Wednesday, February 15, 2012


"Let me take care of my business at home and at night"

Poor people don't buy new cars, and even if they did, they don't buy new expensive cars, and even if they did, they don't buy new expensive electric cars. That's an economic fact, if you cannot afford something, you don't tend to even try buying it (the recent housing debacles aside). And electric cars are not very useful to the poor given their short range and low carrying capacity. Poor folks need to get things done efficiently, so they can't pop down to the market once every few days for the latest organic tofu. They have to haul lots of kids all at once and get lots of groceries and supplies when they have money.

So when the Obama administration insists on subsidizing the purchase of electric cars, that's not something to help the poor, its something to help the rich (or, as the Occupy vandals put it, the 1%). And that money comes from the pockets of the poorer folks who pay higher prices elsewhere to make up for the taxes and US Debt accrued to pay for subsidies. That's especially true for high-end boutique electric cars like the $104,000Fisker Karma.

The fact is, most leftist policies meant to help the poor actually hurt them and bias toward the wealthy. Take food policy. Insisting that kids eat healthy meals is something easy for the wealthy, who can afford to buy whatever the latest Oprah Winfrey show commands, but the poor have to give kids what they can buy. At the John Pope Civitas Institute of South Carolina, there's a story told about schools and the food police by Matt Willoughby:
The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch. The girl ate only the chicken nuggets provided to her by the school, so she still didn’t eat a vegetable.

The mother says her daughter doesn’t like vegetables and – like most four year olds – will only eat them at home under close supervision.
Its hard to get a lot of little kids to eat veggies. Subtle flavors and textures are a bit beyond their growing palates and they just don't like the stuff, usually. Some do, such as myself, but most don't.

This girl's mother cannot afford to pack food in her daughter's lunch that she won't eat. If she buys broccoli and packs it in the lunch and little Molly won't eat it, she's just thrown money away that she can ill afford to spend.

Parents don't have to pay for this school lunch handed for free to make sure the kids eat the way the teachers insist... at least not directly. They do pay taxes which are used to pay for these lunches, but they don't have to lay money down for the lunch on the spot.

Its not that kids should not eat vegetables, its that the state (as represented by the law-mandated schools) has no place forcing them to do so at the expense of everyone else, in defiance of their parents.
The mother added, “It’s just a headache to keep arguing and fighting. I’ve even wrote a note to her teachers and said do not give my daughter anything else unless it comes out of her lunchbox and they are still going against me and putting a milk in front of her every day.
The fact is, liberty means that people are free to raise their kids however they want. Even if they suck at it, as long as they aren't doing significant and direct harm to the kids. In other words, you're free to be a lousy parent, as long as you aren't burning them with the hot iron because they didn't answer loud enough.

That means even if some social worker or legislature thinks spanking is evil, parents can do it, they can feed their kids McDonald's and not take them to museums and generally be not politically correct and its none of the state's business. That's because it's an inescapable fact that parents are better at raising kids than bureaucrats, even if they are lousy parents. Sure, there's a line, as I've said: some parents are so evil or irresponsible they should lose their kids. If you're trying to whore out your 11 year old daughter to buy meth, you aren't even a parent any longer.

But the state has absolutely no business, no reasonable or proper authority to intervene in this manner. Keep your hands out of the lunch bag, teachers. Its none of your business.

Incidentally, how do chicken nuggets work out to be more nutritious than what this mom packed?

No comments: