Defending the Tax Preparer (Again)

I got another crack shot at me from a State Worshipper about my recent decision to take a tax preparation course in the hopes of landing a part time gig in the spring doing returns. According to this Socialist (self-described!), my point that I’m not working for the government, but instead working on the side of private individuals to help them get back as much of their property as they can from the thieving hands of the State, was met with a sarcastic, "way to justify it!"

Sometimes, tolerating the stunted capacity for logical thought by Statists can be fatiguing.

Let’s look at this way. What if there was a rash of muggings, rapes, and robberies in your neighborhood, to which you protest and take the position that mugging, raping and robbery are moral evils and need to stop. If you decided to take a martial arts class, with the hope that your newly learned skills could be used to help protect people from these predators, could you then be accused of profiting from the violence, and therefore, losing credibility when you complain about it? To the Statist, the proper moral position for someone who opposes violence is to not do something about it, but to stand by and let people get victimized. In that case, they are "pure" and above the fray. (Meanwhile, the predators find it easier to ply their barbaric trade.)

In the mind of a Statist, if you profit from something you oppose, you have no right to oppose it.

Say that a few times. Try to take in the logic. If you can figure it out, please try and help me, because I sure as hell don’t.

I have to ask, what about someone who supports a program from which they personally profit? We can all see that someone’s support is so obviously tied to their own self-interest. For example, had I said to my friend (who supports government provided education)…well of course YOU support the welfare program of State schools, because YOU personally benefit. Without State funded schools, this person would have to foot the bill themselves for fulfilling their parental responsibility to their children. Yet, here I am, advocating a position that is against my own financial interests. And to the Statist, that does not show moral integrity? It’d be one thing if I said, "I support a complicated income tax code, because I make money from you being forced to navigate it." No, there would be no moral difficulty there. But somehow, it’s hypocritical to advocate for something that’s counter to your own (monetary) self-interest for the sake of higher moral principles.

To the Statist, money is the most important value, and monetary considerations silence all debate. The Statist’s position is that morality can be bought. And if you accept one dollar that is remotely scented with their touch, you have sold your soul to them. In this, "have your cake and eat it too" scenario, the Statist is able to apply contradictory principles to support their ideas, alternating between arguments as the situation warrants. How lucky for them!

So apparently, the credibility of my opposition to the income tax is nullified because I choose to apply my time, talent, and energy to helping people navigate the red tape that has been foisted upon them by Wannabe Social Engineers in Washington, DC. How wonderful.