Generally the subsidies are though taxation relief, direct payments for the production or purchase, or through protectionism.
Everyone has the right to lead their own lifestyle provided they do not initiate force against others. But equally, no one has the right to force anyone else to subsidize their chosen lifestyle.
Most subsidies in this country are not regarded as subsidies of lifestyle, but either as welfare or subsidization of politically correct industries.
There are a tangle of arguments that certain industries should be subsidized, but close inspection and clear thought explodes most of them.
Usually the subsidization arguments are that a particular industry will collapse without the subsidy, or that people will lose their jobs without the subsidy - in which case the people working in that industry would be better off doing something else. We no longer make buggy-whips because technology has moved on. In fact the vast majority of jobs done by people 100 years ago have vanished - and nearly all of us are better off as as a result. People now do different jobs. Industries collapsed, new industries developed. Trying to keep jobs which a newer economy does not need simply slows progress and increases poverty.
In fact subsidization is the main mechanism in which people vote themselves money at the public trough. Most people are smart enough to recognize that arguing that they (and only they) should get subsidies gives them little credibility, so they set up a fairly complex belief set which satisfies the seemingly contradictory constraints of both benefiting them personally, and being justifiable.
Even the most conservative politician, when asked 'what are you doing about land rights for gay bikies?' will feel obliged to warble on about some new funding grant for some committee to examine and report on the feasibility of a further study to evaluate options for the possibility of establishing a government department.
This is because of the subsidization mentality - people think that it is OK for some weird cause to get subsidized provided their own weird cause can be subsidized too. The majority of people are unable to see that they are better off with a system which subsidizes nothing - in which the taxes are simply given back to all of them.
But there is a resignation that the government will probably take the money anyway, so the best thing they can do is to fight for the subsidies. They won't vote against a government who subsidizes something completely foolish, but they sure as hell will vote against a government who refuses to subsidize their own foolishness.
There is also a vague belief that 'but the rich are paying more, and I am not rich so I end up being better off'. A study of the taxation burdens against income would probably convince most people otherwise, but it is a study which most people will never do.
The situation will only improve when the voting public realizes,
See