Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about the ambiguity. That's something else. This is about, for example, ethanol subsidies. Basically everyone who doesn't receive them thinks they're dumb. It takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol, it diverts productive farmland from food which makes food cost more for the poor (and everyone), it's an inefficient use of tax dollars, etc. Yet we continue to have ethanol subsid…
Of course it is ambiguous. You and the corn farmers both can make a case. I wasn't making a point about how lovable politics is, but why it's needed to the misguided character above who has reached a conclusion that "smashing" the system helps. The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them.
And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts.
But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies.
The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork.
> The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder.
But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.