Sometimes you just need a good lobster. I’m from Boston. Trust me on this.
Years ago, my wise and wonderful first year Contracts professor at Georgetown Law Center, the late Richard Alan Gordon, made a permanent impact on my conscience with a spontaneous rant. He was discussing a case involving a welfare recipient who had been sued by a Washington department store for failing to keep up with installment payments on a Hi-Fi system. The court voided the contract, saying that it was unconscionable for the store to intentionally create incentives for poor people to spend public assistance money on “non-essentials” like music systems. (I wish I remembered the name of the case, but then I only got a C+ in the course.)
As the students nodded their heads in agreement with the opinion, Professor Gordon cut them short and thundered (I am copying from faded old notes: Dick’s rants were always eloquent and memorable, and I began reconstructing them after class for posterity):
“Outrageous! Who are you, or a court, or a government, or any authority to tell another human being that feeding his body is more important than feeding his soul? Music is “non-essential”? I suppose that means that literature, culture, inspiration, wisdom, knowledge…or a moment of joy, the thrill of discovery, experiencing a concert, admiring a great work of art, or sharing an intimate and timeless moment with the love of your life is “non-essential” too! Neither the law nor any court nor a government authority has a right to dictate what is essential to any human being, whether he is receiving public assistance or not. Being poor imposes its own cruel restrictions on liberty and autonomy. Imposing more still is both an abuse of power and a violation of basic human rights. This is an assault on human dignity.”
Missouri Republicans, led by state rep Rick Brattin, are supporting state legislation that would ban using taxpayer dollars to buy “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.” The current system allows food stamps to be spent on anything with a nutrition label.
Their theory is that obesity and related ailments like diabetes are epidemic in poor communities, and that because taxpayers end up paying the bill, the frivolous and unhealthy choices of food stamp recipients should be forbidden. Yes, it is true: society always pays, in one way or another, for our poor choices, misfortunes and mistakes. The more the government intervenes in our daily lives, the more motivation it has to control our choices to minimize those shared costs, and the more power as well. Funny, though— I thought that Republicans and conservatives were the ones who believed in encouraging individual responsibility, liberty and autonomy. This proposed law not only does the opposite, it shows contempt for the poor, and seeks to institutionalize distrust of their ability to set their own priorities.
The proposal is unethical, and Professor Gordon, who was politically conservative, put his finger on why. The Declaration of Independence guarantees the natural right to pursue happiness, and poverty restricts that right too much as it is. If food stamps provide a recipient an hour of pleasure to consume a lobster or a good steak instead of canned tuna or Spam, that is as valid a use as any other. Respecting the autonomy of other human beings is a core ethical value, and one that the powerful, the wealthy, the privileged, the educated, the self-righteous and the influential increasingly ignore.
Ethics Alarms 
So, you think the government should pay for contraception and abortion too so that people can enjoy sex more often? How about they pay for porn for men? Wait. I’ve got one better: Free prostitutes!!! Free sex for the anti-Christ-controlled masses because it’s all about pleasure, baby!!!
Thanks for the Straw man-Slippery slope hybrid inane comment of the year.
The slippery slope goes the other way. Food stamps, by their nature, restrict what may be purchased with them. There is nothing autonomous about them.
Jack:
In general I agree with your sentiments however I must confess that I come down on the side of practical limitations on food stamps.
The purpose of food stamps is to provide an individual meet his/her basic nutritional needs. I don’t care if the recipient chooses steak, lobster, or shrimp that is prepared at home but I do draw the line on what for many not receiving public assistance might consider an extra or convenience item such as high priced energy drinks and sugary sodas and takeout food. I would rather let them use their SNAP payments for laundry soap or other necessary household items that consume a large percentage of the total budget.
I would like to point out that simply because an item has a nutritional label does not make them food stamp eligible. Before the law in question is/was passed beer, for example, carries a nutritional label but is ineligible so to suggest that such restrictions are a straw man argument is inappropriate. In addition, bad choices made by those seeking happiness means that they will need to come back for more when their taxpayer funded resources are exhausted. Why does a family on food stamps need to have free breakfasts and lunches for the children at school. To me that suggests that the government knows that the basic allotment is insufficient or we are unwilling to let the child go hungry because of the poor choices made by the parents who are the custodians of the taxpayer provided resources; I think it is the latter.
Yes, poverty imposes some restrictions on the pursuit of happiness but so too do the increasing demands on taxpayers to foot the bill so that others who, for what ever reason, are less able to fulfill their happiness demands.
a comment from another blog
Professor Richard Alan Gordon was a great inspiration for me at law school. He was a fine man who actually cared about those he taught. Furthermore, his insight and intellect were extraordinarily motivating.