4 ms·
I agree that those features would make the analogy more accurate wrt taxation, but if that was the only important thing about an analogy, we wouldn't use analog
by philh 11y ago
I agree that those features would make the analogy more accurate wrt taxation, but if that was the only important thing about an analogy, we wouldn't use analogies at all. (And it's quite possible that I shouldn't have used an analogy in this case.)
I don't think those features are particularly relevant to the mistake Frondo was making.
- bryondowd 11y agoI'm not sure what point the original analogy was meant to make, and I apologize if I missed it. Frondo claimed that "anti-taxers" were free riders, which models well with the modified analogy as those who opt-out of being hit in the head, at the expense of everyone else, yet still likely benefit, even if only indirectly, from living in a world where others take the hits to achieve the benefits. Note that I'm not saying Frondo is correct, I was just showing that the analogy given didn't refute his claim in any way I could see. Personally, I expect most people against taxes fall under my last category of people trying to find another way to get the needed benefits without being hit in the head, or at least want to get more bang for their buck or a more fair distribution of cost/benefit.
- philh 11y agoAnalogies don't refute things, they just make other things easier to understand. My refutation of Frondo's original claim amounts to: "you're just plain wrong". (Anti-taxers are not free riders. They don't want other people to pay for them.) The analogy was: "here's a similar mistake".