> Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy. I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the o

> Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy. I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications. It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.