• Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    If it’s government given money, that’s somebody’s tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say, because the people giving that money should have a say.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If it’s government given money, that’s somebody’s tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say,

      The issue is it costs money for the Government to have a say and 99% of the time it’s not needed.

      If you just get rid of the Government overhead to make sure people are “spending it wisely,” the money lost by the 1% who spend it foolishly will be far less than the money saved by getting rid of all the administration.

    • ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Why attack the people for their spending on vices when you could just outlaw the vices. If you care so much about people’s morals, then the government should just outlaw alcohol, gambling and anything else deemed an ill use of this money. It’s the exact same thing, except you only want the government to police people who you think don’t deserve freedom because you consider them lesser.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        When you take someone else’s money, you should have a good reason for doing so. Money is an exchange of labor, straight up. You’re not entitled to anyone else’s labor without qualification.

        Social benefit programs are just that, programs for the social benefit.

        People are allowed to have vices, but irresponsibly spending other people’s money is not okay, just like breaking/trashing other people’s stuff (and thus spending their time and money) is not okay.

        This is a basic part of the social contract.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nope. The nature of money is that when you transfer it to someone else’s, it is now their money. It’s no longer your money. It’s their money.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        No that’s not how it works. It is extremely common for government issued money to come with stipulations on how it can be spent.