via lost tax revenue, increased demand on need-based social service programs, etc.
I am skeptical of this style of argument, because it seems like it allows a sort of illiberal rhetorical transmutation. A government can take some private aspect of life that it does not have the right to regulate, subsidize part of it, and then claim that those who behave in undesired ways are ‘demanding’ social assistance, negatively affecting the taxpayer, and hence can be regulated.
I am skeptical of this style of argument, because it seems like it allows a sort of illiberal rhetorical transmutation. A government can take some private aspect of life that it does not have the right to regulate, subsidize part of it, and then claim that those who behave in undesired ways are ‘demanding’ social assistance, negatively affecting the taxpayer, and hence can be regulated.