Elizabeth Warren‘s recent remarks offer a striking glimpse into a prominent strain of American political thought. Warren is a Harvard law professor and U.S. Senate candidate, and she has been a White House presidential assistant. An excerpt:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
What gives this argument rhetorical force is its appeal to a principle of economic justice: You should pay for the benefits you get from others. Don’t be a freeloader. Warren combines that principle with a list of benefits an imagined factory builder has received from others to get the implicit conclusion and policy recommendation: The factory builder has unpaid debts that justify increased taxation.
Five observations and questions:
1. On the seriousness of the economic justice claim: If we’re to conclude that the factory owner (let’s call her Jill) has unpaid debts, are we to (a) estimate how much benefit Jill the factory builder has received from others, (b) determine how much she has paid for those benefits (since presumably she paid her employees, truckers, and taxes), so that (c) we can determine whether she has paid too much, too little, or the right amount? Are we to make that serious accounting effort, or is this argument meant to generate an unspecified debt claim and a blank check for politicians and the IRS to fill in as they judge best?
2. On the transfer of debt: Warren points out that, for example, many of the factory’s employees were educated in government schools. The government has taxed its citizens and used that money to educate, say, Jack. Interestingly, Warren does not say that Jack now has a debt to society that he should pay. Instead, the debt seems to shift to Jill when she hires Jack. How does that work?
3. On disingenuous application: Warren targets her argument only against the prosperous. Yet middle and low income people also receive the same benefits as the factory builder—they use the roads, enjoy police and fire protection, use the services of those educated in public schools, and so on. Why is Warren not also hectoring middle and low income people for apparently violating the social contract?
4. On the compatibility of the economic justice principle with the rest of Warren’s political philosophy: Warren here suggests strongly that Jill the factory builder has freeloaded on unpaid benefits from the rest of society and that justice requires that she pay for what she received from others. Does Warren therefore favor abolishing the welfare state? I rather doubt it. So we end up in an odd position: Those who live on or profit from government welfare get a pass in Warren’s system, while those who build factories are considered freeloaders.
5. On the doulos and a historical echo: In Plato’s Crito (50d), Socrates argues that he has no right to escape from prison, even if he is innocent. Socrates imagines himself in conversation with the Laws of the State and has the Laws say to him, ‘”In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?” None, I [Socrates] should reply. “Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?” Right, I should reply.’
Socrates has agreed that the State made possible his existence and upbringing. Consequently, he is in debt to the State, as the Laws go on to conclude forcefully:
“Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you?”
“Doulos: In ancient Greece, a slave (δοῦλος).” In the above translation of Plato’s text, doulos is translated as either child or slave. Thus we have an argument for paternalism and slavery: Socrates, his ancestors, and presumably his descendants, are creatures and chattels of the State.
Is Warren’s position that different?
Perhaps hers is not meant as a serious argument, though, and only as red meat thrown to the “Tax the rich!” political base. But what if Warren is serious?
If someone emigrates from the US, on Warren’s argument, do they have to pay back taxpayers for all the money spent on them?
And how, exactly, did the taxpayers get the largesse they so altruistically dole out?
Thank you for this, Steven. It’s a wonderfully concise yet comprehensive statement of the further implications of an ill-conceived philosophy.
Stephen,
Nicely done. I blogged on this the other day as well. Didn’t Ted Kennedy once make a similar argument that doctors should be forced to work in a single-payer system because their education was subsidized by the state?
Terry
One strong point that you perhaps missed is how much Jill contributes to the very existence of the “benefits from others.”
Before industrialists like Jill and before the industrial revolution there were largely no usable roads, little education (50%+ illiteracy rate) and little police and fire protection.
It is capitalism, industrialization and “the rich” like Jill that produced the wealth that was essential in making possible a modern infrastructure, widespread education, etc.
I would suggest looking at the problem from a different perspective: by attempting to define the role of the ‘public good’ in society, and what it means to have public goods. Based on John Rawls concept of the ‘veil of ignorance’ (or straightforward utilitarianism) it could be shown by observation that some services are better held in the hands of a state, and not in private ownership. The most obvious example could be the justice system. Such a service is a public good. And then ask: what is the obligation of a member of the state to have access to the ‘public good’?
•”The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
•”It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed.“
•Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Second, this warren buffet quote
•”I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kinds of soil.”
Third, societies do not function well if there is massive inequality. Most researchers of on democracy argue that inequality is incompatible with democracy. See Robert Jackman or Edward Muller. if you need exact cites I can get them.
Nunber 1) this is what democratic decision making is all about making that determination. the IRS or govt. bureaucrat bogeyman is irrellevant because they should carry out what we decide.
number3) She never says jack doesn’t have a debt, jack pays his as we all know. state taxes, social security and all the other taxes are regressive so the real tax rate is close to flat. her point is the more you benefit the more you should pay. that is not happening in America. an even though everyone gets roads, companies use the roads more than I do. wealthy people get better roads (their potholes are filled faster) better police protection etc this stuff isn’t even a debate as we know from studies of response times by police. also there are things like airports that are paid for with tax dollars and many people have never flown. the museum district is funded by taxes so the wealthy can have a place to socialize. there are many houstonians who have never been to the MFA.we can go into all the things that help businesses much more than consumers. but we all pitch in. they are public goods that we as a society have decided we need and I personally think those with extra money that they do not need for necessities can pitch in a little more for these things. it is also not really an issue for debate that different people use these public goods at different levels.
number 2) yes jack is educated in public schools and so he owes a debt but he pays that debt through taxes. jill makes money off not only her education but also from jack’s so she should pay a larger share.
number 4) i believe it is in my interest to help the needy. the language this guy uses is one of freeloaders with all the negative connotations for people on government assistence. I just don’t see it that way. first many people simpply can not work therefor if we don’t give them a minimal subsistance living what are they going to do? maybe live with family what if they don’t have any? just let them die? Others may want to work but can’t because child care parent care etc. maybe we should help them out. I as much as any conservative have a problem with just handing out checks to anyone and everyone. maybe we should make work requirements for welfare or provide public day care for those that want to work. but in the end it is definately in my interest to see that the poorest among us are fed and housed in conditions that allow them to maintain some dignity. otherwise they become the theives that steal because they have no option or the panhandlers who clutter our streets and make our society less attractive. this incidently relates back to number 2 because I have seen more than a few panhandlers being questioned by police here in kingwood but in other parts of houston they are left alone.
the first quote is from Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations.
as you can tell I think you are full of it.
It took only eight simple words for the top philosophical individual of the past 150 years when he said, “You can observe a lot just by watching.” Yogi Berra.
Now please Steve, get over yourself.
“She never says jack doesn’t have a debt, jack pays his as we all know. state taxes, social security and all the other taxes are regressive so the real tax rate is close to flat. her point is the more you benefit the more you should pay. that is not happening in America. an even though everyone gets roads, companies use the roads more than I do. wealthy people get better roads (their potholes are filled faster) better police protection etc this stuff isn’t even a debate as we know from studies of response times by police. also there are things like airports that are paid for with tax dollars and many people have never flown. the museum district is funded by taxes so the wealthy can have a place to socialize. there are many houstonians who have never been to the MFA.we can go into all the things that help businesses much more than consumers. but we all pitch in. they are public goods that we as a society have decided we need and I personally think those with extra money that they do not need for necessities can pitch in a lit”
this rubbish is right up there with the notorious World’s Most Boring Headline: “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.”
John, that is not an argument; it is a series of assertions
I would suggest looking at the problem from a different perspective: by attempting to define the role of the ‘public good’ in society, and what it means to have public goods. Based on John Rawls concept of the ‘veil of ignorance’ (or straightforward utilitarianism) it could be shown by observation that some services are better held in the hands of a state, and not in private ownership. The most obvious example could be the justice system. Such a service is a public good. And then ask: what is the obligation of a member of the state to have access to the ‘public good’?
The justice system is a legitimate part of government. I don’t need to turn to Rawls theory of blind justice or some utilitarian nonsense in order to understand this
Lorenzo from Oz “If someone emigrates from the US, on Warren’s argument, do they have to pay back taxpayers for all the money spent on them?”
Funny you should mention that. Communist regimes used to use that as an excuse to deny emigration rights–and lots of communist sympathizers in America supported such arguments.
Nice analysis, Stephen. I think the emotional appeal of Warren’s argument is humility. Take the businessman’s claim that he created his wealth and earned his fortune by his own effort. For Warren, the businessman is assuming credit that belongs to the rest of society. Such hubris!
@John Theis – You’re probably not going to read this, as I sense you are a typical ranting collectivist who dropped a bomb and then moved on. But on the off chance you’re looking for feedback, I’ll try to learn you a thing or three. I’m not sure why you weren’t able to successively number your arguments, but I’ll keep with your paradigm out of respect for your human dignity.
You state:
“Third, societies do not function well if there is massive inequality. Most researchers of on democracy argue that inequality is incompatible with democracy. See Robert Jackman or Edward Muller. if you need exact cites I can get them.”
I think I’m going to need those cites in order to take this contention seriously. A search on “Robert Jackman” elicits obituaries, which can hardly be used to support an objective understanding of whatever it is you’re trying to say. Searching for “Edward Muller” leads to a site prefaced with “Welcome to the home page of Edward Muller, author, programmer, and cookie baker.” Perhaps tasty cookies can influence the credibility of a philosopher’s opinions, but I’d rather not rely solely on that admittedly important area of expertise in judging Mr. Muller’s contribution to our discussion.
The above notwithstanding, your normative statements regarding inequality and democracy are not supported by reality. In fact, democracy assumes that not all people have equal abilities. While we can (hopefully) agree that all people are created equal (inasmuch as we can all claim our worth as individual humans), the concept of equality you seem to promote is a false premise. Everyone is not equal with regard to individual success. However, in the realm of determining the impact government has on an individual’s life, all are equal in their ability to influence the course of government, through the “one person, one vote” concept. Which leads to your next statement:
“Nunber 1) this is what democratic decision making is all about making that determination. the IRS or govt. bureaucrat bogeyman is irrellevant because they should carry out what we decide.”
Let’s begin with an examination of the word “should.” Although there are several entries in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I’ll choose this one: “used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.”
Used in this sense, I agree, The IRS or government “bogeyman” ought to be fulfilling the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. Yet I contend that bureaucratic culture almost always tends away from ensuring individual liberty, and toward increasing control of peoples’ lives.
On to your next point:
“number3) […] her point is the more you benefit the more you should pay. that is not happening in America. an even though everyone gets roads, companies use the roads more than I do.”
As most thinking people know, those who make the most money already pay the most taxes, so get over yourself. And while we’re focused on your overweening opinion of yourself, have you thought about how “companies” using roads benefits you? Unless you’re in favor of higher prices for everything you buy in a store, you might want to lay off this idea of companies benefiting from road use.
Later in this paragraph you state: “I personally think those with extra money that they do not need for necessities can pitch in a little more for these things.”
Here’s my main problem with those who think as you seem to: who died and made you king? You are able to determine the needs of someone you’ve never met? You have the power over someone else’s property and livelihood? You get to decide how other people’s money or property is used? How arrogant is that? And yet I imagine you safely sit in your mom’s basement deciding how other people should continue to support your lifestyle. Here’s where you prove my point:
“I personally think those with extra money that they do not need for necessities can pitch in a little more for these things.”
Apparently John Theis knows what all other people should be allowed to do with their property. Let’s face it, unless John Theis approves of what we choose to buy, support, invest in, or save, we’re immoral. Bah. You, sir, are a totalitarian. Next.
“number 2) yes jack is educated in public schools and so he owes a debt but he pays that debt through taxes. jill makes money off not only her education but also from jack’s so she should pay a larger share.”
This “owing of a debt” is a big thing with you, isn’t it? Never mind the creation of wealth and capital that Jill achieved. Never mind the jobs shes created for people like Jack. No, you’re focused on tearing down Jill’s success, because she’s “unfairly advantaged.” Here’s an idea–get a better job so you can improve your lot in life, instead of putting the onus of your success on the backs of your betters. Better yet, become one of the “betters” yourself. You can do it in the US of A.
Let’s move on to your last point:
“number 4) i believe it is in my interest to help the needy.”
Then do it! What’s stopping you? Oh, right, you need OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to enact your vision. Yeah, that’s moral. Here’s another of your gems of wisdom:
“first many people simpply can not work therefor if we don’t give them a minimal subsistance living what are they going to do? maybe live with family what if they don’t have any?”
Many people? How many? Who is “we”? You won’t find a single conservative (which you are not) who is unwilling to help the truly needy. Yet you seem to propose an all-encompassing federal government solution to what is a local issue. Please re-read the Tenth Amendment.
I won’t quote your continued rambling on this point. Poverty does not lead to crime. Coddling of the destitute is not the answer. I’m all for helping the needy, but let me reach into my pocket of my own free will to do so. In other words, reach into yours first, Champ.
Cheers,
Brennan
@ brennan
Just so you know I do pay attention to responses which is probably a lot more than you do. It is amazing to me that you consider a Google search sufficient to assume no evidence exists regarding the relationship between democracy and inequality. I assume you have never heard of JSTOR. Robert Jackman and Edward Muller are Political Scientists both now have now passed away but their debates about the facts (something you have no clue how to recognize) about the relationship between Income inequality and Democracy were about the degree of the relationship and the causality not whether the relationship exists. This is an almost undebatable relationship in the social science literature and you can refer the ASR, APSA and numerous other journals to find their articles. The relationship between crime and poverty is also well established in the literature if you bother to read. I recommend a book “The Spirit Level” which looks at inequality and a wide variety of quality of life issues. You can believe it is the coddling of criminals that reduces crime if you want to but the evidence is not there in cross national studies (or when comparing states either for that matter) as far as the rest of your ideological invective filled rant, you simply show what a Neanderthal you are. Given that I know my own situation the probabilities say that I am more educated, have a larger income, and have started more companies than you have. But this is what I have come to expect from simple minded reactionaries like you.
If the State is responsible for our financial successes, should it not also be held equally responsible for our financial failures as well?
Joseph Stack seemed to think so…
Philosophy enthusiast here, and I appreciate your work on foundationalism. However, I am very surprised at the extreme use of logical fallacies, lack of charity, and dishonest argumentation in this article. It reads as a political piece written for the National review by some libertarian think-tank employee or something.
“1 … Are we to make that serious accounting effort, or is this argument meant to generate an unspecified debt claim and a blank check for politicians and the IRS to fill in as they judge best?”
Neither. It’s obvious that the former is unfeasible to be done with the high precision implied in your rhetorical question’s choice. The latter is obviously a poisoning of the well combined with your own incredibly uncharitable interpretation of something you have somehow strawmanned completely, which is that governments pick winners and losers and they paint with as fine a brush as is reasonable with regards to their policies. You are conflating a broader brush than you would disingenously claim to support (the former accounting effort) with a “blank check” meaning the broadest most arbitrary brush possible.
This scenario that you concocted is both a strawman argument and a false dichotomy, these are not the only two options, and the options as presented aren’t even reasonable approximations of the options they vaguely represent at all. There are more options than this, but there is an obvious third option I can present to you. Estimations given data presently collected already from the various government agencies that track these figures, analysis from a consensus of leading economists, and experts being appointed to these government agencies that have thorough economic expertise can be combined to come up with general numbers that will leave few stranded at the margins.
This is kind of the middle argument between the two strawman arguments you presented, and it’s actually what both sides of the United States’ political aisle already do. Just either side values certain industries and areas of our economy differently when they prop them up through this winner and loser picking process. The Republicans historically favor big business in hopes of a trickle down economy functioning. The Democrats (in recent history) typically favor small businesses and working from a bottom-up economic approach. The thing is, economists largely agree trickle-down economics doesn’t work. The few naysayers are either fringe libertarian economists (who religiously adhere to a specific unbending framework with pseudoeconomics obsession) or the dying breed of Chicago School economists who have made wrong prediction after wrong prediction for decades now, and should be wholesale disregarded for their inaccurate framework.
“2 … Many factorys’ employees were educated in government schools (which is funded by taxing the citizens) … Warren does not say that Jack now has a debt to society that he should pay … (and) the debt seems to shift to Jill when she hires Jack. How does that work?”
Is this an honest question? Because I assume from the tone it’s not. I’m actually chuckling pretty heftily at the precept that you believe that you have gotcha’d neo-neo-keynesian economics with a 4 word rhetorical question. But let me put on a naive thinking cap for a moment, to step into your world, and explain matter-of-factly “how that works”.
For Jill to hire a person who meets the necessary educational requirements, a sum of educated Jacks must be within the labor pool that meet Jill’s hiring needs. It is in Jill’s best long-term interests to contribute to society, if necessary, to maintain the labor pool Jill requires and would require in the future in the society in which Jill’s company exists, so there is never a labor shortage that hampers productivity and raises wages unnecessarily. Therefore, even if Jill doesn’t see the benefit to Jill in the very short-term, Jill could invest in education in your libertarian fantasy-land and see returns on Jill’s investments in the form of reducing labor costs and improving productivity per labor hour due to having a more well-rounded labor force available to Jill.
Alternatively, if Jill suffers from the condition known was “chronic shortsightedness” in the business world, and does not acknowledge the positive effects of mitigating negative externalities in Jill’s community by creating educational opportunities out of the good ness of her heart… Then the voters can determine that Jill ought to be compelled to pay for the services that they have collectively determined should be provided. This is the market-based analysis using an instance of market failures that generate negative externalities. A negative externalities of abolishing public funding of education could be argued to be a reduction in skilled white collar labor forces, driving up wages for those employees unnecessarily, and decreasing the overall pool of white collar employees with middle income wages, and ending in the company reducing its own profits in the long run through way of less spending power from the society in which they sell products/services and through increased labor costs.
There’s another way to explain this, that starts at the other end of the chicken and the egg. A moral and legal framework is primarily the angle that someone like Warren (and pretty much any other Democratic legislator on this subject) would employ, and it’s even simpler to explain to you. The American people have determined that there is a minimum standard of education that should be made available to all its residents, as a moral issue. Americans generally are morally repulsed at the prospect of a child making it to adulthood and not being able to read, write, do basic arithmetic, or know anything about the humanities and sciences, etc… Therefore, through the democratic process (flawed as it may be in terms of one person one vote not being represented currently) the American people eventually got us to the legal assertion that K-12 education is a right, that is publicly available to all residents.
Given that this is now a government mandated right, it has to be paid for somehow, and Warren is just defending the moral reasoning while also extending an olive branch to a market consideration to be charitable somewhat. She starts from the point of public education being a moral good to society and a right to our people, and from there argues in a way that she hopes is convincing to the people suffering from chronic shortsightedness, like most business owners, and, apparently, yourself.
“3 On disingenuous application: Warren targets her argument only against the prosperous.”
This is particularly rich after the disingenuous rhetorical questioning and false dichotomies of strawmanned positions I outlined above and responded to. Maybe you’ve learned not to do this in the past 9 years? I doubt it, people often solidify their ideologies and double down defending them in the least honest ways as they get older. I’m just being realistic, you probably are still proud of this article, aren’t you?
“Yet middle and low income people also receive the same benefits as the factory builder—they use the roads, enjoy police and fire protection, use the services of those educated in public schools, and so on. Why is Warren not also hectoring middle and low income people for apparently violating the social contract? ”
They don’t violate the social contract though. As you can see here –> https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rates-have-fallen-top-one-percent-world-war-ii – The average person, the lower quintiles as well… they all pay taxes. The reasoned argument as to why proportionally more of the profits/income of a corporation/wealthy person should be paid, is because they use more of these services than people in the lower quintile and in the middle, and on up. Walmart ships massive products across the country on huge semis that damage roads more per ton moved than cars, because of the exponential effect of loading more weight on a road and using more wheels, more torque, more stopping force, etc… To ensure they don’t put too much of an effect on the economy, which would be negative externalities, another term you don’t seem to be familiar with, weigh stations have to be installed, regulations need to be enforced, etc… It’s all pretty basic stuff that first year college students are taught. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this concept before. Your bewildered question is more likely another disingenuous rhetorical one where you have framed the subject in your mind in such a way that you can justify some way in which no one could ever answer it. This isn’t being a critical thinker. This isn’t being skeptical. This isn’t being honest. You are better than this, seriously.
“4 … Warren here suggests strongly that Jill the factory builder has freeloaded on unpaid benefits from the rest of society and that justice requires that she pay for what she received from others. Does Warren therefore favor abolishing the welfare state?”
Another disingenuous rhetorical question that uses some kind of strawman variant. In this case it’s a false analogy. Good analogies align similar statements/sentences/concepts along necessary principles. The word necessary, as I’m sure a person with a philosophy graduate degree knows, is critical here. What are the fundamentally distilled principles of the two things being compared here? It’s a matter of perspective. Jill the Factory Builder is in a position of relative power over society and their own situation, the (bizarrely disembodied and unnamed, showing Hicks’ disdain for poor people) welfare receiver has comparably far less power over society and their own situation. Jill the factory builder employs people they choose. The welfare may get employed by someone like Jill, or they may not, or they may not be able to work at all. You get the idea, they are functionally at the core not analogous, in my opinion, on so many levels. Their relation to power dynamics, their relation to abilities and choice over their own actions, and their whole relationship with the society around them is entirely different. The same perfectly aligned rules don’t apply to them since they are doing totally different things in our society than each other, they exist in totally different spaces.
Now there is another problem with your framing here, Mr. Hicks. You forget that people on welfare have children that may one day be factory workers or factory builders. A core component of a healthy economy is steady perpetual growth. If the welfare were not available, we would see a proportionate response from people who require welfare to meet their basic needs in the form of killing off their young who are born, increased drug use and abuse, increased criminal activity to make ends meet, and an increase in neglected children who have less ability to contribute back more into the economy than their parents took in their life time. Again with the chronic shortsightedness with you people, yeesh.
“Those who live on or profit from government welfare get a pass in Warren’s system, while those who build factories are considered freeloaders.”
I’m unsure if you are willfully denying you know what Warren is saying, or if you are actually just this totally unaware. There is a concept called “narrative subversion”, where someone will appropriate the typical narrative of something and subvert that narrative so as to change the meaning or the way the viewer receives something, surprises them a bit. If the narrative is “all these welfare-receivers are freeloaders” and the reality from your viewpoint that you can point to is the relatively lower taxes and increased benefits the “actual” freeloaders take (aka Jill the multi-billionaire factory builder that donates 1 million to a campaign so she can have her tax liability reduced in the hundreds of millions for a good ROI). It’s narrative subversion in a societal sense. Don’t respond as if you don’t know what she’s saying, because you are clearly attempting to revert her subversion in your own dishonest way, so you know exactly what she’s doing but you refuse to acknowledge it and take it head on.
“5 … blah blah, pseudo-intellectual referencing socrates for some reason”
It’s weird to talk about Socrates. I get you have a philosophy degree, but this seems so pathologically forcefully inserted as if to appear more intelligent about all this than anyone else who disagrees with you is. The fact is, the tax liability of the rich has been reduced decade on decade consistently since the 1950’s. And yet, we still have people who throw up their arms in disgust if we were to return to tax-levels under Reagan or Nixon, for instance. Why?
I highly doubt you have seen the history of our taxes, and I highly doubt you would be able to rationally perceive the whole context of this discussion once you did. And this is why right-libertarian thinking should be studied more deeply by psychiatrists the same way conspiracy theorists and the religious have been.
There’s an old-joke, Kevin, about first-year medical students, after they’ve read their first pathology textbook: they see disease everywhere and interpret every pain or itch they have as a symptom of some dreadful disease. A similar thing happens with students who’ve just read their first logic book on fallacies. So while you seem like an intelligent person and your long post raises points worth debating, it mostly comes across as a breathless over-diagnosis and an uncharitable read mixed with lots of the same fallacies you find so easily in others. Happy to respond if you can submit a stripped-down, focused-only-on-the-issues comment.