Why can't both things be true?

If you consistently deliver brilliant policies that help your people, you should be re-elected.

Plus, by still making the people pay, you can offer them an amazing tool to increase their productivity WITHOUT taking away their pride in providing for themselves or establishing a direct indefinite dependency.

You can’t just say “incentive alignment is good.” Incentive alignment is only “good” if they’re aligned with your incentives. If you are poor or approve of helping the poor get affordable food, then this is an instance of good incentive alignment. But, on the complete other side of the spectrum, if you’re poor and you observe the government giving tax breaks for private jets, that’s an example of bad incentive alignment. Of course, many of the people with private jets will likely consider the latter to be a good form of incentive alignment.

If it's a democracy and the private jet owners are the majority - then more power to them. If they are not, and they only achieve "alignment" by any means that deny citizens of their right to vote, then shame on them.

Incentive alignment should be expected with the majority of society - or at least the voting public.

"Yeah yeah you fed all those poor hungry people, but at what cost!"

It's a common form of entitlement. I have a lot of friends back in Argentina who complained about the previous government "giving stuff to poor people just for votes." It's a reflection of where their priorities are: "I'd never sell my vote for X" is easy to say, when X is easily accessible for you.

They probably point out because Karnataka state elections are due to be held in a few months. And this isn't the first time this government (or any government for that matter) has launched popular schemes so close to the election.

Even if it is done for votes, if they try to stop it after election...it may have the opposite effect.

Of Course, it is done for political gain.

>Incentive alignment is a good thing - it's the whole basis of capitalism.

The government taking your money and giving it to other people for votes isn't capitalism, it's corruption.

I don't think you have any idea about the problems in 3rd world countries. There are many people below the poverty line and these canteens are a god send.

You must be against state sponsored healthcare too ?. Isn't that just taking taxes from healthy people and using it to treat ill people. In your words - corruption.

I'm sorry, your definition of corruption is completely wrong.

One of the many goals of a certain type of Government is wealth redistribution.