How Libertarians Could Eliminate Government Tax Coercion Overnight

By -
Pay your taxes voluntarily. Alright?

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp8:09 AM

    Odd use of the possessive. How does a government demand become "mine?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:10 PM

      I know libertarians hate acknowledging that they are citizens of this country. But nevertheless you are.

      Delete
    2. gcallah12:13 PM

      Another famous libertarian tactic: "your taxes" is a completely normal use of the possessive. But libertarians love to pretend that when people speak the way 99% of everyone else does, they are using words "oddly"!

      Delete
  2. Unknown12:22 PM

    Gene, this reminds me of the meta-ethical theories of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism holds that when we speak of 'x is good', we are really just asserting a psychological emotion (this view is sometimes called 'emotivism') to a statement, akin to saying 'Hurrah for x!' or 'Boo on y!'

    Unfortunately, this is not how people use evaluative language. The non-cognitivist, like the libertarian, uses a new response: calling evaluative statements correct because 'that is how people use these words' is begging the question.

    This response does not work (for the non-cognitivist) for several reasons, but I think that libertarians are attempting to use a similar move: just because 'we use language that way' or 'we think of things being this way' does not mean that it is good, or justified, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:28 PM

      Who called something correct "because 'that is how people use these words'"?

      Not me Alex. I said it was invalid to claim that how people use these words is an "odd use" of language.

      Why would you turn that into a claim about something being "correct"?! Were you not paying any attention to what I actually wrote?

      Delete
    2. Unknown10:59 PM

      Gene, relax a bit, okay? I was just making an observation. I'm glad to know that I was wrong in characterizing what you have said, but there is no need to be so temperamental. Please be more gracious in your replies, or I will not post on your blog.

      Delete
    3. gcallah12:56 PM

      You were delivering a lecture to me on a philosophical point I have understood for decades.

      Delete
  3. Andy8:47 PM

    Kids, how to stop your mom from forcing you to eat liver: start liking liver!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:55 PM

      More like: so you don't have to be forced to behave morally, do it voluntarily.

      Delete
  4. Prateek5:56 AM

    From what I understand, you are trying to ridicule the position of "Remove illegal immigration by removing borders" by flipping it back on libertarians. Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Samson Corwell6:36 AM

    I don't think this line of argument is a good one.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more