Sep 1, 2018 · 1 min read
That’s a fairly persuasive argument, but then doesn’t it also follow that all *direct* government expenditures on the arts, etc., even the enviroment, are questionable and ought to be cut. It seems strange to me to say that indirect expenditures should be avoided because not everyone will agree, and yet have methods of spending where 55% of people can determine that all the spending go to things that 45% of people oppose. After all, isn’t it the case that a tremendous amount of direct government spending isn’t targeted (or targeted well) at the poor, goes to causes that some people think are worthy of government support and others do not, and can be of questionable efficiency?