|
|
|
|
|
|
by wyager
3481 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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?