Jonathan Wilde drops a dime on this savage-with-a-keyboard:
I’d be happy, however, to pay a bit more in taxes as part of a campaign to raise several million additional dollars to spend on the program, provided we could fine a well-designed program (I’ve read recently in The Atlantic that the Bush administration’s point man on the issue is doing good, and unfortunately neglected, work in this area) to spend the money on. I’m willing, in other words, to sacrifice my share in order to really change things, but I’m not going to sacrifice to make a purely symbolic gesture.
I suppose to the libertarian mind all this business of “I’ll do x if and only if I can force everyone to do x” sounds rather dodgy and immoral, but fortunately enough we live in the real world, where people understand the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow.
That’s this Matthew Yglesias creep, just up on my radar now. Look at how he offhandedly endorses the idea that other human lives are bricks for him to build “a better tomorrow” with. Unbefrickinlieveable.
But fortunately, a quick refutation for the arguments of the sorts of folks who understand “the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow” is at hand:
Above: a solid argument against inititating force.