The choice is whether you have better capacity to spend on what you need, or need to be taxed more to ensure that you do. It is essentially an individual choice between how you spend your money or the government spends it for you.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."—Immanuel Kant. Would it be more desirable to live in a society in which the government makes economic decisions over your family's well-being from your earnings, or would you rather bear it yourself? If the government were to provide all social goods, it is self-evident from the failed communist and social experiments in the past, that it ends in disaster. If we apply Kant's maxim we would realize how dangerous it is, if the whole world depended on bureaucrats.
We must understand incentives. Government bureaucrats are not motivated by profit, or by the possibility of losing their jobs; however inefficient and inconvenient, it is shouldered by the taxpayer. The government ends up costing more because it either inflates by printing currency to cover its costs, or by higher taxes from its citizens. However, business owners must be efficient and provide value, to stay in business.
It is becoming a choice between the invisible hand that Adam Smith used as an abstraction; to describe the cooperation and prosperity, that emerges out of individuals serving their own self-interest, via serving others with labor or products. This actually creates value, whereas value is lost by incompetent government bureaucrats through the magnanimous size of the invisible costs of government.
The alternative costs of government could have been spent to better a person's life or property. Every dollar earned is an opportunity to invest or spend. The government is incentivized to spend exuberant amounts, and it benefits from them. However, the taxpayer could have used that funding to improve his family and by extension the society. They won't lose their jobs if they don't perform. The private sector must be efficient to survive, governments do not
It boils down to whether the government has a monopoly to acquire and distribute taxes for whatever causes. We either entrust our well-being to bureaucrats who have usurped their power, to get paid by lobbyists who have been pursuing aggressive military intervention in foreign countries. As well as not balancing the budget, and leading to a 34 trillion dollar deficit. A bubble that hasn't burst, because the dollar is the reserve currency, for the whole world.
The dollar was originally backed by gold. Currency needs to have an actual commodity or services that add much needed. Now, it is simply backed by the faith of those who are willing to accept it in exchange for a good or service. Therefore, resulting in persistent inflation. The more money is printed to cover government expenses, the more the dollar loses value. Oddly enough, only government services can stay open even if they are not profitable.
The consequence of the government having control of the money supply, which isn't backed by any services or goods, is that taxation isn't the only mechanism governments can spend the public's money. The Treasury can just print money. Here is the dilemma. Let's say a good is ten dollars, and then let's say the government prints 20 dollars and hands them out, through one of their wealth distribution mechanisms. Unless the amount of goods increases with the money supply, the price of the goods will increase, without having to add any value because many people have added purchasing power, but the amount of goods has not increased.
This creates shortages, and also the dollar loses value because you will need more money for the same good or service. These are some of the consequences of government monopoly, the quality of goods or services does not improve but the public servants get wage increases. Since government services are not facing any competition. There isn't much incentive to be efficient, but they have a mechanism to lobby for wage increases through unions. However, in the free market, if a good or service isn't needed, it's not bought, and the company holds on to what sells, and may discontinue what is not. Saving costs and resources.
Inflation is theft, slowly and steadily. The people in power, print money to cover expensive pursuits. The government spends plenty of money on munitions, and the military budget is large and does not have restrictions. Companies such as Raytheon are raking in billions. That is why, spending should be left to the individual and for the providence of his family. Also, many do not agree with wars and foreign military or political intervention, it does not benefit the average working man.
Therefore, it is only rational that consumer choice should take precedence over government spending on goods. Instead of taking higher taxes from people's wages, and using that money for pursuits that don't benefit any persons or their property, but deprive them of their life, dying for wars funded by taxpayer money, lobbied by the military-industrial complex. I believe that people are better at choosing what they need, over the government's provision. Instead of adding more government services through higher taxation, there should be lower taxation and smaller governments.
This way, companies in the private sector can grow to meet those services, and this opportunity is affordable, but primarily the competition in the free market; results in increases in productivity and a higher yield in value. Taxpayer money should not be spent on subsidies either, or exuberant contracts governments give to certain industries. As well as providing jobs to people, for things people actually want. The only way a business can stay afloat is if it provides a commodity or service that is profitable. The problem with the government is that the lack of competition from the monopoly of the administration results in lower services and goods that are mediocre. Consumer choice is tantamount and utterly in dissonance with government monopoly. Consumer choice is greater than government handouts, and services.
