Tax Heroes

The Rational Argumentator ^ | June 8, 2003 | Michael Miller

[G. Stolyarov II]

Michael Miller is an engineer and Objectivist philosopher with thirty years of experience. He had been a member of Boycott Alberta Medicare in 1969 and of the Association to Defend Property Rights from 1973 on. He writes in-depth philosophical theory at his publication, Quackgrass Press, which can be accessed at http://www.quackgrass.com.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Receive updates from the world of Reason, Rights, and Progress. Sign up for The Rational Argumentator's FREE mailing list at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/registrationform.html

Visit TRA's newest issue at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index15.html

[Willie Green]

Michael Miller is an engineer and Objectivist philosopher with thirty years of experience

Sounds more like a moron who, rather than working within the system to change the system, advocates breaking the law.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Before you perniciously and with infantilism insult a man, why not fully read his article?

"Then should one evade taxes? No. It is dangerous: it can lead to impoverishment and imprisonment. Therefore, don’t do it! You are not obliged to take such a risk. But this is merely a warning against incidental evil; it is not a moral condemnation of tax evasion."

[Willie Green]

Before you perniciously and with infantilism insult a man, why not fully read his article?

So he tosses in a disclaimer to cover his @$$.
So what???
He still applauds tax scofflaws as "heroes".
He undermines his own credibility.

[G. Stolyarov II]

It is a grave logical fallacy to think that commending an act and wishing to undertake it are the same thing. I, for one, am fully in support of the Iraq War and any further American military involvement, yet by no means am I going to join the Armed Forces, as the risk upon my life given my lack of training is too great. Similarly, Miller does not wish to grant any encouragement to tax evasion; he merely seeks to emphasize a dissonance between the law and morality on this issue.

[Poohbah]

Actually, he points out, right in the beginning of his piece, that 3 out of 4 Canadians dislike taxes enough to risk prison in evading them--and that they'd be far better off merely voting them out of existence.

[hchutch]

Sheesh, goes to show stupidity is NOT limited to the U.S.A.

[Poohbah]

Hmm. Perhaps the problem is that the 77% don't realize just how numerous they are, and that if they figure out who to get behind, they can smoosh the opposition.

It's somewhat akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[Willie Green]

It is a grave logical fallacy to think that commending an act and wishing to undertake it are the same thing.

No it's not.

I, for one, am fully in support of the Iraq War and any further American military involvement, yet by no means am I going to join the Armed Forces, as the risk upon my life given my lack of training is too great.

But if you chose to enlist, you wouldn't be breaking the law, would you?

Within civilized societies, people who disagree with the law work within the framework of the law to change the law. They destroy their own credibility law by expressing admiration for scofflaws. Why should anybody adhere to any changes in law that they propose when they themselves selectively hold it in disregard?

[hchutch]

Not onyl that, they may allow other things to get in the way. Kinda like the Right here sometimes.

[kevkrom]

Actually, he points out, right in the beginning of his piece, that 3 out of 4 Canadians dislike taxes enough to risk prison in evading them--and that they'd be far better off merely voting them out of existence.

The real question is how many of them would be willing to see the government cut its "services" in exchange for lower taxes, and which candidates for office would work for those changes.

[G. Stolyarov II]

How does one hold the law in disregard while obeying it? Long as one obeys it in deed, one's speech cannot be considered seditious in any state but a totalitarian dictatorship.

Let me pose another example. During the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, it was illegal for German citizens to give any refuge to Jews fleeing from genocidal persecution. The common German citizen with a vestige of morality would contend that such a law was inhuman, but still would obey it, for fear of the Reich's monstrous retaliation. Yet, at the same time, he would likely hold in high esteem those who undertook the courageous task of offering the Jews shelter despite the death threats arrayed against them.

Moreover, working within the law is precisely what Miller suggests via a grass-roots abolition movement, but do keep in mind that, while I essentially agree with that method in this case, there are certain instances, such as that in Nazi Germany or any state that forcefully institutes a draft upon its citizens (which is what my first example reminds me of), where the only means of retaliation on the citizens' part is outright disobedience and evasion.

[babyface00]

where the only means of retaliation on the citizens' part is outright disobedience and evasion

Let's not forget that there was a time in our own history when this was true, and it was only a couple hundred years ago.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Doesn't sound like "working from within the system" to me.

[Willie Green]

How does one hold the law in disregard while obeying it?

By praising scofflaws as "heroes".

[evaporation-plus]

Once you feel that the government is no longer interested in your views and you are powerless to change anything, it's not hard, with a clean conscience, to take the next step and avoid having them steal your possesions.

[Alberta's Child]

Sounds more like a moron who, rather than working within the system to change the system, advocates breaking the law.

This statement is particularly ironic here on FreeRepublic, since we live in a country that owes its existence to a bunch of tax scofflaws.

[Willie Green]

This statement is particularly ironic here on FreeRepublic, since we live in a country that owes its existence to a bunch of tax scofflaws.

As I recall, the Founders said something about "taxation without representation".
I don't believe that condition exists either here or in Canada.

[babyface00]

As I recall, the Founders said something about "taxation without representation". I don't believe that condition exists either here or in Canada

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British Parliament existed in 1776. Was Commons not a representative body?

Seems to me the issue is whether the representatives are acting in the interests of those they represent, or just using the system as a pretext. If the author's figures are accurate, it would appear that they are not in Canada, at least with respect to this issue.

[babyface00]

Boy, this looks like it could turn into an interesting discussion, but its 5:00 here in Cleveland and I've gotta run today.

Hope you guys have fun debating this.