• zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 months ago

        Off the top of my head:

        • removing school lunch programs
        • removing women’s reproductive rights
        • dragging feet on legalizing marijuana
        • gerrymandering certain states/districts to keep one party in power
        • politicians being bought by the highest corporate bidder

        Those are all pretty big ways in which the government hinders the population at large.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          how do I say this, but free school lunches are provided by the state, wanting less state is literally wanting no free school lunches, rights are also given by the state (the only inherent rights are natural rights, everything beyond might makes right is the state meddling in our lives)

          • kase@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t say they wanted less state. Just for the state to do less bad things/things that hinder its citizens. That doesn’t mean they must oppose school lunches, unless they also believe that school lunches fit into that category. You can argue whether or not they do, but ‘you don’t want the government to hinder us, but X is the government hindering us, therefore you must oppose X’ isn’t much of an argument on its own.

            Apologies if I misunderstood your comment tho.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              no they want less state because the ideology dictates that the state just does it worse, something that just isn’t born out by reality, case and point school lunches