[mikestew]

People who choose to do $THING_I_DONT_DO should not be forced to subsidize those who do. Why should I subsidize roads with 16 foot lanes when my motorcycle needs on a fraction of that? Why should I...oh, you get the point.

If one cares to argue whether something that arguably betters the collective (Amex's new policy would fit from my POV) should be subsidized collectively or individually, I'm open. If one would rather discuss the merits of attracting workers with benefits that some might not use, let's open that conversation. But if it's just going to amount to a simplistic, Ayn Randian "it's not fair!", then it's not really worth the time.

[wyager]

> People who choose to do $THING_I_DONT_DO should not be forced to subsidize those who do.

Yes. What part of this is unreasonable?

> Why should I subsidize roads with 16 foot lanes

16 foot lanes aren't a voluntary activity, they're infrastructure that everyone benefits from. If you don't benefit from them somehow, you would have a valid complaint against subsidizing them. For example, farmers don't have to pay the gas tax on farm-use-only gas because they don't put wear on the roads.

On the other hand, I distinctly don't benefit from random people diverting what could be my income to keep overpopulation going strong.

> simplistic

Simple arguments are better than complex ones. You're right, my argument is simple; it's morally wrong to force people to pay for things they don't want, and it's especially wrong to force people to pay for things where the benefit is obviously less than the cost.

[st3v3r]

>16 foot lanes aren't a voluntary activity, they're infrastructure that everyone benefits from

So is ensuring that parents get to, you know, be parents.

>If you don't benefit from them somehow, you would have a valid complaint against subsidizing them

They did say they don't. They ride a motorcycle, and as such, don't need the full lane size.

>On the other hand, I distinctly don't benefit from random people diverting what could be my income to keep overpopulation going strong.

You would be wrong on all counts there, buddy.

>Simple arguments are better than complex ones. You're right, my argument is simple; it's morally wrong to force people to pay for things they don't want, and it's especially wrong to force people to pay for things where the benefit is obviously less than the cost.

And yet, the simple argument completely falls apart once you think about it. For example, you said they shouldn't be able to not subsidize wide roads. So why roads, and not childcare? Why roads and not police protection? Why roads and not healthcare?