Feeding "our" children

The debate about the compulsorily funded school lunch programme is being characterised by opponents of the government, as one of mean-hearted people unwilling to feed "our" children.

Advocates of the school lunch programme claim:

• There are children going to school without breakfast and without lunches, and they will perform worse at school than had they been fed...  this is true, but not just for the reasons advocates of state feeding of children claim.

• Simply providing food for the children who are in need (and whose parents can't or wont pay for it) is bad, because it makes those children feel singled out because of the negligence of their parents/guardians unlike that of  children who would not get such meals. this is likely to be true, but neglect to note that is likely to be the case more generally anyway.

• If "we" can't feed "our" children, then what are "our" priorities anyway? 

Of course all kids should be going to school having had breakfast and provided lunches, who would argue against that?

The Government is dancing around the key philosophical argument around this, and despite lazy attempts to portray it as a "culture war", it really isn't. It is an argument around both the role of the state and individual responsibility, and it is obvious that there are people polls apart on this.

On one side is what is, in essence, a socialist position, that it is not only morally right, but there is a moral obligation for politicians to force taxpayers to pay to feed all children at school. The argument being that this provides for the best outcomes for children, and demonstrates a kind and caring society.

On the other side is what is both a conservative traditional, but also a classically liberal position, is that the primary moral obligation to feed children arises with those who chose to take responsibility for them - the parents/guardians.  There being two reasons why the feeding doesn't happen.  First, is if there is genuine poverty, this still obliges the parents/guardians to seek support from the existing welfare system or charitable services to put their children first, and of course people are free to support such services if they want to show kindness to those in need.  Secondly, if parents/guardians put their own needs and wants above those of their children, such as simply feeding them, then it is better to address this neglect, either through education or punitive measures.  

Those on the left diminish or do not believe that compulsorily funded state meals for children undermines parental responsibility, even though it fairly obviously does by feeding all children at school (as the predominantly middle class moans in recent weeks demonstrates). Their belief is that the utility of children being fed (and of course the argument is on the detail of what they are fed, and cost is not an issue for those who simply think the state should take the tax it needs to do what they want) outranks any other consideration.

Those on the right do not believe that the utility of feeding, essentially children from low-income families, does not justify forcing taxpayers to pay for feeding all children, and are suspicious of what happens next. Will taxpayers be forced to pay for "free" school clothes, "free" school transport  for families living close to public transport that goes to the school they choose) or more? All of this would mean less responsibility for parents to think about the needs of their children, and more taxes for everyone to pay.  Most would agree that it is ethical to help parents in need temporarily, and for there even to be assistance, whether charitable or not, for kids who don't get fed, but that isn't a universal meal programme.

Of course as a libertarian the idea taxpayers should be forced to pay to feed other people's children is morally unacceptable. If you want to help people with feeding their children, then feel free to do so, indeed that is the kind and caring thing to do.  There is no kindness in letting politicians raid money from other people, including those who disagree vehemently with the concept, to pay for a scheme organised by politicians and officials, rather than actually making a contribution yourself. 

A state big enough to feed children for one (some say two) meals a day, is big enough to parent them even more, and the record of the state as parent is woeful. 

Some conservatives think the socialist objective of free school meals is a plot to undermine the family, and make people more dependent on the state. I doubt that, although the willingness of so many to simply grow the state without any concern for the scale of its presence disturbs me.  The more of people's money that simply gets taken for other people to spend as they see fit, the less agency you have over your life, and the less accountability for it.  Whereas the more you have, the more options people have to advance their lives and those of their loved ones, and support those they want to.

What I think does matter is the issue of parental neglect.  After all, if parents can't do something as basic as provide a meal for their children above their own need for food, what else are they neglecting?  

Most parents dedicate their priorities to their children. They think of their children 24/7, they think of what they need and do what they can to provide. It's concerning if parents fail either by their own lack of competence or more insidiously, lack of care.  

More importantly, let's define what the problem actually is?

For decades the state didn't feed children at school, and did this generate a systemic problem that was distinguishable from the children routinely neglected by their parents?

Are there parents/guardians in such abject poverty that they haven't got a few dollars to provide a bowl of cereal with milk and fruit each morning (compared to everything else they buy)?  There probably are some, and in particular this probably happens over short periods for some families when there is unemployment or an emergency (e.g., having to move home, refridgerator 

If so, those people should be helped and targeted, because it doesn't just affect food, it affects everything else needed to raise those children adequately.

Are there parents/guardians who consistently neglect their children? Then they should be identified and appropriate carrots and sticks used to change their behaviour (both rewards and sanctions).

One of the single biggest factors for children failing are parents who neglect them materially and emotionally, and these are directly linked. Parents in material hardship do all they can to provide for their children, whether working or seeking charitable help directly or from family, friends and neighbours, and that should all be encouraged. It is entirely appropriate for people in need to seek temporary assistance. However those that do not do this, are either incapable of being parents or are simply negligent.

The kids in need should be helped, but the posturing over this programme, which papers over cracks that neither side in politics is keen to address (as the hard left regards personal responsibility to be a conspiracy and the hard right fears the state being a parent), is appalling.

It should be gradually wound down and replaced with a targeted programme organised by the schools themselves, out of their own budgets.  

There's no leader of the free world anymore

Nobody who supports either free markets or the non-initiation of force principles can now think that the Trump Administration is an acolyte of either principle, even in a somewhat flawed way (as all governments that may advance in that direction are).  It's an incoherent mash of the feelings of two men who are more upset about their egos being offended, than either projecting an economic policy of demonstrable success or managing international relations based on strength against a weak (albeit dangerous) aggressor that embodies almost everything the United States has been against for decades.

The stupid trade war isn't about leverage to get other economies to open up, it is old fashioned autarky or even Kim Il Sung's fatuous "Juche Idea" (self reliance). It's the economics of hardened Marxists, and the economics of moronic economic nationalists like the bloviator Pat Buchanan. The tariffs wont replace income tax ( a line that some have trotted out) and will push up inflation in the US, and harm consumers and producers there, and the global economy.  However, Republicans are now embodying the economics of destroyers like Juan Peron, who helped take Argentina from being a rich country to being a poor one, through this sort of nonsense.  It will only be made worse by the EU and other developed countries responding in kind.

However, it is the moral depravity of the line on Ukraine which deserves the most approbrium.

There is no morality in surrendering to an aggressor all that it has won, so you have "peace" while it rebuilds its armed forces, rearms, and at the same time your erstwhile ally has blackmailed you into signing a predatory deal to hand over resources for the sake of vague promises of security.  Ukraine doesn't want to do that, but the new appeasers do.

The claim Trump makes about wanting to be even-handed between Russia and Ukraine is a complete moral inversion.  Whilst he has been excoriating about Zelensky, he has said nothing negative at all about Putin or the behaviour of Russia.  He has said little about what Russia should do, and little about what the US will do if Russia doesn't stop fighting. He has only demanded that Ukraine stop.

He talks of Ukraine gambling with World War Three which is absurd, given Ukraine alone, with ample military supplies has taken the war to a stalemate -  stalemate with Russia, because Russia's fighting capabilities are woeful. Without nuclear weapons, Russia would be easily overwhelmed with Western power, and pushed back.  Indeed given the US also has nuclear weapons, it could have simply declared it was controlling Ukrainian airspace given:

• Russian military attack on a civilian airliner
• Ukrainian Government invitation to protect it.

Would Russia really have launched a nuclear attack at that point, with the US drawing a clear line that it was defending the territorial integrity of the remainder of Ukraine from air power?

Who was gambling with World War Three the non-nuclear armed Ukraine trying to defend itself from a nuclear power??

Of course Ukraine should feel aggrieved. It has the world's third largest nuclear weapons cache when it became independent and it signed it all away based on promises from the US, Russia and the UK to protect its territorial integrity.  It was Barack Obama who neglected to follow up on that agreement when Russia started its attack on Crimea.  It was Joe Biden who continued to fail once the full blown invasion was launched.

The claims about NATO expansion being provocative are only claims that are echoed by hardcore communists, who pretend that NATO was a project to attack their beloved eastern bloc, not one to defend liberal democracies from it, or from fascist nationalists, who can't believe that countries that spent half a century under the jackboot of the Soviet Union (which they once professed to loathe) would want to be free of Russian imperialism forever more.

Of course Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia etc. do not want their independence threatened by an aggressive Russia - again - and if you dont think that is legitimate, then you're either a communist, or someone, like Hitler, who thinks you can make accommodations with a communist for your own political objectives.  Hating the European Union or "globalists" is all one thing, but if anyone who claims to believe in sovereign borders, the right of states to control their territory and be independent, thinks surrendering Ukraine is consistent with that, then it shows it up for all it is - desperate tribalist support for a US Administration that doesn't care about your beliefs when it suits it.

If territorial integrity of sovereign states doesn't matter to Ukraine, then maybe it doesn't matter anywhere that the Trump Administration doesn't care about, and that includes any country in Europe, or Australia, or New Zealand etc etc.

Of course everyone wants the war to end. It could end tomorrow if Putin just decided to end it, and withdraw, but he's a psychopathic kleptocrat who feeds young Russian men (from poor backgrounds) and North Korean men to their deaths.

Ukraine has been successful in knocking out much of Russia's military strength including knocking out  much of the Black Sea Fleet. Had it been armed more effectively it could have pushed back more inflicting more pain on Russia.

Trump doesn't like that though, because he wants economic relations with Russia.

Had Trump wanted to, he could have demonstrated strength against Russia and demanded concessions or significantly enhanced support for Ukraine, but instead he has demonstrated strength against Ukraine and made it into a supplicant, and emboldened Russia. 

If the war ends soon, on the basis of Russia giving up little, and there being no substantial security guarantees for Ukraine (including US direct military support), then it will prolong the inevitable. Russia can spend a few years rearming, and use its renewed economic potential after sanctions are lifted by the US, to steal military capability and be ready for another attack. It knows the US wont do much, and it doesn't fear European power. At that point, the cost not just to the Europe, but the world of letting it be known that the US is isolationist and wont act to protect any nation states from attack by Russia, is going to be much higher than the tens of billions taken to bolster Ukraine.

Even Marine Le Pen is critical of Trump on Ukraine, because by and large, European countries want to sure of defence against the predatory criminal gangster state to the east, which treats its neighbours with impunity.

Perhaps a deal will be struck, perhaps not and Europe will do all it can to support Ukraine, regardless, it is now a time for small countries everywhere to acknowledge that it's all on now - the US doesn't care if you are attacked, you have to fend for yourselves with any other allies.

There is no "leader of the free world" anymore.