Before i read it i was optimistic that they would give a real compelling argument for taxation, but it is remarkable weak.
Author claims that inequality in an economy is arbitrary lol. So thats one reason for redistributing wealth
Claims taxes are needed for negative externatities. Apparently consumption of fossil fuels needs to be punished and curtailed, even though modern civilization and all the wonders of technology are made possible by these awful externalities.
Couldn’t make sense of his “social” argument. Need more clarification on that
Claims that taxes are a fundemental part of a political system, as if a government must inherently tax its citizens. If it seems so fundemental and implied, then How did the US government exist for 100 years without an Income tax?
All arguments on the subject are invariabley bull. It’s just confiscating money at gunpoint and putting it where no sane system would recieve a payoff.
I have no idea how in the hell he thought this refuted the “taxation is theft” argument, but I am just dumbstruck all the same by the poorness of this argument.
omg the princeton doofus just dropped the “taxation is justified because no one would have gotten to where they are if it wasn’t for the community’s help… like government schools! … and so people should be forced to give back to the community” (in the comments)
Logic: taxation provides for government schools ----> taxation is justified
In other words: taxation exists ----> taxation is justified
Are people really this stupid?
I mean this is “deus ex machina” school of philosophy. Analyze the current criminal gang that is performing violence to people, and then somehow introduce some ridiculous after-the-fact explanation that justifies it. Their violence is okay, well, because sometimes they give a bit of their loot back to people… Oh, and there are government schools!!!
The guy even admits that he went to government school and liked it. So it’s no wonder where he got his philosophy.
The fact is, he can’t imagine a world without government because he knows little about human action. And because he can’t imagine a world without government, he feels to need to come up with a justification for it.
I always like hearing this argument. My dad got cancer, had chemo, had his arm amputated, and when offered food stamps, or forms of government welfare, he denied them. And now he’s successful. What does his argument mean now that my dad didn’t take any forms of welfare, and became successful?
It means that the losers in a trailer park that live off welfare, who grew up in a “bad home environment”, have no excuse get paid with other people’s money to sit on their asses for the rest of their lives.
The worst effect of the welfare state may be the damage it wreaks on human psychology. Taking away people’s sense of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the surest ways to ensure they achieve little.