[vkou]

> likely scope creep and eventual subsidy

The same can be said about private providers. Even if they temporarily lower rates and improve service in your area, to prevent entry from competitors, they will ratchet the rates up, and start cutting corners on customer service as soon as they no longer feel threatened. This is not a theoretical concern - this has happened over and over and over again, across the country.

> Farm subsidies

That's not a great comparison.

1. Farm subsidies are terrible for economic efficiency, but fantastic for economic and political resiliency. [1] Lack of bread very quickly leads to regime change. It's why every single country in the world subsidizes their agriculture and encourages overproduction.

2. The reason farm subsidies exist is not because 50%+1 of the public supports them. The reason farm subsidies exist is because the federal government was designed to give excessive amounts of political power to rural states. This means that something supported by ~20% of the public can easily turn into national policy.

3. Municipal referendums are nothing like it - they are direct democracy.

4. Municipal governments are not direct democracy, but they do not have multiple layers, or were designed to give disproportionate amounts of political power to regional minority groups. What a municipal government wants is a lot closer to the pulse of their constituents.

[1] Efficiency (which is what marketeers want) is often at odds with resiliency (which is what anyone looking past the next quarter's financials wants). Remember the start of the COVID pandemic when all of our incredibly efficient just-in-time global supply chains went to hell? Efficient systems have no built-in slack to absorb temporary shocks. When it comes to food supplies, a temporary shock can leave us with millions of emaciated corpses.

[nickff]

Farm subsidies are very popular; public choice is a real thing, but not the cause for farm subsidies.[1] Steel tariffs are similar.

I am not a democratic fundamentalist. This is to say that I don't value democracy as an ends; it is a valuable means, but saying that something is democratic doesn't change my view on the policy. I don't care how direct it is.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/poll-indicates-som...

[vkou]

It is correct to say that just because a decision was reached democratically, it does not mean it was a good decision.

But it is also correct to say that when a when a decision was reached democratically, it is generally speaking, not the business of anyone outside that group to second-guess it.

There's a very high bar that you have to clear in order to tell some other group of people what they can't spend their communal funds on.