3 ms·

The people subsidize it because they believe doing so makes everyone (including themselves) better off that way.

• smanek 17y ago
  See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=609997 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=609997 The salient point is that even if I'm happy to subsidize that sort of lifestyle, I don't think the government should make the decision for me (especially not at the point of a gun).
  • dionidium 17y ago
    Unless you're suggesting that the tax-rate be 0% then the "point-of-a-gun" argument is disingenuous. All taxes are at the point of a gun. You can't simply argue from this position when the target of the funds is something you don't support. If you think all taxation is inherently illegitimate, that's fine, but such a position is not strengthened by your disapproval of the target of the tax funds, no matter how silly or frivolous you think that target is. If, on the other hand, you think some taxes are reasonable -- that is, it is acceptable to apportion according to a majority in some cases -- then your argument needs to address the inappropriateness of the target of the funds, not the legitimacy of the taxation itself.
  • bayareaguy 17y ago
    smanek, putting aside moral considerations I think you are discounting the actual cost of leaving people like Mr. Bruum to fend for themselves and ultimately end up being incarcerated. Suppose you live in California where incarceration costs upwards of $3,500 a month. Cutting him off would end up costing you twice as much.
    • deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]