Of course, that's what elections are for.
Try to pay attention (...) I was asserting that it was a waste in that case.
You were asserting that the wasted subsidy could be equated with the efforts of 25 laborers working 100 hours each. By that logic, 25 other laborers working the same amount might end up subsidizing the education of a student who becomes a great industrialist. Should they break out the champagne?
Tax payments go into a pool, and a proportion of the amount spent on educational subsidies will be wasted. What matters is the overall rate of return.
I'm confused - if I vote against subsidizing other people's consumption, I'm not obligated to do so?
Or perhaps you are confused and believe that 2 people (aka, a majority) threatening 1 person with violence is not force.
By that logic, 25 other laborers working the same amount might end up subsidizing the education of a student who becomes a great industrialist.
And in that case, it might be worthwhile, depending on whether the public benefits of the great industrialist outweigh the public costs. Assuming education is what enabled this person to become a great industrialist, then it probably is worthwhile.
Again, let me repeat: elbenshira questioned whether it was a waste even in cases where there is no public benefit, only a private benefit. That's what I was responding to.
Laws are enforced with violence. Don't kid yourself on that.
So they are permitted to say no?
... based on the probability that they'll later make a net contribution to society, including the laborers - if that probability is high enough.
Try to pay attention. I was responding to a comment by elbenshira questioning whether it was a waste even if the education goes unused. I was asserting that it was a waste in that case.