The Age of Reason™ Comes to an End
Ever since Virginia Postrel left the magazine and Nick Gillespie took over, I’ve noticed a significant decline in the quality of Reason magazine, which has generally been more pronounced on its blog. I have blogged and commented on this trend before, but have, until now, kept my subscription and my blogroll link current. Not anymore. As far as I’m concerned, today’s entry by Brian Doherty, together with his column in the current issue, together make up the last straw.
Both offending entries address the issue of tax protestors, i.e. individuals who dishonestly claim not to have any income tax liability. In a manner that would make Orwell blush, Doherthy rewards this dishonesty by dumming them the “tax honesty” movement. The article makes a passing references to practically every dishonest “tax honesty” argument in the book, all of which have been widely debunked, but you wouldn’t know that from reading Doherty’s article - except maybe at the very end where he states perfunctorily that “[t]heir facts are mostly wrong,” only to go on to describe them has heroic. Worse still, the article lends a false legitimacy to the patently false (and widely debunked) claim that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. The article even manages to mention Irwin Schiff, whom Doherty dubs the “godfather” of the moment, six times before finally getting around to mention, almost as an aside, that the “godfather’s” own theories once put him in prison for several years.
Similarly, today’s blog entry lends false credence to the latest “tax honesty” dishonesty, by stating without further comment that “Briefly, the arguments say that according to U.S. Code Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, Section 3402(n), if you tell your employer not to withhold, they should oblige you.” Had Doherty bothered to cite the actual text of 26 U.S.C.
May 4th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
Brighter and more resourceful people than he have tried, and failed, to convince judges all over the country that either (a) it isn’t “money”, (b) it isn’t “income”, (c) that Idaho was never admitted to the Union, et cetera, et cetera.
It’s a lost cause. But if you like tilting at windmills, and have a lot of money to spend on lawyers, go right ahead.
May 6th, 2004 at 8:35 pm
[...] Have A Consensus: Reason Has Gone Down The Toilet Without Virginia Postrel
Xrlq is the latest to note, as I have many times, that Reason magazine has go [...]
May 7th, 2004 at 10:43 am
Yeah, they’ve gone down the tubes. They’ll get no more support from me.
May 7th, 2004 at 5:38 pm
I have a hard time condemning people who are just rying to hold on to their money. I won’t join them - I’m sure the IRS can find some reason to put them in jail even if th protestors are on the right side of the law. Doherty’s sympathetic treatment seems about right to me. Whether wrong or right on specifics the anti-taxers are on the right side of the issue.
May 7th, 2004 at 6:01 pm
I would agree if there were any non-frivolous legal argument to support their position. There aren’t, however, and by giving them a false sense of legitimacy, Doherty is encouraging otehrs to go out and do something stupid that will land them in prison.
As to whether they are on the right side of the issue, I suppose that depends what the issue is. If the issue is whether or not government should tax income, then their position is defensible, at least if they can come up with some coherent explanation as to why taxing income is so much worse than taxing anything else. But the bigger issue, in my book, is whether people should obey the law, or if they choose to break it, then at least admit that much. But the tax “honesty” liars can’t seem to even admit that.