Libertarian Paternalism: Mental Nudges That Help You Save Time, Lives, and Money | Cass Sunstein

[@ZeroHBRPro]

Can I opt out from paying taxes?

[@SkepticMind1939]

He is a criminal. An important member of the Zionist mafia that has taken over the US government.

[@jackkraken3888]

No problem. But you have to pay for every service that the government provides for free including roads and you can use police services either nor government assisted healthcare.

[@grimupnorth9336]

Are you free to choose not to pay taxes to fund these nudge units?

[@deckernk]

Yo Cass, what up. Check it out, so the Mapo Bridge debacle in South Korea, not sure if you've heard about this one. Basically South Korean government hired a bunch of marketers to "fix" a bridge that people were throwing themselves off of. They were trying to reduce suicides, but their attempts to make an improvement likely fell into the sort of lasses-faire, freedom-preserving spirit of libertarian paternalism. Long story short, their "improvements" inadvertently "nudged" 600% more people off the bridge in subsequent years. This was an award-winning, multi-million dollar nightmare for the South Korean government. From a libertarian paternalist perspective, What went wrong? Was it that their "top men" responsible for knowing what would and wouldn't work were doing a 'bad job'? How were they supposed to do a 'good job'? The plan won Cannes Lion, it isn't like there weren't enough eyes on it beforehand. I struggle to see how a more strong-arm/sidelining tactic (closing the bridge to foot traffic and adding a ferry for pedestrians, for example) or even the government doing absolutely nothing and settling with the suicide numbers being the way they were wouldn't have been a better option than trying to "nudge" people and only exacerbating the problem due to a lack of insight around the potential consequences of a low-touch, roundabout solution. How can a government or organization know if the nudge they try to institute will truly fix the problem or if it will make it worse, or create other even worse problems? I fail to see any real research on this problem of predicting the impact of a nudge, perhaps you can enlighten me.

[@tacokoneko]

THE PROBLEM: They spent taxpayer money on it ("hired a bunch of marketers"). THE SOLUTION: *STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM FUCKING SPENDING MONEY, TAX AND SPEND TAX AND SPEND = DYSFUNCTION!!!!!!!!!*

[@rwatertree]

Shhh the suits in the state office know better than you how to spend your money. Really, they're "freeing" you from worrying about choices. Just keep your head down and let auto-enrolment make your choices for you.

[@SkepticMind1939]

He is a criminal. An important member of the Zionist mafia that has taken over the US government.

[@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739]

That's not libertarian paternalism. Listen to the video.

[@bobpeters61]

Sounds good in theory. But in practice what I see is that one must exercise vigilence before completing any transaction with a corporation to ensure they actively "opt out" of unwanted extras, which can carry added costs. Interestingly, automatic billing is specifically mentioned here as "libertarian" when in fact it may bring on annual expenditures months before they are due, before one may reasonably be expected to budget for them. Corporatism by any other name...

[@Ephesians5-14]

Agreed and the premise of paternal libertarianism is that some other entity knows what's best for me rather than myself knowing what's best for me. That seems rather anti-libertarian to me. I think children should get a free, healthy lunch at school anyway, as it is done in many other parts of the world. I don't know what that is though. Good humanity is what I call it.

[@OmniphonProductions]

Congrats to Richard Thaler, whom the speaker mentioned at the beginning. He just won the Nobel Prize on Economics for applying principles of Sociology and Psychology to economic models, improving markets around the world world for manufacturers, marketers, investors, and consumers alike. As for the video itself, in broad terms "nudging" is a great approach, but the proverbial devil is in the case-specific details. For instance, regarding school lunches, under President Obama, my local school district's lunch program went from subsidizing low-income students to, "Free lunch for everyone." On the surface this is good; however, now the schools' only money-MAKING department no longer makes a profit, AND the quality of food has actually gone down. Thus, by expanding the free lunch program to automatically enroll ALL students, the district itself is now poorer, AND the children's nutrition is diminished in the process.

[@bendamasta]

A SCHOOL should not be looking at lunches to make money... Why should a school exploit children to make profits? That's so backwards. The school itself should, ideally, have greater funding. Would be nice if we spent a tiny bit less on the war machine and put it into education, for example.

[@OmniphonProductions]

@@bendamasta It's not about exploiting children for profit. It's about making those who CAN carry their own weight DO IT, so the school can continue to provide lunches to ALL, whether they can afford it or not. When ONE department in the school makes a profit, while ALL OTHER departments operate at a loss, that's not exploitation of students; it's maximizing opportunities to avoid bankruptcy and closure...which would then require busing students to a different district. As for less military spending, I'm all for it! Having said that, the U.S. already between $12K and $13K PER STUDENT every year (5th highest in the world, per student)...a total amount GREATER than our military budget. The problem is that most of that money never makes it to the classroom; it goes into the pay and benefits packages of teachers, janitors, food service personnel, and...most of all...school and district ADMINISTRATORS (not to mention paper pushers at the Department of Education, most of whom make six figures per year PLUS benefits). It's not that we don't spend ENOUGH; it's that we don't spend it EFFICIENTLY.

[@OmniphonProductions]

@@msdaus14 You're probably right. The problem many American Socialists don't understand is that you can't simply "scale up" the programs of other...much smaller nations...and expect it to work. To be clear, I'm not against Socialist programs; in a nation this size, it's the only way to promote any sense of continuity from state to state. My point is simply that, "It works just fine in Denmark," is a ridiculous rationale. As for school lunch programs specifically, I'm also a big fan of France's method. Schools actually have gardens, and part of the curriculum includes tending the gardens, harvesting what they produce, and using it to make nutritious...and often very creatively delicious...meals for the students. In this sense, schools...and students...provide for their own needs (at least partly), AND they learn valuable self-sustaining life skills in the process. Again, there are logistical issues with this because the geography and climate varies so widely across the USA. However, I think it's very much worth a look...even if only to supplement existing programs, increasing nutrition, while minimizing added cost (except for start-up cultivation and planting).

[@grimupnorth9336]

No such thing as a "free lunch" but there is such a thing as learned helplessness.

[@asahdo]

I think you are confused about what learned helplessness is. It isn’t where you help someone and so they don’t learn to help themselves. It is where someone who fights against their situation is beaten back so many times that eventually they stop fighting against their situation even when all the barriers to leaving are removed. Because they have learned that nothing they can do will help themselves out of that situation. And this learning stays with them even when it is no longer true.

[@rabidlorax1650]

Good thing this isn’t promoting learned helplessness in any way and is strongly supported by behavioral science.

[@jackkraken3888]

This is actually a pretty cool idea. Help people when they might need it but don't force this help and if they say no back off ie don't step on snek.

[@thomasrohleder4281]

Good guest. Would listen to him again.

[@SkepticMind1939]

He is a criminal. An important member of the Zionist mafia that has taken over the US government.

[@Mansplained]

This video makes the case that everyone who isn't in academia is clearly not capable of making their own decisions in life. Everyone needs to be taxed heavily so that we can redistribute your money to poor school children and such. The academics, like Mr. Sunstein, are happy to tell you how you need to spend your money, and then have the government come and harass you if you disagree. How about you just ask me? That's all I want. Instead of reaching your hand into my pocket and just taking my money, why not just ask? I give to charity, and if you stopped stealing so much from me, I could give a lot more. Doing things voluntarily is important. Coercion and force, even when used in the name of hungry children, is immoral. People do not need to be forced to be charitable.

[@rwatertree]

Unfortunately things need to happen and sometimes things only happen if we all contribute if the government is involved. Not helping the war-effort when you are able is just about the shittiest thing you can do. Conscript now! It's not about the damned kids. The problem is that the government is forcing you to pay for some egghead's schemes with no accountability or consent. How do we know that their way is the best? 11 million is a number without context. It says nothing about the overall nutrition of school kids. Spending money on 3 meals a day for each of them does nothing to treat the causes of their poverty. It's easy to support government overreach when the issue tugs at your heart-strings. That's why this political advertisement mentions children. Corruption and oppression are always presented with a smiling face and plenty of good intentions.

[@SkepticMind1939]

Cass Robert Sunstein[1] FBA (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] at Harvard Law School. Studies of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin, followed by Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard Epstein.[5][6] "Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration[edit] Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[37] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[37] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)." Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[37] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators[38][39] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[40] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[41][42][43][44] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

[@FirstRisingSouI]

I love this idea. I've brought it up in the past when I've discussed welfare ideas with people who believe having basic needs provided for takes the meaning out of life. I really don't like the title card, though. It looks like it was drawn by someone who hates this idea. And most of the people in the comments act as if it is all they have seen of the video.

[@Clads5]

No step on snek!

[@SkepticMind1939]

He is a criminal. An important member of the Zionist mafia that has taken over the US government.

[@johngalt6216]

Nice. But in my country, it was done in a horrible way. All of our organs belong to the state unless you deny

[@samuelmelton8353]

What's the problem? You're helping others and can opt out.

[@ibrahimkharal9027]

more like "how to exploit one's power via manipulation and get away by saying "hey u can leave if u want to"

[@uncouver]

freedom to starve

[@DefecTec]

Our ancestors would be so disappointed to see that thumbnail

[@michaelstreeter3125]

I'm immediately suspicious: what if the government threshold for free school meals is earning less than $3/hour, not $15?

[@snail9041]

pwease no steppy

[@AsianNinjaGod]

no step on snek

[@scareface2238]

Jigga now you dead

[@leerman22]

snek

[@charliem123321]

Always love your videos, cheers!

[@FPOAK]

Love all the one-sentence KZbin comments declaring that the ideas that just earned someone the Nobel in economics are obviously wrong and dumb.

[@SkepticMind1939]

Cass Robert Sunstein[1] FBA (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] at Harvard Law School. Studies of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin, followed by Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard Epstein.[5][6] "Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration[edit] Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[37] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[37] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)." Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[37] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators[38][39] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[40] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[41][42][43][44] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

[@mikemorrisonmusic]

The thumbnail image made me crack up!

[@bruceludlow1326]

I never knew libertarianism could crush capitalism in so many different ways. Wow

[@SkepticMind1939]

He is a criminal. An important member of the Zionist mafia that has taken over the US government.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Cass, bro, we need to talk about your barber...

[@Warbuss33]

At some point you gotta look in the mirror and say this is messed up I gotta go bald

[@mehrdokhtp]

Australia already has implemented L.P. in its mandatory superannuation program... it is has a portion of optional contribution and a portion of mandatory contribution. So not completely libertarian, which is probably for the best

[@AlexRyan]

Fantastic idea. Giving this concept a name enables us to rally behind it as a means to promote win-win solutions to problems in a world were zero-sum thinking and the polarization it gives rise to prevails.

[@T25de]

Alex Ryan Where*

[@rwatertree]

It already had a name: Big Government.

[@AlexRyan]

rwatertree Government is coercion. There is no coercion here. Only paternalistic guidance for those who want it. This is a strategy to ween people off of coercion. Nothing here violates the non aggression principle.

[@rwatertree]

_There is no coercion here._ So you think "free" lunches are actually free, hahahaha. _Only paternalistic guidance for those who want it._ Being enrolled in government programs without your knowledge or consent is merely "guidance" wow. You can't really opt out either. You can merely stop yourself from receiving the service but you can't stop paying for it.

[@AlexRyan]

rwatertree Okay. Fair. That part is totally theft. Still. Shouting slogans isn't going to shrink the government. Helping people to find less coercive ways to meet their needs sounds like a better idea.

[@rwatertree]

It looks like big government is getting rebranded. There's no difference between 'libertarian' paternalism and any other top-down, bureaucratic type of governance. Any program that is imposed on the people can be described under this rubric whether it's something that seems nice like free lunches (no such thing btw) or wasteful bridges to nowhere. Both rely merely on the spurious brilliance and altruism of politicians and technocrats.

[@romanbrandle319]

dollars saved , digital numbers on a PC somewhere , nothing on the ground .

[@ShawnRavenfire]

In other words, an advisor.

[@purinat_sun]

More like taking away freedom of choice and giving it back when asked than actually preserving it. If someone takes your money without your consent but gives it back when you ask him to, does that mean his action is not theft? If someone takes your child from your custody without your child’s and your consent but says will let him go whenever you ask, would you describe his action as anything other than abduction? If a man tries to have sex with a woman and will stop only when told to do so, would you say it is not rape? The concept of ownership is that no one but the owner of what is owned has a right to do anything he wants with it. No other persons can rightfully do the same. Just like paleo-libertarianism, bleeding-heart libertarianism, and geo-libertarianism, libertarian paternalism is not libertarianism.

[@akrylic_]

Anyone who hasn't read Nudge will probably dislike this video

[@anon8109]

Anyone who has watched this video will probably dislike the above comment.

[@dmansk1]

Being able to opt out of a government handout is not even close to being a libertarian policy. Where's my freedom to be able to opt out of paying for that handout? Intellectuals like this make me nauseous.

[@dalinean]

libertarianism is a good idea??

[@216trixie]

Absolutely. Authoritarianism is the opposite of libertarianism. Not to be confused with the "Libertarian" party.

[@swordarmstudios6052]

Libertarian-ism has it's roots in the European Enlightenment. The constitution is a fundamentally libertarian document. Before Rosevelt, Libertarian had another word. That word was 'Liberal'. In Europe they are still called Liberals. The philosophers and scientists who started the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution and the american revolution were 'liberals', by definition. Markets work. Open competitive elections work. Free speech works. Rule of Law works. Free scientific inquiry and reason works. We have about 300 years of history proving this already. So yeah, there are some extreme elements of libertarianism that aren't workable. But in the abstract, the idea of capitalism as a net social good is not a crazy one, and yet suggesting that has people putting you into this strange right-wing box.

[@dalinean]

You seem to be equating capitalism with libertarianism and freedom . Capitalism will only put up with freedom so long as there is something in it for them. And markets don't work. free markets are absolute BS.The free market concept profits the haves and impoverishes the have-nots on a micro to global scale.

[@hootiegabriel9200]

Nudge THiS

[@yeshua_base64]

Such contempt for liberty.

[@ganjiblobflankis6581]

Does it involve helicopter rides?

[@tacokoneko]

*Fascism* involves dropping leftists from helicopters, *LIBERTARIANISM INVOLVES ONLY KILLING THOSE COMMUNISTS WHO STEAL IN ACTUALITY, NOT WHO SAY THEY "WOULD LIKE TO STEAL" OR THAT THEY "ARE COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST"*

[@tacokoneko]

I believe private property is that which is protected from aggression under NAP. Therefore, I do not support any individual whose ideology compels him to go to another person's property and take it from him without permission. Both socialism and communism, in all forms (except their truly libertarian forms, which emphasize supremacy of the NAP) promote the removal of property from those to whom it belongs. for communists this may be said to often involve the seizure of certain means of industrial production from the capital-owners to whom they belong, and for socialists of the most common sort, the income paid by employers to employees in every field of labor is taken from those employees to whom it belongs, leaving to them some substantial but greatly diminished percentage of their money. My position is best described as categorically condemning of all people who put into effect the above described policies, through forceful removal of property, while at the same time categorically accepting of all those who do not, including those who say they would like to but do not (any socialist or communist who does not actually act to bring about the aforementioned policies)

[@ContinualImprovement]

"Why does it always rain on me?"

[@Fuego958]

Congratulations, you've come up with a new phrase for advice that has a negative connotation. Did they give you tenure for that?

[@importantname]

Is Microsoft and facebook aware of freedom of choice?

[@OmniphonProductions]

Microsoft and Facebook are both private businesses, whose products you are free NOT to utilize. Especially in the case of Facebook, a service that is itself FREE, those who provide the service/product get to decide the parameters, and consumers get to decide whether to consume it.

[@newcheese8554]

Little Think

[@ashknoecklein]

Maybe if we didn't have needlessly complex financial systems with purposefully obscure text we wouldn't need "libertarian paternalism" to "nudge" us. This sounds like an overly complex non-solution to the problem of capitalism.

[@theatheistpaladin]

That is because libertarians love capitalism. For them it isn't the problem, it is the solution.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

You're missing the point. Life is complicated, no matter what system you are in. There are jobs, bills, food, environment, healthcare, education, and a million other dimensions of life that need to be managed. Few people have the mental abilities to stay on top of all of them and make the most rational decisions on their own. I certainly don't.

[@null_viod_zip]

If ppl can opt-out from free meal - or any social aid - programs, can I then opt-out from paying taxes for those programs? With "liberal" and "progressive" terms down the toilet looks like left is about to flush "libertarian"...

[@holycrapchris]

Why opt-out of paying for school lunches? It's only a couple bucks per year. You should opt-out of national defense; that'll save you thousands.

[@gwydion75]

All he's saying is, saying we can opt out of crap doesn't friggen matter if we can't opt out of paying for it. I'm completely down with putting a % rating on where my taxes go and using that to determine budgets for departments. If that dept we send money to doesn't spend it, or if we send them more than 10% above their budget, everyone gets back the surplus at EOY. If a dept doesn't get enough.... boy, tough shit. Or at least making half of our taxes elective in that manner, understanding there's some subjective level of "minimum".

[@null_viod_zip]

If "it's couple bucks per year" why not run it as NGO? With social aids operated by NGO you could put much more than couple bucks - your choice. You don't support program run by NGO - you give nothing. As of national defense - not that I *should* but what if I and you *could* out-put/out-in? That kind of freedom... (oversimplified freedom as we are in YT comments section 😉 )

[@Kazekoge101]

Sounds like a good approach. They actually do participatory budgeting in a local level in my area last time I heard (Queens, NY) which is similar to what your saying but this sounds way better and effective. Almost like a "free market" government. But of course these unelected bureaucrats don't realize whats heading their way with the Blockchain revolution

[@Leftistattheparty]

Yeah the right wing stole libertarian from the socialists that left russia during the revolution times and went to europe. Someone doesn't know their history.

[@tacokoneko]

AKA: PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES PLEASE

[@imaginarymask]

Changing the Gadsden flag to the thumbnail is clickbait-y, will get people's hackles up, and doesn't really have to do with the video. Also, 11 million kids below poverty level? 11 million dollars of free lunch every school day? 180x11,000,000=1.98 billion dollars of free lunch every year, automatically? You know, if you want to step on people's freedom, I'm sure there are more economical ways to do so. Free stuff is never free, someone pays for it. Will these children be indentured to pay for the next generations free lunch, or is the burden shifted elsewhere and these kids can go and do whatever they feel like, regardless of how useful they become to the society that gives out free lunches?

[@Soletestament]

:-/ libertarianism is a form of voluntary socialism/communism. It's about preserving people's freedom while believing that the benefits of helping others and your community will inevitably outweigh the benefits of individual selfishness. It's why Candidates like Ron Paul were completely speechless when the media and audiences accused him of wanting the poor to die from lack of healthcare. You're getting all bent out of shape over a bipartisan gov't program put in place to help kids specifically because people don't necessarily have the communal infrastructure to maintain such a program themselves. It's a real dick move to reluctantly count out your pennies when your pockets are stuffed with Benjamins. Cuz that's what you're doing.

[@imaginarymask]

Soletestament You're reading what you want to read so you can make statements that make yourself sound like a hero, but just make yourself sound like an ass. All I did was lay out some information in such a way as to illustrate a point. I stopped short of saying Universal Basic Income would be a better solution since I thought the comment was getting too long. Blind faith in an ideal is a fool's rationalization to an ideal. I had free lunch growing up, I wasn't saying anything bad about it. What bothers me is that 11 million kids living below the poverty level seems like an exorbitant amount. Giving them free lunch is just a band aid that justifies the system that caused their families to fall into poverty in the first place.

[@holycrapchris]

Yeah, someone has to pay for the lunches. Yeah, taxation is theft. But there's a strong correlation between hungry/malnourished kids not finishing high school, and kids not finishing high school turning to crime. So what's cheaper, the lunches today or additional law enforcement cost in the future?

[@imaginarymask]

holycrapchris I'm not saying not to feed them. This is the problem with making progress in society. People have convicted rationalizations for short sighted solutions because arguments are tied to rationales that are absolute: who would dare take food from children's mouths? What monster?!?! We are restricted from taking any steps forward because we are locked into a well choreographed dance in place, perpetually treading on whatever 'me' has the weakest bite, all because it is made apparent that it is the most moral course of action, and those who oppose are detestable by default.

[@Biczeschlappe]

You realize that 2 billion dollars divided between 160 million tax payers is 12.5 bucks each per year, right? How much more wealth do you reckon will be generated by even a fraction of that 11 million children when they grow up, thanks to this investment? How many fewer criminals? How many more entrepreneurs, inventors, doctors, etc. ? I've got a hunch that from a purely "economical"/cynical standpoint this is a wise investment on our part.

[@nathanpen1031]

Cass Sunstein? Really? If you don't know what "nudge" is look it up.

[@bf3brian]

better yet "I'm white and afraid of everything"

[@Miranox2]

White people are the only race that hate themselves.

[@MattCooketheomniscient]

Miranox Not wanting to fuck with other groups' ability to live anymore does not equate with self hatred, your hyperbole is worthless.

[@Miranox2]

It's not a hyperbole, you're just ignorant. There are dozens of articles from *mainstream publications* which attack or insult white people as a group. How many examples can you find which attack black people or asians or anything else?

[@Wtahc]

Miranox uh plenty, look online moron

[@Miranox2]

Give an example then. Should be easy to find one if there's plenty.

[@gwydion75]

Actually, school lunches are politically inflammatory. Take care of your damn kids.

[@homewall744]

With mean thinking like that, you must also be against them funding kids going to schools, or giving the poor medical care, helping the mentally ill homeless....

[@gwydion75]

Home Wall mean? How is it mean to KNOW we must all be responsible for our actions, or there is no justice or freedom?

[@gwydion75]

Additionally, how is it not something that can be handled by private charity if its A) so cheap and B) such a great idea? At least then kids won't be indoctrinated into a system that says "the government feeds me", "the government feeds my future kids if I knock out a few without any regard for the consequences". I'm all for it, and I'd donate TO it locally. Endo. Story. So, how about you take your shallow ad hominem bullcrap somewhere else?

[@oliveratack5581]

gwydion75 Applying your logic to similar examples in an attempt to challenge your idea is not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is an attack on your character not your idea.

[@gwydion75]

Oliver Atack "mean" is a subjective pejorative, as is listing a bunch of other out of context subjects that posit additional "meanness", aka maligning my character and intent.