AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

Fair enough, non-democrat.

Evil isn't an abstract, unknown force that just occurs. And it's not a choice that is made by people, against people. It is the consequences of a person's psychological framework playing out in a way that fucks with others in ways others (and they themselves) can't intuitively grasp. In short, it's naïveté and ignorance in action.

Perhaps you think choice counts for a lot more than I do. But what choices you can make have a very large, complex mixture of instinct, intuition experience, understanding, preexisting choices, and knowledge. People rarely have life-altering moments, and generally, it's not exactly a choice. It's an impact, or a recognition. Then the pattern, or principles, that they live by change - and the choices they make likewise change, conforming to that pattern.

That isn't to say that choices don't matter at all, but they seem, to me, more implementation of a pre-existing framework - consequences of pre-existing things. However, sometimes the choices you make do cause you to discover and be impacted by something new.

And these frameworks that drive is aren't simple things. They are not unreasoned, though sometimes they are overwhelmed by one experience, concept, emotion, or another. Sometimes we build up coherent thought processes in different areas of our lives, and while it might be consistent and functional in one situation, it might be problematic in another.

The thought process of the right are just as founded as those on the left. And both the right and left write each other off as evil, without taking these frameworks into account. Because they can't even imagine why the other would do it that way, and it's just easier to say it's evil, because from each perspective, that's the pattern that fits.

But again, even if it is, how do you make change? If you think that it's through hate and the assumption that the other party is evil, go right ahead. But you're missing a lot in the world, and missing out on ways you could actually make things better.

On the technical side: I do understand the overhead of tracking peoples' finances, and that the government gets way too fiddly and controlling to make that a worthwhile prospect. I also understand the desire for people to just take care of their own children, because the world does not owe you anything. However, I very much favor giving kids lunches at school - not because I'm (according to your thought process) not evil, but because it doesn't make sense to do so.

If we had a government we could trust well enough to track our finances, then sure - only if you are actually in need. If the cost is so miniscule, parents can foot it themselves, except those too poor to eat. And that is not me taking food from the mouths of children, it's me preventing people from taking from those who actually need it.

But we don't have that government. So blanket school-food is the best option.