I'll buy that when seizing my property in the form of taxes and using it to feed and house those who have drugged (or drunk, or refused to work) themselves into unemployable oblivion is forbidden by law and the law is enforced.
—I’ll buy that when seizing my property in the form of taxes and using it to feed and house those who have drugged (or drunk, or refused to work) themselves into unemployable oblivion is forbidden by law and the law is enforced.—
So one form of the state controlling the individual through negative sanctions is fine, but the other is bad. Or, two wrongs make a right. Gotcha.
So your solution is to put more of them in jail where you will be paying somewhere between $30,000 to $60,000 a year for each of them? And I'm sure the government isn't going to feed, clothe and shelter those peoples' kids for free, either while the parents are locked up. And when they get out (I'm assuming you aren't going to insist on just executing them all on arrest) there is zero chance that they will ever be able to be a net gain on society with a criminal record.
I'm not trying to be obnoxious about this, but are you sure your policy is financially better? Seems like you want to spend more just really drive the point home that government isn't big and intrusive enough.