> edit: I was wrong, it was 2.6 million in antisemitism, not billion, so that's a pretty much irrelevant sum. Do you see how your initial feeling was far more

> edit: I was wrong, it was 2.6 million in antisemitism, not billion, so that's a pretty much irrelevant sum. Do you see how your initial feeling was far more extreme than the actual data show? That is the point of doing the actual work of looking at what your contribution funds: a scientific, solid basis for reasoning, rather than social media fueled primitive outrage. You should really try it. > I'd like more control where my money goes. Would you like everybody to have more control of that? What if people don't want to contribute to roads because they contribute to pollution (even though society would pretty much collapse without roads). Would you be okay with that? Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons [0]? Or perhaps any real world libertarian experiments? Turns out individual people are generally selfish, highly incompetent and very fallible in making decisions on complex matters affecting lots of people. It's really, really hard to train individuals to make decisions that lead to collective prosperity, especially if they can choose options that are beneficial for them in the short term. The reason we effectively work towards collective prosperity at all is the evolution of systems and processes that mitigate individual incompetence (most voters really don't know how to run a sewage system), elevate individual specialization (experts), and push for a well-reasoned basis. This evolution took place over a long time and in the process a lot of people and systems died. We can and must evolve it further, but that evolution should not ignore everything that went before it for the sake of feelings. See also Chesterton's Fence [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [1] https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/