That's not the perspective in question. The point is that when you are taking other people's money, you have a responsibility, as part of that society you mention, to take that money more seriously than you might take money you earn from your own labors.

Money is a big deal; money is retirement funds, money is food, money is medical care, money is all kinds of things. Money isn't just "big TVs" and "fast cars", though it is those things too. Society needs to take money to do various things, but the recipients should be treating it as a sacred honor, not their birthright. When you waste $1000 of your own money, you (hopefully!) do it in the knowledge that you can afford it; when you waste $1000 of public money, you should do it in the knowledge that at least some of the people that came from really couldn't afford it, especially if it brought them no value.

I say this in general, actually, not specifically in reference to any recipient of public money. And I say it with full knowledge that it's horrifically utopian and there's hardly anyone that actually acts that way. But they should.

Funding things collectively has benefits only if I want the same things as everyone else. And I do to some degree. But anyone who decides to live his life a little differently than the majority knows about the massive drawbacks of pushing collectivism too far, as has been the case in Europe.