Yes, it justifies it because public services and insurance do, well, insure you against a lot of negative events that you would have to compensate for with much

Yes, it justifies it because public services and insurance do, well, insure you against a lot of negative events that you would have to compensate for with much higher disposable income otherwise. I.e. my child is severely disabled (not an example, it is actually the case) since birth. Adequately caring for his health, his special educational needs and required assistance in daily live would cost me between 5,000 and 10,000 Euros/month. I actually do not know the exact figure for sure, because I pay only a fraction of this out of pocket. Within the framework of the U.S. financial system, this would have ruined our families finances, my parents (considerable) savings and likely my other son's future earning potential, despite me and my wife both being the offspring of quite well-of families and us not having any student debt despite both having an M.A. degree. It would have locked both me and my wife into potentially sub-optimal employments simply to have some form of health coverage, while still under the soul-crushing fear that someday some manager decides I'm not "efficient" enough to merit payment. As it is, I have to spend a lot of time on bureaucracy and even more time on caring for my son, but guess what: he is getting some of the best health and educational care available anywhere and I can still afford to go out for dinner once in a while and know that while certainly unnerving and disruptive, a bad turn in my personal luck will not sentence my child to suffer because I can't afford to care for him.