Tags

, ,

Hypothetical situation: You are a family member that lives with me, and it’s dinnertime at our house. You do chores around the house and contribute to it maybe more or less than other family members. Maybe you pitch in for food, maybe you can’t for whatever reason, but I’ve been feeding you for years and tonight is a different meal plan. Which of the following is acceptable?
 
A. Not feeding you, because you have food allergies/sensitivities and it’s more expensive to feed you something from a limited diet. I let you know that your food is too expensive for me so I didn’t even look at the supermarket to accommodate you, but you’re happy to buy it yourself while you’re at my house from now on (age is no excuse).
B. Letting you starve, because it’s too expensive to feed you period even though I could afford it.
C. Feeding you, but only the most disgusting mash filled with bi-products and fillers, and oh yeah, you have to buy that from me at an outrageous cost.
D. None of the above
 
Keep in mind in your choice that regardless of what I’m feeding you, I’ll be eating the finest cuisine that you’ll be paying for ME to eat. It doesn’t matter if you’re an elderly relative or a child. I’m feeding you food that I wouldn’t eat myself. In fact, I’d NEVER eat that.
 
Does this situation seem fair? If you were my child in real life, the state would remove you from my custody. If you were a family member over the age of 18, outsiders would call you selfish and cruel and try to intervene on your behalf. I could have made adjustments to our current meals by having a discussion with you and working out a better plan, but instead I’ve been complaining for months and just decided to just revoke the current mealtime plan in its entirety.
 
Why does it make sense that the government whose officials are elected on our behalf, who are supposed to look out for the well-being of citizens, put their needs before ours and make decisions that the majority of us disagree with?
Advertisements