Its free at the endpoint for user. That's what the "free" means here. No one is pretending that resources for things like roads, police, firefighting, primary schooling and others come out of nothingness and don´t have any cost.
Everybody understands that anything which is free is ultimately paid for by someone. And everybody understands that things provided for by the government come from taxes.
We don't need new words for basic concepts everyone already understands.
Most people fail to understand:
- Social welfare programs come at the expense of reducing everyone’s income.
- The extent of the social welfare overspending is significant; we have long surpassed the point of helping those in dire need and are now funding numerous programs that, if fully understood in its long-term cost, would likely not be supported.
- The top 5% of income earners contribute 90% of the welfare programs and are not “the greedy rich.”
- The actual greedy rich do not have income and fund political campaigns, which is why politicians often conflate high-earners with the rich (to obscure the influence of interest groups)
What would be a more accurate term than “free”? Subsidized. It may not be as catchy, but it provides a more precise description.
And no, "subsidized" means a portion of something is covered by someone else, but not necessarily all of it. E.g. a subsidized cafeteria at work may mean all the food is 50% of cost. Subsidized can mean fully subsidized, but that's a special case.
So subsidized is not more precise, it's actually much less precise. "Free" continues to be the accurate and correct term.
You're taking a right-wing political stance against current levels of social spending, which is your prerogative, but there's no need to change perfectly fine language to do so. Even if we called it the mouthful of "fully subsidized childchare", that's not going to make it any less popular.
My source is my upbringing in Europe and my subsequent long-term residence in two other countries, which provided me with a unique perspective on people’s feelings and beliefs.
My source is my diverse life experiences, during which I actively engaged with people from all walks of life as much as I could. I am not making any claims about science or indulging in conspiracies. For such claims, I would require concrete evidence.
What I am saying is that a majority of the Europeans, particularly the youth, has become disconnected from the fundamental principle that to distribute wealth, you must generate it first.
I hope that helps.
That honestly sounds as plausible to me as saying the majority of Europeans thinkg 2+2=5.
Forgive me if I have a hard time believing you. Because I can definitely tell you Americans understand where their government spending comes from, and I have a hard time believing that Europeans are somehow less educated on this.
For most Europeans, a tax is an unclear bill at the end of the month, leaving them feeling powerless to do anything about it.
One thing I learned from living in America is that people here are much more engaged in civic life and politics. The UK (which I also lived in) is perhaps the exception to this European rule.
I'm American but have spent a lot of time in Europe -- France, Spain, and Germany mostly. I have seen nothing to indicate that Europeans are ignorant of where government spending comes from. They seem just as smart as anyone else.
And national elections in Europe also seem like large news events, even if the campaign season is (thankfully) a whole lot shorter.