In it's most literal sense, yes. I don't know why you think society owes you something, or you have stepped outside the realms of ordinary, just because you can fly.
That’s because in your lucky country, you’re comfortable that ‘someone else’ will always provide most of the country’s defence and commercial aviation materiel and capability. In your world, private aviation contributes nothing to that capability. There is an existential reason for civil aviation being part of the ‘cultural DNA’ of the USA. Experimental and general aviation in the USA are part of a fundamental foundation of the USA’s ongoing capability to design, construct, maintain and crew some of the best if not the best transport category civil aircraft and airborne defence systems on the planet.
Myriad aerodromes were part of Australia’s defence capability in WWII. Of course, there won’t be another set of circumstances in which Australia will have to try to be self-sufficient for more that a few weeks, will there. You can relax: Some other country will always come and save you.
I'm not 'owed' anything. I just don't like paying twice for something for which I've already paid, or being treated like I'm some kind of self-indulgent fringe dweller.
You evidently didn’t read, or if you did you didn’t understand, that the way in which the YCTM Council accounts for aerodrome expenses and income artificially exaggerates expenses and excludes actual income generated by aerodrome land. It’s only making a “loss” because actual money actually generated by actual aerodrome land is actually excluded as income. Unless and until I see the actual books and financial management practices in relation to any aerodrome, I don’t believe the claim that it’s making a loss. I’m sure the people making the claim will be able to point to a list of expenses and income, but it’s rarely the whole story. And often there's a strong incentive to paint the aerodrome in as worst possible light as it can be.