[wolverine876]

> It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.

I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attached' is much too vague, as everything has strings attached (e.g., legal requirements); the question is the degree and who the strings serve.

[jdminhbg]

I mean in the sense that it's not cash assistance to the poor; instead, it's the government saying "these are the things you need to buy" and providing a voucher system for those particular things. You cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on liquor, and so you cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on a car repair to upgrade to a better job that you'd have to drive to.

> we could call ... tax forms social engineering

Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.

[wolverine876]

I think that stretches the definition of social engineering to the point of meaninglessness. Everything government (or other powerful actors) does or doesn't do will influence people one way or the other. One could also say that we don't limit SNAP spending, we enable it or certain items. The money also can't go to building supplies.