Food Stamps


rita's picture

Oh, yeah, make the poor stand in line at soup kitchens if they want to eat -- oh, wait, the people running the soup kitchens are being arrested for feeding the poor without the proper permits. I know, if they want to eat, let 'em get jobs! Oh, wait, there ARE no jobs, even for those capable of working. Lock 'em up! Lock 'em up for being poor! Oh, we already DO that.

Here's a better idea -- why don't you just leave them the hell alone? Any program designed to help the needy is bound to be abused. People being what they are, there will ALWAYS be those among us who will take advantage. Being a taxpayer myself, and being, by reason of a drug felony, ineligible for food stamps myself, I'd rather my tax dollars buy steak and lobster and, yes, cigarettes, for a relative few than see the many go without.

KenK's picture

I agree with you Rita. But I fully expect someone to post a Mises/Rothbard/Randanista explanation of how it's the moral thing to do to let the poor starve.

Suverans2's picture


Spoken like a true collectivist spin doctor. I'm sure we'd all like to see where Ludwig, Murray and Ayn explain "how it's the moral thing to do to let the poor starve".

rita's picture

I'm not an anarchist, not yet, although I can sure see it from here -- but here's the thing -- if you're going to give handouts, give handouts. If you can't help, stay the f**k away. One thing none of us, and the poor in particular, need, is more regulation. You can buy this, but not that -- who gets to decide, and who gets to enforce, and what are you going to do with people who violate?

Suverans2's picture

G'day rita,

So, if you see a man in need of food and you offer him a 'handout', you think that there is something wrong with you telling him what he may and may buy not with that 'handout'?

Also, if it was only YOUR 'sweat' that was paying for that 'handout', then you could certainly say, "go ahead and buy anything you like with it", and "it's okay to resell that stuff at half price if you want to, so you can buy booze or drugs with it", but you see, rita, it isn't only YOUR 'sweat' that is paying for it. In a collectivist society the 'sweat' to pay for that 'handout' comes from the collective, i.e. all the individuals that voluntarily choose to be members of that collective, so you, alone, don't get to decide how that 'handout' will be regulated.

"...who gets to decide, and who gets to enforce, and what are you going to do with people who violate?" Your "representative", called "your government", gets to decide all those things, rita.

"I'm not an anarchist, not yet..." Wow, rita!! If, after all your chosen rulers have apparently done to you, and after hanging out here at STR for over a year, you are still "not yet" an anarchist, I can't help but wonder what it's going to take.

By the way, you might be interested in knowing, the opposite of anarchist or anti-archist, i.e. one who is against having a ruler, is pro-archist, one who is in favor of having a ruler. So, if you're "not yet" an anarchist...

rita's picture

I'm not against government per se; but I do believe that no government is preferable to the one we have now. Who gets to decide, etc. is a rhetorical question -- of course, the same monsters who decide what drugs we may or may not use will be the ones deciding what we may or may not eat. What I'd like to know is why an article promoting more interference in priovate lives ever ended up here in the first place. Poverty as we know it in the US today, was created by our so-called "leaders." I get that. And I get that the black market is the free market exerting itself. I also get that the "Arab Spring" didn't arise because people yearned for democracy, it arose because people were hungry. Trading in food stamps is one way the poor have left to survive.

Samarami's picture

It's important to understand Natural News folks truly believe state gangsters are capable of serving a socially useful purpose. When dealing with people like this it's hard to respond. Like arguing with dem's or pub's. No win.

Congrats to the guy who sold the soda pop. At least he and his customers were honest. Not so with the real welfare fraudsters (the ones who hand out the stolen funds).