> The government has no money. So you're saying the tax payers should be paying $2000/mo/recipient.

The government is able to achieve economies of scale that the private sector can't. I think you know damn well "the government should be giving this away for free" is just a simplified way to describe the economics.

> You could argue this is for my/public good, but you didn't ask me, you didn't get a representative vote from me. In your scenario you've just decided how to spend my money.

Right, you got yours, so you're rationalizing away your part of the cost burden.

You're participating in a society. The consent is implied. If you don't like the terms of the contract, feel free to stop enjoying all the fruits of civilization.