Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.
Do you see Commerce subjects as more worthy of taxpayer money than the subjects I listed?
See above.
What gives you the right to decide which subjects are worthy of taxpayer dollars and which are not? Indeed, how and where does one draw the line?
When it comes to the cost of higher education, there is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay. The only question is: who?
On that question, I do not think the non-users of higher education should be forced to pay for those that do use it. In addition, once you think about the kind of people that attend university, and the kind of people that don’t, taxpayer subsidies to higher education is awfully regressive.
Do you think there is anything wrong with the subjects I mentioned above being cross-subsidised, funded by the fees of International students?
Cross-subsidisation hasn't been mentioned before in this thread. My thoughts on it are this: Cross-subsidisation happens in many businesses and organisations, and whether or not is efficient can vary from business to business. My libertarian tendencies tell me that businesses and individuals ought to be able to spend their revenues however they wish. From a social welfare standpoint, I don't know whether or not cross-subsidization is efficient. If the market is relatively competitive, then it wouldn't be something I would think too much of. In the realm of higher education, I and many other policy analysts think that cross-subsidisation is mainly occurring as a result of the unnecessary government regulation (mainly through quotas and price controls) of higher education. Furthermore, its readily acknowledged by many of those working inside higher education, that international students cross-subsidise a lot more than just the Arts faculty. I'd suspect that they are propping up the science faculty, and probably other faculties too that don't have a lot of fee-paying students whether local or international.