Post v.26

A fascinating article in the New York Times by Carol Pogash. The topic is that of US high school students eligible for 'free' lunch programs and their choice to not participate. The article correctly serves as a microcosm into the many elements highlighting the relationship between individuals and the state: economic choice, social awareness, immigration, statism, unintended consequences, and so on.

Prior to reading the article one should note, as this piece is coming from the NYT, the 'purpose' behind the information presented is undoubtedly designed to provoke an emotional response and prompt 'someone to do something' through more intervention by the state.

As noted earlier, the article's main theme revolves around the stigmatisation 'felt' by individuals who choose not to participate in government subsidised 'free' lunch programs. Some points which stick out in the article:

Many districts have a dual system like the one at Balboa: one line, in the cafeteria, for government-subsidized meals (also available to students who pay) and another line for mostly snacks and fast-food for students with cash, in another room, down the hall and around the corner.

Odd to create such a dual system, why is that?

Most of the separation came into being in response to a federal requirement that food of minimal nutritional value not be sold in the same place as subsidized meals — which have to meet certain nutritional standards.

Ahh, no doubt more regulation by the state with only the best of intentions at heart will help to solve the new 'problem' created by the previous regulation which was designed to solve the old 'problem'.

What else:

"We want their participation so it’s important for us to deal with the stigma," said Ms. Hill, who is also executive director of food services for the public schools in Jackson, Miss., where students who pay are required to buy the subsidized meal before they are allowed to buy à la carte items.

So, force all into a one-size-fits situation to avoid the stigmatisation of some. How much of the state-forced purchasing results in wasted food? Could those resources (the monies, the food, opportunity costs, time itself) be put to better uses by individuals deciding vs. the state?

How about we put this version of 'doing something' by the state into a way which may get the attention of statists, what is the carbon footprint of the food wasted by this particular collective vs. individual solution?

Do read the article. The anecdote about immigrants being grateful for the 'free' lunch programme in California is quite illuminating. That of immigrants going to the United States, taking advantage of the opportunities available, and no doubt having a better chance at succeeding in their newfound home.

Added bonus quote which gives away the plot:

Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the public schools in Berkeley, Calif., said that attention to school cafeterias had traditionally focused on nutrition, but that the separation of students who pay and those who receive free meals was an important "social justice issue."