-school-lunches-may-have-curbed-childhood-obesity-new-study-finds/2023/06 – but again, that’s a detail problem that can be fixed (like it was here) without dropping that practice altogether.
And as for the other items in zargotext’s list, I pretty much agree with them too. But also excessive regulation, market distortions of every kind, poor educational systems, bureacracy.
If the context is USA, it’s an old country in modern terms. A lot of cruft has accumulated in 300 years and it’s not getting better. Ditto for many others.