Okay, I'm torn on this.
quote (from a WSJ article Jonathan Adler at Volokh links)
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson have asked the federal government to bar New York City food-stamp recipients from using the benefit to buy sugary drinks,

He asks the question
So is this an example of over-weening paternalism? Or is it a responsible limitation on government assistance?

I say the first, considering who are asking, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
I have a different question.
My opinion is that gov't needs to keep people from killing me, hurting me or taking my stuff. That's about it.
So welfare benefits are none of those three. However, we've decided that we should help poor people.
As a pragmatic person, I can accept that. I think we've gone too far and it should be temporary, difficult and annoying, but I can see it as a necessity.

So, as a libertarianish person, should I be in favor of restricting their free drink rights or against?

On the one hand, it's none of the govt's business what I eat or drink.

On the other hand, they're paying for it, shouldn't they be able to attach conditions?

As I said, I think it's not the govt's job to take care of you when you can't (except that we've decided it is, extra-Constitutionally IMO), but I've also said that I think if we're going to do welfare, it should be difficult and annoying, this makes it both.

The only reason I'm not totally for it is the nagging feeling that I'm arguing over how to do something instead of whether we should do it.
That is a trap I try to avoid.

Post delayed because my favorite scene from Pteradactly was on. The hot bleach-blonde going swimming in her undies, almost being eaten by a pteradactyl and then leered at by the guy she runs screaming to. Full of silicon, peroxide, bad special effects, bad acting and hilarious. What makes Sci-fi movies so great.

Posted by: Veeshir at 02:32 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.