The threat of force is implied wherever the government is involved. But, unless you are an anarchist, you are in favor of SOME form of government social program.
Should peaceniks (sp?) be forced to fund the armed forces? Should the PETA nuts be forced to fund anything involving animals (because anything done to animals is cruel to the PETA-fundies)? Should non-religious people be forced to compensate for the tax-exemption subsidy afforded religious institutions (except, interestingly, the religion of secular humanism, which is or isn't a religion depending on the argument of the anti-secularist)?
There are many other examples, and I'm sure an argument can be manufactured against any of these points. I'm willing to bet, though, that such an argument could then be turned back onto the arguer's pet social program.
There are many other examples, and I'm sure an argument can be manufactured against any of these points. I'm willing to bet, though, that such an argument could then be turned back onto the arguer's pet social program.
No, no, no.
Don't you know? Pork is funding the other guy's pet projects.
My personal desires are all fully Constitutional and worthy of massive Federal and State funding. ;)