[vog]

> But it's subsidized; so people who aren't getting an education are paying for those who do.

This is just another way of saying that the society cares about this issue!

To put an analogy: When a society cares about parenthood and children, non-parents pay some share to parents. This is how financial solidarity works. How else should that work? By telling parents that they do a great job, that you appreciate what they do for society, but not giving a single cent to them? That would be hypocritical, not solidary.

[witty_username]

So why can't it voluntary via donations to universities?

> By telling parents that they do a great job, that you appreciate what they do for society, but not giving a single cent to them? That would be hypocritical, not solidary.

It's not hypocritical if you compliment someone without paying them money.

[thomasahle]

> So why can't it voluntary via donations to universities?

You could say that about any tax founded expense?

[witty_username]

For some things like courts and police it's required to stop violence and fraud; i.e. to maintain the rules of the game.

But, yes, I am in favor of a small, limited government.

[odbol_]

Education is perhaps more important for preventing crime and violence than police and courts are. Remember, police and courts just deal with the crime; they don't prevent it like having a proper education and employment does.

[kmonad]

Why wouldn't you see an elected government's policy as voluntary, ultimately?

[zeamaize]

Why would you see the decisions of the rich elite few allowed to be part of government as reflective of the population?

[witty_username]

No, only some portion of the population (possibly not even the majority--see the U.S. 2016 election) decides for everybody including those who are against it.