Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
Seems pretty negligible compared to the one that mandates people to pay for unjustified foreign wars, incarcerating people because they put a certain molecule into their own bodies, etc.
There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception.
It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
It's not worth debating over, but there's clearly a difference in category between drug laws, war policy, and philanthropic aid programs. Opting out of war funding sounds great, but I'm not sure how that would work. As far as drugs, it's harder but we could make drug prohibitions state laws and let people move or make changes at the state level.
Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (even if they are amazingly beneficial). If minorities object to contraception, let them opt out of paying for it on their tax form or something. And let other people choose to pay triple. Like you said, it's not a lot of money, so I don't know why we should grief a minority of people on this point.
I don't understand what this supposed difference is. In what way are government aid programs optional that war and drug laws aren't? Why does it make sense to allow people to opt out of one but not another?
You say "clearly", but it's definitely not, at least not to me.
My objections to opting out of war policy and drug laws were practical. Nations must be able to fight wars. Drugs must be regulated (if only to establish civil liability). I don't see how an individual can practically opt out of at least funding those things. Humanitarian aid, however noble, is not essential like war policy, and it's not inevitable like drug regulations. I can go into more detail, but it's fairly off topic.
I am interested in finding ways to let people live their consciences in the face of unjust wars and laws. One way is to make more decisions at the local level and then people can move if they get really fed up with policies. This doesn't work with war policy, but it can certainly work with drug prohibitions and humanitarian aid programs. I don't see why the city of Tampa Bay couldn't legalize marijuana and send millions of condoms to southern Asia or southern Africa.
I agree that national defense is a necessity, but I don't think the ability to blow up huts on the other side of the planet is a necessary component to that.
Similarly, while I agree that regulating drug manufacture is a necessity, regulating drug consumption is not.
So there's first an argument from degree. It's not as simple as "Nations must be able to fight wars." Details matter a great deal, and I think a case could be made that even if war-fighting is necessary, the vast majority of what we currently spend on it is unnecessary and immoral.
Further, who decides what's necessary? I imagine a hard-core pacifist would argue that national defense is not actually a necessity. That same person might argue that access to good health care, including contraception, is a fundamental human right and therefore funding that is a necessity. Why should someone be forced to pay for anything they find immoral and unnecessary, even if you happen to think it's necessary?
My own response to that would be that some people are simply wrong about that, and allowing people to opt out of things they feel are unnecessary and immoral simply wouldn't work. The good thing about government is that it allows us to take collective actions that benefit us all but would fall victim to things like the free rider problem if they were funded voluntarily. But then we need some way of collectively deciding what's worth funding through government and forcing people to pay for, and what's not.
And this really just puts is back where we started. We have to fund some things, and no matter what they are, some taxpayers will feel that those things are unnecessary and immoral. That, I think, indicates that "I shouldn't be required to pay for things I find immoral" is not a good argument.
As one of those people who doesn't want my tax dollars spent on war, I have no idea what more I can do to stop it from happening. As far as I can tell, the government will spend my money on whatever it wants to, and I have no control over it.
There's plenty of room for debate and argument, but ultimately the whole point of taxes is that you don't get to decide what they're spent on. If this stuff worked when everyone decided for themselves, we wouldn't need taxes in the first place. The good thing is that it means we can pool our resources and e.g. build a bridge that none of us would individually contribute towards, but then we get bad stuff too.
For the record, I don't agree with you about contraception. I'm all for building wells in Africa and setting bins of free condoms right next to them.
But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent).
I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
They're just taking the mindset of: "Such and such things are inherently wrong, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right about this; therefore anyone who disagrees about it is an enemy to humanity and the common good, and therefore must be silenced and must not be allowed to affect legislation."
That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
