The New York Times considers this matter wondrous. How can people who want to reduce government welfare spending take government welfare?
I see no contradiction. I might wish that my wife not make a particular dish every week, but if she insists on making it, I might still have a piece.
I might want the government to reduce welfare spending, but if I am eligible for the funds, I should act in my self-interest.
The government sets the rules and it is up to the individual to adjust to them as best he can (and to work to change the bad rules). The government may spend money on all sorts of things I oppose. My not taking a particular government benefit is going to have negligible effect on the government providing such benefits.
I may support gun control, but if the government won’t or can’t control guns, I may own a gun to protect myself in my community.
What’s so complex about this? It’s not hypocrisy. It’s living the best you can in the world as you find it, not as you wish it.
