[nemo44x]

Most people in society like meat so it makes sense we subsidize it. This is progressive. Otherwise only the wealthy could eat meat. The wealthy actually pay more to eat meat as they pay the majority of the taxes that go into these subsidies so nearly everyone can afford meat in the market. Once again, this is progressive.

Just like roads. Most people in society want to be able to freely travel where they want and when they want to. So we subsidize roads as a society where the wealthy pay more in terms of taxes but everyone gets to use the roads.

[Maximus9000]

> Most people in society like meat so it makes sense we subsidize it. This is progressive.

So, we should subsidize things that people like? Should we subsidize sugar?

Most Americans are eating far more meat than doctors recommend.

[nemo44x]

It's a representative democracy. People vote for representatives that then propose bills and spending policy and vote on them. Elect officials or run for office yourself if you think your ideas are better and more attractive.

Who should be the authority for what society finds value in, which policies are invoked, how taxes are distributed and spent if not the representatives of the people? Clerics? Doctors? Lawyers? Scientists? Sociologists? Bartenders?

[RhodesianHunter]

This is all well and good until the negative externalities overcome the benefits. We are past that point.

[nemo44x]

If true then hopefully people agree to mandate that we value these negative externalities more than subsidized farming. Anything is possible if people can persuade others it's worth doing and that the trade offs are worthwhile.