General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: School Lunch: Preschooler Told Homemade Turkey Sandwich Not Nutritious Enough, Given Nuggets Instead [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think the 3rd is a non-sequitor.
Either the government interferes where it is not wanted/needed or it yields to those it presumes to govern. To say "here and no further" is not the same as advocating anti-government sentitment anymore than libertarians make the mistake of claiming actual nutrition assistance (NA) is "unconstitutional." We provide NA to keep people from suffering malnutrition, the same as we would ration rubber, iron etc during time of war. However, and I think you would agree, we don't provide NA just so someone can have a leisurely lunch at a NY-style deli. We use government to affect social order (as you correctly noted) and guard against calamity (I assume you agree).
But at the end of the day the people are the final arbiters. If some agency steps in and imposes a solution, the people ought to be free enough to say there is neither strife nor calamity that necessitates the government's intercession. This is not a call to anarchy or a threat to government anymore than turning away door-to-door Bible salesmen is a repudiation of free moral conscience. I would say it is an actual defense of free moral conscience. However, if the salesman forces his foot past the threshold of the door free moral conscience is in jeopardy because of the unwanted, unwarranted intrusion. He must be rebuffed to defend the freedom he would presume to impose. His pleadings of, "but your neighbors invited me in" or "my religious liberty is threatened by your refusal" or "salvation is good for you" or "only sinners refuse" are not only irrelevant but self-contradicting.