Juan_Bottom wrote:Ok then personal freedom was never ever endangered anyway. Bazinga.
But don't you see the attempted coercion? The attempt to make the case that by "exercising personal freedom" is a bad thing?But a minority of students decried the move, saying it only hurts those who depend upon serving kids to make a living.
"I don't think these lunch ladies should lose their jobs. One of them came up to us and said we might lose our jobs if this continues,"
And then the subtle threats? failure to follow them could mean students who get federally funded lunch might lose their subsidy.
And then there is the manipulated price that has nothing to do with any normal rules of economics- we are required every year to raise our price by federal mandate."
So, by students not "getting with the program" and exercising free choice by bringing their own lunches they are putting people's jobs at risk and threatening the "charity" status of The State being able to provide free lunches to low income families. It seems one is a heel to exercise their freedom.
It should not be that way.
The automatic raising of the prices by federal mandate should also be troublesome. It's one thing if it's because of economic conditions, it's quite another for the government to step and and raise the prices by fiat while actually lowering the amount of product one gets as those prices continue to rise (artificially).
This whole thing is yet another example of how government comes in to "fix" one supposed problem and creates more problems. Trade offs. That's what it's about, but when these types of policies are enacted no one ever talks about or considers the trade offs and consequences of said policies.
When students and families take matters into their own hands and attempt to opt out of the policy, in come the sycophants trying to shame, threaten and coerce everyone to tow the line.