Even More Trivial Crap

By way of The Picket Line, I found this story:  Panel examines ‘war tax resistance’, where the hoary old “So are you against roads?” argument is resurrected in the comments.

The panel, “”The Power of the Purse: Women and War Tax Resistance,” was part of a four-day conference on tax resistance.  One of its speakers, Kathy Kelly, discussed the reasoning behind her convictions:

Kathy Kelly, who was sentenced to a year in federal prison for planting corn on nuclear missile silo sites in 1988, said she came to the personal conviction that she would not support “bloody” government practices almost 30 years ago.

“There is no way, no how I would give my money to the Mafia, much less the IRS,” she said.

But her path isn’t for everyone, Kelly emphasized. Those who have families to consider, or who have been in the IRS system longer, could face stiffer penalties and heavier fines.

“We face a serious question about whether or not to continue to pour resources and productivity into military projects while we cannot meet human needs,” she said. “I think it’s a good idea to take that question seriously, as a personal question.”

And of course, in the comments (drumroll please), a formulation of the inevitable:  ”So, are you against roads too?”  One “Dinkledidder” writes:

Do these ladies have an issue with traveling on roads that are paved with tax-funded money? Did they receive an education at a public school? Do they have problems eating food or taking medicine that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration? I understand their stance as pacifists, I just find it hypocritical that they are willing to enjoy a free ride on the many other benefits that tax money provides.

What do I call this?  ”The Against Roads Fallacy”?  Driving on a taxpayer-funded road is taken as consent to funding it (it isn’t, for, generally speaking, no other roads are available); apparently it is also consent to participating in the American war machine as well, and everything else the government imposes on you and others.  What about the hypocrisy of those who want to expand government benefits for the sick and poor at home, but utterly ignore the lives being destroyed abroad–both funded by taxation?

Or is this just more of the “If You Don’t Like It, Why Don’t You Leave” fallacy? Well, there isn’t anywhere to go.

Speaking of which, I’ve had to defend The Seasteading Institute’s recently acquired nonprofit status against attacks that they are using “our” infrastructure to realize their goals, without paying taxes for them.  The irony is almost too deep to comment on.  They’re trying to create an option for leaving, which means they should have left already!  In other words, you’re totally free to build seasteads to live on in the ocean.  Try doing it with your bare hands out in the water.

So, to recap:  you consent to paying taxes by living in the United States (actually, you can’t dissent from paying them, which makes consent impossible).  You consent to using the tax-funded infrastructure, which by law is the only one available to you.  If you object to any part of that infrastructure, you are free to do exactly one thing, which is to give up everything.

Reminds me of the Onion spoof, Google Opt Out Feature Lets Users Protect Privacy By Moving To Remote Village, where “Web users who choose to move to the desolate village are guaranteed an environment free from Google products and natural light from the sun.”  This is the illusion of choice offered to us.  You’re totally free to protest war, to opt out of the system.  This is only  so long as you also renounce, by Dinkledidder’s calculations, transit, education, food, medicine, and anything else necessary to life.  Do you feel free yet?  Have fun feeding yourself by the First Amendment.