A letter writer in an earlier WSJ Letters section took issue with Allysia Finley’s op-ed in which Finley favored removing sugary foods from SNAP eligibility, characterizing Finley’s position with typical Leftist exaggeration:

[U]nder Ms Finley’s principle it would be appropriate for the government to withhold such benefits for given people unless they adhere to government diktats on such lifestyle choices as individual diets, exercise habits and so forth….

In Wednesday’s Letters section, another letter writer responded:

[T]hose who support taking sugary treats off the SNAP menu aren’t suggesting that the government monitor lifestyle choices—they’re simply encouraging the government to restrict harmful foods from the program. … Given that taxpayers are paying for that food, this would help fulfill the government’s fiduciary responsibility to manage taxpayers’ money wisely in another way: the policy would also minimize food-stamp recipients’ healthcare bills, for which taxpayers are also paying.

She’s absolutely right on this. There is, though, another alternative to the earlier letter writer’s exaggeration: if a citizen doesn’t want to have to adhere to government diktats, the citizen shouldn’t take the government’s schilling in the first place. This choice often involves hard, uncomfortable tradeoffs, but in the vast majority of cases, they’re entirely possible while in the medium- and longer-run being beneficial.