3 ms·
You make it sound like John Carmack is advocating for lower taxes so he can afford a new Bugatti or somesuch. The truth is he advocates for this because the cur
by drcode 16y ago
You make it sound like John Carmack is advocating for lower taxes so he can afford a new Bugatti or somesuch. The truth is he advocates for this because the current system appears irrational to him.
I'm sure John Carmack would be successful, to some degree, in almost any system of government- He is unusually gifted. Saying he's a counterargument to his own political position and that he is "a product of the current government system" is both unfair and untrue.
Since he is a person of such unusual competence I think his opinion should carry a lot of weight- It does for me. Your (pretty irrational) argument appears to be that because he is competent and successful his opinion should carry LESS weight.
- jozo 16y agoI think you should weight his argument by the quality of the argument itself. While I respect John Carmack as a computer programmer, I also know that computer programming is very different from macroeconomics. I personally don't think his reasoning is very good. He's saying that you shouldn't be forced to pay for something that's inefficient, but also that government can never be efficient enough. So the argument of an inefficient government merely becomes a justification for his ideological viewpoint that you shouldn't be forced to do something, in this case pay taxes. But as he indicated that his viewpoint was formed by experience, and not some sort of political commitment, it all seems very biased to me.
- smokeyj 16y agoWhat is so abstract about the non-aggression axiom? I wouldn't be so quick to trust the macroeconomist over a computer scientist. I mean, does anyone really understand macroeconomics? Greenspan thought he did, ha.