Hi tkc,
I think you want to be careful of making too many broad assumptions. Some of these assumptions may conceal potential damage to kids who don't get enough to eat.
I don't think you wish to walk away from the problem of children who don't get properly fed. But your broad brush dependency-type approach isn't quite sufficient for the issue, in my view. If it's a choice, which it often is, I'd rather risk an attitude of dependency than have a kid insufficiently fed. And isn't the whole edifice of public education an example of dependency - which many folks rely upon.
Is a culture of dependency such a bad thing in all circumstances? Why don't we call some things public goods? Might lunches for children fall into this category?
I agree that if the state feeds, it must feed healthily.
And I agree that you want to create a culture in which adults feel independent and take responsibility for as much as possible.
I also see a mixed economy of private property and public goods as being the most efficient.
So having kids see the benefit of public goods growing up is not necessarily a bad thing. For school lunches, also think of adult equivalents such as clean air, freeways, police, teachers etc.
The word "dependency" is a kinda demeaning way to dismiss public goods, isn't it?
| 