"I don't want it, therefore they should stop it."

Many people use this argument when it comes to things that will inconvenience them. They shouldn't raise taxes because I don't want to pay them. They shouldn't raise tuition because I don't want to pay it. They shouldn't put a dump in our town because I don't want it. They shouldn't start mining in Sand Canyon because it'll create more traffic (trucks in the mining company) on the freeway and I don't want that. They should stop building more houses in my town because then more people will be here which will cause more traffic. They should lower gas prices because I don't want to pay them. And so on.

However, simply because people or a group of people don't want higher taxes, that doesn't imply that higher taxes aren't necessary. The same goes for dumps. Dumps are a necessary thing and they have to be put somewhere. If they're not put in your town, they will simply be put in another town where the people don't speak up (and of course, it might cost you more taxes because your trash will have to get shipped out further).

It amazes me how people don't bother looking into whether the tax, raise in tuition, dump, or mining, is actually necessary. They don't care if it's done for a good reason. They automatically assume that it's done for a bad reason and therefore, they don't want it to happen.

I would suggest that anyone who is against something because it will inconvenience them to actually look into the issue and see if the measure is necessary (i.e., done for a good reason). If (and only if) it is done for a bad reason (technically, if it's a measure a good person would be against), then one should be against it. Whether or not it inconveniences you or the general public is something of relevance, but is something that (given a good enough reason) can be overridden.