New story in Texas Tribune (link: https//www.texastribune.org) Governor Greg Abbott introduces bill to prohibit Federal Benefits in Texas being spent on unhealthy, unprocessed foods. I am aware of how some of my fellow libertarians feel about SNAP, and am also aware that we all know, as Stokely Carmichael once said, "The biggest welfare program is for the farmers" and that SNAP is part of what he is talking about. I am also aware that my fellow libertarians have taken microeconomics, and have seen the proof that general utility is increased by giving low income persons cash grants, rather than food stamps that can't be spent on fl alcohol and cigarettes. (I am also in favor of a universal basic income, as AI increases our leisure and makes hard manual labor obsolete, but that is a topic for another debate.) Notwithstanding the pluses and minuses of the government getting involved in the market at all, if it is going to get involved, it should seek to maximize general utility by minimizing regulation. Let "welfare queens" (most welfare recipients are still white, and there really is no such thing as "welfare") purchase chips and jerky, if it is all the Dollar General that is their only grocery store in walking distance sells. It is no business of mine. If they choose to spend their Federal Benefits on marijuana and fentanyl, again, it is no business of mine. If they choose to be homeless (only mentally challenged persons "choose" to be homeless, if they are capable of informed choice, which is another topic) because of their other choices, it is no business of mine, and really no proper business of the government's.
Governor Greg Abbott, socially conservative Republican, and the Texas Legislature, socially conservative Republicans, apparently dislike the "nanny state" when it regulates workplace safety (not getting started on OSHA), firearms purchases (again, not going there in this post), who can be hired and fired and how (skipping affirmative action and DEI), but have been copacetic with regulating women's health, censoring children's literature based on the "parental rights" of two or three religiously enraged persons, and now with regulating the kinds of foods that lower income persons may purchase or eat. They are not regulating middle class persons, or wealthy persons, although if it is a good idea for one class of citizens, it should be a good idea for all classes of citizens. (It is not a good idea. Humans being the monkeys that they are, workarounds will happen.).
I am a libertarian, not an economically liberal Democrat, not a socially conservative Republican, who believes in private property, minding my own business, and that the government that governs the least governs the best. I hate it when Democrats try to do a nanny state, and I hate it when Republicans try to do a nanny state.
How say you all?
Posted by No_Feedback5166