This argument drives me crazy
Reader comment on: Millionaires for Higher Taxes
Submitted by ben (United States), Nov 17, 2011 13:23
This argument drives me crazy, as it completely misses the point in favor of a pithy sound bite.
There is no inconsistency with me thinking I am capable of spending my money better than government, but still wanting to raise taxes (and not donate money). Take Norquist to his logical end, we would have no government. Is Norquist an anarchist? Would people voluntarily donate anything to support a standing army, or build roads, or maintain the courts? Why would I donate anything if I could be a free rider and let someone else fund the necessary functions of government? Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society, and everyone should contribute as we all benefit. The argument is over how much everyone should have to pitch in, and nobody should be exempt or be able to "opt out" and rely on the beneficence of others to support public goods that we all enjoy. Like so many arguments on the right these days, Norquist's may frame the issue nicely, but is morally and logically bankrupt.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item