That's interesting (and partly true), but it's nowhere close to the argument being made in the context of political debate about what capital gains taxes should

That's interesting (and partly true), but it's nowhere close to the argument being made in the context of political debate about what capital gains taxes should be. After all, you've presented an argument against all taxes (or at least, all taxes beyond what's necessary to maintain a minimal government). That's quite frankly a much different (and more fundamental) debate than whether capital gains taxes should be fifteen or twenty five percent. The debate in Washington and in the political media largely centers around whether or not a higher capital gains tax will discourage innovation, which is the argument that Matt is addressing. I think you have a perfectly valid and consistent view, but the original article was most definitely not "strawmanism". It might have been strawmanism if he was writing the article as a reply to you, but he wasn't.