Passage Summary: A writer argues that even if the government spends your tax money on art you absolutely despise, you haven't been treated unfairly, provided the government had the right to spend that money on art in the first place.

Conclusion: Taxpayers are not treated unfairly when their tax dollars fund art they find morally or aesthetically offensive.

Reasoning: The government is within its legal rights to allocate tax dollars to the arts, regardless of whether individual taxpayers approve of the specific works produced.

Analysis: The columnist's argument relies on a gap between the government's right to act and the fairness of the outcome for the individual. To justify this, we need a principle that essentially says: 'If the process is legitimate, the outcome is fair.' We are looking for a rule that protects the government's spending decisions from claims of injustice as long as those decisions fall under their established rights. The ideal answer will bridge the gap by stating that a person's dislike of a specific expenditure doesn't constitute an injustice if the expenditure was authorized correctly.