[ako]

It's called leading by example: do you want a government that shows people it's important to care about others, or do you want a government that doesn't care about it's people? A government that sets the example by lying, ignoring people that can't pay healthcare, can't pay for education, and basically shows it's all a fight about who gets to keep most money?

What example would you have citizens rather follow?

Also, if you think it coercive you are basically admitting your democracy isn't working. Otherwise it wouldn't be coercion but executing on the whishes of the people voting.

[hueving]

It's coercion regardless of democracy unless everyone is voting 100% the same way.

If 60% of the people vote to tax everyone and use that money to bomb the moon, the remaining 40% are going to feel coerced into supporting it.

The government forcing people to support things is not leading by example at all, because any other organization would be breaking the law if it tried to force support. How would you feel if the local church just started taking 30% of your income?

[_Tev]

This is nice example why are some people less cooperative. Everybody paying for something that majority wants is labeled as "coercion". So "if I don't like I should be able to not cooperate". And we end up with game theory and tragedy of the commons.

[tomohawk]

It's coercive because you will be penalized unless you pay the taxes. The example the government is setting is that it is OK to take wealth from people and give it to others as long as whoever's in power has noble intent. There is certainly noble intent behind Head Start, but its an expensive program that doesn't work. There are many examples.

You can't say that we as a people are being generous when we're only doing what we're doing to avoid massive fines or imprisonment.