All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.
Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
taxing tobacco is not to generate revenue. That is, in fact, exactly the point. Taxing tobacco is to discourage tobacco use. The point is to have close to zero tobacco use, which results in close to zero revenue.
The author is quite clear that they are just pointing out that the LVT has some downsides, and are not trying to make any case about its overall value. It's good for LVT supporters to understand the counterarguments and be able to weigh them and rebut them (or change their mind! but hopefully not in this case because the counterarguments are very weak).
I don't understand your "fundamental rule of economics" claim - carbon taxes are a clear counterexample, I would think.
The whole point is to tax the bad externality rather than tax the good thing (energy production, or whatever). That doesn't make carbon production good, it just means that you aren't taxing the externality enough to discourage the underlying good activity.
That is an absolutely hilarious argument, made even funnier by accusing other people of magical thinking. I don't even know where to start with it, "All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things"? A fundamental rule of economics? Is your argument that LVT generates revenue therefore you can't criticize that it could suppress development in some cases?
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
It seems like you are equating self-labeling of this sort with claiming to be a paragon of that ideology.
Do you think someone who labels themselves as "Christian" inherently believes they are pure of soul and perfect, and sins less than non-Christians? Certainly there are plenty of self-righteous people out there, but "Christian" does not imply "Christ-like".
The same goes for rationalists - "rationalist" does not imply "rational". I don't know the proportion of self-described rationalists that would consider themselves truly rational, but I think a good portion of them would consider anyone who made that claim to be full of crap. The whole movement is predicated on studying and maintaining awareness of the mountains of cognitive bias humans carry. If you can study that and still think you are ultra-rational, you've got a special kind of hubris.
This is a deep misrepresentation of my core stance here. Claiming that you have the special sauce to finding the "Truth" is cult behavior. I'm saying neither that people, not groups of people suck.
In fact, my argument is roughly "Less wrong is a religion by analogy to the religions that it resembles, like Christianity".
Arguing "well by that logic Christianity is a religion", is unlikely to sway me.
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
Consider, are you exceptional in the sense that you would not place yourself in any camp whatsoever, ascribe to any ideology? You're neither left or right? Actions dictate identity.
Having an interest in something is not the same as having a superiority complex.
That is a projection. The right analogy would be "trying to be better". If your ideology was about helping others does that necessitate it implies those in the outgroup do not help others?
All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.
Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.