While it is very bad form to use a Dan Riehl post as a jumping-off point for a serious question, you blog with the jumping-off points you have, not the jumping-off points you wish you had. So, then:
Each year about this time, as many of us supplement our paycheck-to-paycheck giving unto Caesar, I raise this question. This year, let’s start with the following observation from a reader, sent in the wake of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. He notes that “terrorism” is defined, in Webster’s, as “the systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion,” and provides a long list of examples, past and present, where the U.S. government has done exactly that. He then notes that under the current Patriot Act, it is now illegal to provide money to organizations that practice terrorism, and therefore concludes that as a matter of national security he must refuse to pay his federal taxes.
Now, it’s unlikely that any IRS or federal court will agree with that novel conclusion, but our reader has a point. Why do we continue to willingly pay for programs and policies that put ourselves and our country (not to mention countless people in other lands) in greater danger? The bloodshed and corporate welfare in our name and with our money — and our kids’ money, and their kids’, and their kids’ — raises an obvious but seldom-asked question: why do so many of us pay our income taxes?
It’s not a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer: “Because they make us.”
There’s a less obvious answer, too, and either of these could equally well answer the question “why do so many of us not mug old ladies?” At some point, of course, this no longer works, and the perceived cost of this social contract outweigh the perceived benefits. If you’ve got Wesley Snipes money, you may reach this point sooner.
April 28, 2008 at 1:10 am
Here’s some racist-ass bullshit.
http://nationalsportsreview.com/2008/04/26/josh-howards-near-fatal-faux-pas/
April 28, 2008 at 1:12 am
Have you ever seen Wesley Snipes and Thoreau in the same movie? No, sir, you have not.
April 28, 2008 at 1:23 am
Also, consider this recently discovered text:
“Some men are content to take the plow and from it, and their own exertions, provide themselves and their families with food, and clothing, and shelter. Yet these same men I see, in their leisure, to be squandering these gains at games of chance. I do not mean to deprive these men of such pleasures as they may derive thereof, but only to warn them: if one must trust one’s affairs to fortune, always bet on black.”
April 28, 2008 at 1:24 am
OK, maybe the article isn’t racist, maybe it’s written by a brother who laments the “good apples” getting lumped in from the “bad apples”, or whatever, (Josh Howard isn’t a bad guy. The rate of drug use is the same for a group of 300 accountants, lawyers, plumbers, and NBA players, and besides why keep weed illegal anyway? The author makes it sounds like Josh Howard killed someone.) Point is, it’ll be used by racists to support their bullshit. Maybe Josh Howard is making a politically protected statement. There are no thought crimes.
April 28, 2008 at 5:25 am
So that’s why they like it when the U.S. kills civilians–instant tax loophole!
April 28, 2008 at 7:59 am
This is like selecting the scrawniest child for the rugby match against the masters.
April 28, 2008 at 9:23 am
foolishmortal wins.