<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/rss10.xsl"?><rdf:RDF
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
  xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">

<channel rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/">
<title>The Picket Line</title>
<link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/</link>
<description>When the war on Iraq started, I stopped paying the federal income tax and started working for my values instead of against them. I quit my job and deliberately reduced my income to the point where I no longer owe federal income tax.</description>

<dc:language>en-US</dc:language>
<dc:date>2026-04-30</dc:date>

<items><rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=28Apr26" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=12Apr26" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Mar26" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=03Dec25" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=26May25" />
</rdf:Seq></items>
</channel>

 <item rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=28Apr26">
  <title>New Data Book Shows Continuing Lull in I.R.S. Enforcement Activity · TPL</title>
  <description>A new IRS Data Book has been released, so I have put out a new set of graphs showing how many property seizures, levies, and liens the agency has issued each year since 2000. As expected, recent years have shown some of the least of this sort of enforcement activity in recent memory.</description>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 about the IRS and U.S. tax law/policy →
 IRS incompetence →
 enforcement effort/results →
 IRS Data Book numbers</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 about the IRS and U.S. tax law/policy →
 IRS incompetence →
 enforcement effort/results →
 levies, liens, and seizures</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header><h1 class="date"></h1></header><article>
<p>
 There’s <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf">a new <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> Data Book</a> out, so I can update these numbers on enforcement activity:
</p>
<figure>
 <time datetime="2000/2026">
  <img width="100%" class="embedded" src="https://quickchart.io/chart?chs=1180x400&amp;chd=t:74,234,296,399,440,512,590,676,610,581,605,776,733,547,432,426,436,323,275,228,77,96,89,68,71,50&amp;chds=0,12500&amp;cht=bvs&amp;chtt=Property+seizures&amp;chxt=x,y&amp;chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|2016|2017|2018|2019|2020|2021|2022|2023|2024|2025|1:|0|200|400|600|800" alt="Between 1992 and 1997, the I.R.S. was using property seizure about 10,000 times per year, but then the numbers suddenly dropped, and have been in the hundreds or below since 1999." />
 </time>
</figure>
<figure>
 <time datetime="2000/2026">
  <img width="100%" class="embedded" src="https://quickchart.io/chart?chs=1180x400&amp;chd=t:219778,674080,1283742,1680844,2029613,2743577,3742276,3757190,2631038,3478181,3606818,3748884,2961162,1855095,1995987,1464026,869196,590249,639025,782735,396269,305610,273286,286270,313792,339137&amp;chds=0,4000000&amp;cht=bvs&amp;chtt=Levies+served&amp;chxt=x,y&amp;chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|2016|2017|2018|2019|2020|2021|2022|2023|2024|2025|1:|0|0.5m|1m|1.5m|2m" alt="After rising for several years since a low in 2000, the number of levies served by the I.R.S. has been dropping again in recent years" />
 </time>
</figure>
<figure>
 <time datetime="2000/2026">
  <img width="100%" class="embedded" src="https://quickchart.io/chart?chs=1180x400&amp;chd=t:287517,426166,482509,544316,534392,522887,629813,683659,768168,965618,1096376,1042230,707768,602005,535580,515247,470602,446378,410220,543604,291081,212251,157323,179109,196996,214099&amp;chds=0,1200000&amp;cht=bvs&amp;chtt=Liens+filed&amp;chxt=x,y&amp;chxl=0:|2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|2016|2017|2018|2019|2020|2021|2022|2023|2024|2025|1:|0|200k|400k|600k|800k|1m|1.2m" alt="After rising for several years since 1999, the number of liens filed by the I.R.S. has been dropping for the last several" />
 </time>
</figure>
</article>]]></content:encoded>
  <link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=28Apr26</link>
<dc:creator>David Gross</dc:creator> </item>

 <item rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=12Apr26">
  <title>Tariff Evasion Techniques Are Blooming · TPL</title>
  <description>Tariff evasion is emerging right on schedule. Also: A new examination of the data collected during the Milgram Experiment suggests that we have been interpreting it incorrectly (we should have listened to H.L. Mencken). And: the I.R.S. is especially late at sending out tax forms this year, another data point about the reduced capabilities of the hobbled agency.</description>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 a survey of tactics of historical tax resistance campaigns →
 short-circuit the bureaucracy with paperwork →
 file paper returns / extra paperwork</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 other ways the government is funded →
 duties &amp;amp; tariffs</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 about the IRS and U.S. tax law/policy →
 IRS incompetence →
 miscellaneous blundering</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government →
 not being a “Good German” →
 Milgram’s experiment and My Lai</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government →
 ethics →
 Arne Johan Vetlesen’s Evil and Human Agency</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header><h1 class="date"></h1></header><article>
<p>
 When tariffs rise, tariff evasion becomes a useful way to boost profits or to undercut competitors.
 Firms that can figure out how to evade tariffs or to find suppliers who evade their tariffs are at a great advantage.
 And so it’s no surprise that, right on schedule, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/tariffs-trade-import-fraud.html">tariff evasion techniques</a> are thriving under the tariff-happy Trumperist regime.
</p><p>
 This also has the salutary effect of encouraging the survival and growth of those firms who are most willing to encourage and to engage in federal tax evasion, at the expense of tax-compliant firms.
</p>
</article><hr class="sep" id="item2" /><article>
<p>
 A landmark of social psychology research was “The Milgram Experiment,” but a new look at the audio tapes and other evidence collected during that experiment suggests that we may have been interpreting it incorrectly.
 Here is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">the Wikipedia summary of the experiment</a>, showing how it is typically portrayed:
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p>
  Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram… intended to measure the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Participants were led to believe that they were assisting in a fictitious experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner". These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.
 </p><p>
  The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts.
 </p>
</blockquote><p>
 That “unexpectedly” part is probably not true.
 I think the researchers suspected, in the wake of e.g. the Holocaust, that people were generally willing to obey awful instructions in ways that they failed to account for.
 Their experiment was designed to answer not whether but how much.
</p><p>
 But it turns out the “conflicting with their personal conscience” part may also have been unwarranted.
 The results of the experiment have usually been interpreted as a kind of cynicism or caution about human nature, and about people’s tendencies to let their consciences be silenced by the trappings of authority.
 But such takes may have been too optimistic.
</p><p>
 Milgram interviewed his subjects after the experiment and found that those who stopped giving shocks felt that they were responsible for what they were doing, while those who continued giving shocks felt that the experimenter (the one giving the instructions to the subject) was responsible.
 Milgram theorized that his subjects, in the presence of an authority figure, stepped into a corresponding role: the “agentic state.”
 Once you are in that state, you stop considering yourself responsible for what you are doing and for the effects of what you are doing, and judge your actions only on whether you are doing it according to how the authority wants it done.
</p><p>
 <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/18May07#item4">Arne Johan Vetlesen, in <cite class="book">Evil and Human Agency</cite> (2005)</a>, pointed out that there is another possible interpretation:
 Milgram’s subjects may have had genuine sadistic impulses.
 In subjecting their victims to pain, they were not being somehow coerced by their situation to do things they would ordinarily not want to do, but that they were being <em>allowed</em> by their situation to do things they were ordinarily <em>inhibited</em> from doing.
</p><p>
 He quoted Ernest Becker, who took a second look at Freud’s take on mob violence:
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p>
  …&#91;M&#93;an brings his motives in with him when he identifies with power figures.
  He is suggestible and submissive because he is waiting for the magical helper.
  He gives in to the magic transformation of the group because he wants relief of conflict and guilt.
  He follows the leader’s initiatory act because he needs priority magic so that he can delight in holy aggression.
  He moves in to kill the sacrificial scapegoat with the wave of the crowd, not because he is carried along by the wave, but because he likes the psychological barter of another life for his own: “You die, not me.”
  The motives and the needs are in men and not in situations or surroundings.
</p></blockquote><p>
 Which reminded me of what H.L. Mencken (who ought to be given the respect de Tocqueville gets) wrote about the supposedly hypnotic influence of the mob:
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p>
  The numskull runs amuck in a crowd, not because he has been inoculated with new rascality by the mysterious crowd influence, but because his habitual rascality now has its only chance to function safely.
  In other words, the numskull is vicious, but a poltroon.
  He refrains from all attempts at lynching a cappella, not because it takes suggestion to make him desire to lynch, but because it takes the protection of a crowd to make him brave enough to try it.
 </p><p>
  ⋮
 </p><p>
  In other words, the particular swinishness of a crowd is permanently resident in the majority of its members — in all those members, that is, who are naturally ignorant and vicious — perhaps 95 per cent.
  All studies of mob psychology are defective in that they underestimate this viciousness.
  They are poisoned by the prevailing delusion that the lower orders of men are angels.
  This is nonsense.
  The lower orders of men are incurable rascals, either individually or collectively.
  Decency, self-restraint, the sense of justice, courage — these virtues belong only to a small minority of men.
  This minority never runs amuck.
  Its most distinguishing character, in truth, is its resistance to all running amuck.
  The third-rate man, though he may wear the false whiskers of a first-rate man, may always be detected by his inability to keep his head in the face of an appeal to his emotions.
  A whoop strips off his disguise.
</p></blockquote><p>
 Hannah Arendt, whose examination of the Adolf Eichmann trial was going on at around the same time as the early Milgram experiments, warned that the excuse of “obedience” (as used by the compliant Milgram subjects to explain their actions after-the-fact, and secondarily by Milgram himself in his theory) was not an explanation but a “fallacy”:
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p>
  Only a child obeys. An adult actually supports the laws or the authority that claims obedience.
</p></blockquote><p>
 Now David Kaposi and David Sumeghy have gone back through the audio tapes and other documentation preserved from the original Milgram experiments.
 They found that the “obedient” subjects were not in fact very compliant at all.
 Indeed none of them actually followed the experimental procedures they had been instructed to comply with.
</p><p>
 Only a few of the subjects complied with the experimental procedures they were given in full, and <em>all</em> of them were among those who eventually refused to continue with the experiment.
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.70112">
  (1) no entirely “fully obedient” participant fully obeyed the procedures Milgram’s experimenter instructed them to do; (2) violations of the procedures occurred on average 48.4% of the time in “fully obedient” sessions; and (3) violations occurred significantly more frequently in “fully obedient” than in the obedient phase of “disobedient” sessions.
</a></p></blockquote><p>
 Tellingly, these procedural violations were not efforts to avoid giving shocks, but actually increased the likelihood that an opportunity to give another shock would arise:
</p><blockquote class="excerpt"><p><a href="https://www.psypost.org/audio-tapes-reveal-mass-rule-breaking-in-milgram-s-obedience-experiments-2026-03-26/">
  The most frequent violation in obedient sessions involved reading the memory test questions over the simulated screams of the learner.
  Doing this effectively guaranteed that the learner would fail the test and receive another shock.
  By talking over the protests, the obedient subjects abandoned the &#91;ostensible&#93; goal of testing memory and simply facilitated continuous shocks.
</a></p></blockquote><p>
 The implication is that when Milgram interviewed the “obedient” subjects after the experiment was over, these subjects represented themselves as having merely obeyed because this was an excuse for their behavior that had been dangled before them temptingly during the experiment, and they anticipated that this excuse would be accepted.
 Milgram, by being willing to accept this excuse at face-value, in effect validated it and cooperated with the subjects in whitewashing their surrender to sadistic temptation.
</p>
</article><hr class="sep" id="item3" /><article>
<p>
 As I mentioned <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Mar26"><time datetime="2026-04-19">last month</time></a>, I file paper tax returns with the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> for <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Dec07">reasons</a>.
</p><p>
 Way back in the day, when everyone filed paper returns, you could go down to the library or post office and grab the forms you needed from stacks set out there for the purpose.
 As the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> encouraged people to transition to electronic filing, these sources of paper forms evaporated, and you instead were expected to order the forms you needed from the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> website, whereupon the agency would deliver them to you by mail.
</p><p>
 At first, I might order these forms early in the year and see them arrive in early February, around the same time that W2s and 1099s and the like start showing up in the mail.
 But each year, the date that the forms have arrived has gotten later and later.
 This year I ended up filing for a filing extension–the first time I have had to do so–as the forms I needed had not yet arrived (the last one just turned up <time datetime="2026-04-11">yesterday</time>, four days before the filing deadline).
 The forms have been showing up in dribs and drabs for weeks now.
</p><p>
 I mention this mostly just as another data point about the reduced capabilities of the hobbled agency.
</p>
</article>]]></content:encoded>
  <link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=12Apr26</link>
<dc:creator>David Gross</dc:creator> </item>

 <item rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Mar26">
  <title>2026 Annual Report on My Tax Resistance · TPL</title>
  <description>In my annual report I summarize my twenty-third year of tax resistance and anticipate the year ahead.</description>
<dc:subject>How you can resist funding the government →
 my tax resistance →
 periodic reports</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header><h1 class="date"></h1></header><article>
<p class="editors">
 This page summarizes <time datetime="2025-03-19/2026-03-18">my twenty-third year of tax resistance</time>.
 (Links to previously posted <cite class="tpl">Picket Line</cite> pages expand on some things I mention.
 You can follow these links by clicking on the “♦” symbols.)
</p>
<h1>Picket Line Annual Report</h1>
<p>
 <time datetime="2003-03-19">Twenty-three years ago, on 19 March 2003</time>, the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="United States">U.S.</abbr> attacked Iraq.
 This began a foolish, brutal, aggressive war, launched on dishonest pretenses, with disastrous results.
 For me it was the last straw, and I started what I then called “an experiment” in tax resistance so that I might no longer feel as complicit.<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Mar03">♦</a>
 My goal was to stop financially supporting the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="United States">U.S.</abbr> government.
 That government has continued to get worse, and so my attitude continues to be one of not wanting its misbehavior on my conscience.
</p>
<h3>Tax Resistance</h3>
<p>
 At first I had hoped to stop financially supporting the government entirely legally, by lowering my income below the federal income tax line.
 I quit my job to start a one-man consulting business in which I could regulate my income, and I took advantage of legal tax deductions and credits, while also attending to frugality.
 This turned out to be a successful way to legally avoid federal income tax, as well as a rewarding way to make a living, and I continue to operate this way today.
</p><p>
 However, I have been liable for self-employment tax in most years (this is different from the income tax but also goes to the federal government).
 In <time datetime="2006">2006</time> I decided to stop paying that tax as well.
 I have not found a useful way to do this legally, so I simply neglect to send a check along with my tax return.
 As a result I have accumulated an unpaid tax bill which, along with penalties &amp; interest added by the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> (minus a bit that they’ve managed to seize from me over the years, and some that is now uncollectible due to the statute of limitations), now adds up to something in the neighborhood of $94,000.
</p><p>
 My two-track strategy of legally avoiding income tax while extra-legally refraining from paying self-employment tax is somewhat awkward to explain, but works for me.
</p><p>
 Many years ago, the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> levied my bank accounts and seized about $6,200 of the total of about $154,000 that I have so far refused to pay.
 I don’t have any fail-safe plan to hide assets, so the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> could continue to seize money when they find it.
 However they haven’t taken anything from me for almost twenty years, and they don’t even seem to have tried very hard, though they still send me pleading letters from time to time.
 This lack of enforcement may mean they’ve run out of easy seizure targets, or it may mean my overdue amount falls under the threshold at which they start trying harder.
 (Years of budget cuts and other crises made the agency something of a paper tiger, and then the already weakened agency fell victim to the haphazard decisions of <abbr class="acronym caps" title="Department of Government Efficiency">DOGE</abbr> and the trumperists.)
</p><p>
 In <time datetime="2018">2018</time>, the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> filed a formal tax lien against me in my local court system.
 They updated that lien in each of the following two years, stopped for a while, and have since occasionally reestablished the lien.
 The lien has not had any practical effect on my life or my tax resistance.
 The only effect I have noticed so far is junkmail from shady companies promising they can settle my tax debt for pennies on the dollar (the lien is a public document, so these companies use lien filings to target their sales pitches).<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=24Feb20">♦</a>
 The lien didn’t even register on my credit report, which I found surprising.
</p>
<p>
 The total amount I owe is well over the threshold at which the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> is supposed to notify the State Department that I ought to be forbidden a passport and perhaps ought to have my passport revoked.
 It took the agency longer than I expected, but they eventually submitted such a notification <time datetime="2019-06-17">in 2019</time>.<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=17Jun19">♦</a>
 This means that the State Department <em>could</em> revoke my passport at any time, and in any case is not supposed to allow me to renew it when it expires in <time datetime="2028">2028</time>.
 So far they have not revoked my passport.
</p><p>
 <time datetime="2025-05">Last May</time>, when another year of my tax debt became uncollectible due to the statute of limitations, I wrote a check for that amount to the <a href="https://refugeerights.org/">International Refugee Assistance Project</a>, as a charitable donation to celebrate.
 I hope to make a similar donation to some charity in a couple of months when another year’s taxes seem likely to become uncollectible in the same way.
</p>
<h4>My 2025 Federal Tax Resistance</h4>
<p>
 After all the dust settled, <time datetime="2025">last year</time> I “owed” and refused to pay $4,501 in federal taxes.
</p><p>
 (I have not filed my taxes yet, so this may change once I actually sit down with the forms.
 I file paper returns for <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Dec07">reasons</a>.
 This has turned out also to be a way to measure the health of the Internal Revenue Service.
 When I began filing returns many years ago, it was typical for the government to have its tax forms ready for taxpayers to use no later than the beginning of February or so, by which time people were also receiving their W-2s and 1099s.
 If you were a keep-your-inbox-empty sort, you could file your taxes on February 1<sup class="ordinal">st</sup>, check it off the list, and smile condescendingly at people who were still scrambling in April.
 But over the past several years, the government has become less and less capable of having its forms ready by tax filing season.
 I’m still awaiting the delivery of several forms that apparently are not printed up yet, or are still stuck in their mailing queue.
 While I’m pretty confident attributing this to agency ineptitude, it’s also possibly a passive-aggressive way of discouraging people from filing paper returns.)
</p>
<figure>
 <img class="embedded" alt="In my first three years of tax resistance, I continued to pay my self-employment tax voluntarily. Then I stopped, but the I.R.S. seized enough money from me to pay for what I resisted in 2005 and 2006 and a small part of 2007. The rest of the 2007 amount hit the statute of limitations deadline, as did 2009 through 2013. Since then, the agency has collected nothing, though they continue to add penalties and interest to what they say I owe. (In 2008 I did not make enough income to owe any federal tax.)" src="https://sniggle.net/TPL/fyoft26.png" width="100%" />
 <figcaption><p class="caption">This chart shows my last twenty-three years of federal taxes.
 In my first three years of tax resistance, I avoided owing income tax but continued to pay my self-employment tax voluntarily.
 Then I stopped paying that tax, but the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> seized enough money from me to pay for what I resisted in 2005 and 2006 and a small part of 2007.
 The rest of the 2007 amount, as well as the 2009–13 amounts, hit the statute of limitations deadline and these are now permanently uncollectible (<abbr title="statute of limitations">s.o.l.</abbr>).
 (In 2008 I did not bring in enough income to owe any federal tax.)
 Since then, the agency has collected nothing, though they continue to add penalties and interest to what they say I owe.</p></figcaption>
</figure>
<h3>Sustainability</h3>
<p>
 I want to continue to resist taxes for the long term, so it is important (if I want to stick to my below-the-tax-line method) that my expenses remain low enough that my income-tax-free income is sustainable.
 In <time datetime="2025">2025</time> I brought in almost $32,000 in profit from my business.
 My day-to-day expenses rose, thanks to inflation and such.
 Rents in my part of California are high, and rent amounts to nearly 60% of my annual taxable expenses.
 As best as I can estimate, my regular costs for things like rent, utilities, food, and transportation that I must pay for out of below-the-tax-line income came to about $2,133 per month, or $25,600 a year:
</p>
<figure>
 <img class="embedded" alt="Rent takes up more than half of my total monthly expenses. Food &amp; coffee, household necessities, and utilities take up most of the rest." src="https://sniggle.net/TPL/fyome26.png" width="100%" />
 <figcaption>
  <p class="caption">a look at my typical monthly expenses</p>
 </figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
 Not included in the above pie chart are any business expenses that I can deduct from my taxable income, most healthcare expenses (which I could pay for from my pre-tax Health Savings Account), my self-employment tax assessment (half of which I can deduct), or money I put aside for retirement (which I typically do in tax-deferred accounts).
</p><p>
 I now rent an apartment at which many of the utilities are bundled into the rent.
 This makes it difficult to compare expenses over time, as in some past years utilities were a more significant distinct line-item.
</p><p>
 My transportation budget is very low because where I live it’s easy to get around on bike and so I don’t own a motor vehicle and rarely need to use one.
 I’ve also been learning to do my own bike repairs and maintenance at the local “bike kitchen,” which keeps my costs even lower.
</p><p>
 My health expenses were low last year, so I didn’t have to dip into my Health Savings Account.
 It’s replenished enough to more than cover my deductible in case I run into bad health luck.
 I use it more as an additional retirement savings vehicle than for health expenses these days.
</p><p>
 My yearly living expenses take up pretty much all of my “under the tax line” budget, but I’ve got enough squirreled away in savings now that I don’t feel like I’m cutting things too close for comfort.
</p><p>
 However, if I were to budget-in the imposed self-employment tax (which I don’t intend to voluntarily pay, but which could be seized from me), that would come to another $4,500 or so of expenses, half of which also counts against my under-the-tax-line budget.
 And even if the government never gets its hands on that money, I’ve adopted the practice of making charitable donations to match the amount of my back taxes that become uncollectible due to the statute of limitations.
 For example, if my oldest tax debt is voided by the statute of limitations <time datetime="2026-05">next month</time>, I hope to write a check for $5,007 to some charity to celebrate.
 I can’t do that within my budget: I have to dip into savings, and I may ultimately have to tap my retirement accounts if I want to keep that up year after year.
 But I don’t expect this will be any great sacrifice or that it will cause any insurmountable personal hardship; I think I have a sufficient buffer for this.
</p>
<h3>My 1040: A walk-through</h3>
<p>
 Here’s how I expect my 1040 will work out <time datetime="2026">this year</time>.
 First, my Total Income:
</p>
<table class="tax" summary="My “total income” — business income plus capital gains plus an IRA conversion — added up to $44,914">
 <tfoot>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="total income"><b>Total Income</b></th><td class="comma"><b>$44,914</b></td></tr>
 </tfoot>
 <tbody>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="income">Business income</th><td class="comma">$31,859</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="cap gains">Capital gains</th><td class="comma">$8,881</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="Roth conversion">Roth conversion</th><td class="comma">$4,174</td></tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
<p>
 My business income is from my consulting work as a technical writer and from sales of my books.
 That income was lower than anticipated this year (my billable hours can vary wildly from month to month, which makes annual income targets hard to hit).
 This left me a lot of extra room in my zero-tax-bracket, so I took advantage of this by selling a small cache of gold and silver coins I’d bought years ago.
 Apparently you can’t get the 0% low-taxable-income long-term capital gains rate on precious metals like this.
 The best you can do is your marginal income tax rate.
 But for me this year that rate is zero, so with that and the recent spikes in gold and silver prices, it was a good time to sell.
 After selling all I had, I still had $4,000+ room in my 0% bracket, so I converted some of my traditional IRA to my Roth IRA so I could keep that money income-tax-free from here out.
</p><p>
 Now on to my Adjusted Gross Income:
</p>
<table class="tax" summary="From my total income, subtract my S.E.P., H.S.A., and IRA contributions, and half of my self-employment tax to come up with my Adjusted Gross Income of $23,464">
 <tfoot>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="A.G.I."><b>Adjusted Gross Income</b></th><td class="comma"><b>$23,464</b></td></tr>
 </tfoot>
 <tbody>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="income">Total Income</th><td class="comma">$44,914</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="H.S.A."><abbr class="initialism caps" title="Health Savings Account">HSA</abbr> deduction</th><td class="comma">−$5,300</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="half FICA">½ self-employment tax</th><td class="comma">−$2,251</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="S.E.P."><abbr class="acronym caps" title="Simplified Employee Pension">SEP</abbr> deduction</th><td class="comma">−$5,900</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="IRA"><abbr class="acronym caps" title="Individual Retirement Account">IRA</abbr> deduction</th><td class="comma">−$8,000</td></tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
<p>
 <time datetime="2025">Last year</time>, I put away $13,900 for retirement and another $5,300 for either current medical spending or for retirement.
 Together, those savings represent more than 42% of my income.
</p><p>
 The self-employment tax deduction works like this:
 When you work for someone else, that employer pays half of your <abbr class="acronym caps" title="Federal Insurance Contributions Act">FICA</abbr> and the other half comes out of your paycheck.
 This means the half paid by your employer doesn’t count as your income and so you don’t pay income tax on it.
 If you’re self-employed, you are supposed to pay both halves of the tax, so the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> lets you take half (roughly) of your self-employment tax as an income tax deduction to even things out (even if you’re refusing to pay, like I am<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=17Mar06">♦</a>).
</p><p>
 My Adjusted Gross Income is below the $23,750 threshold at which I get the maximum rate on the <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=8880">Retirement Savings Contributions Credit</a>.
 That is the target I try to hit in order to get my federal income tax down to zero.
</p><p>
 Now we go from Adjusted Gross Income to Taxable Income:
</p>
<table class="tax" summary="Subtract the standard deduction and qualified business income deduction from my adjusted gross income to get my Taxable Income: $7,714">
 <tfoot>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="taxable income"><b>Taxable Income</b></th><td class="comma"><b>$7,714</b></td></tr>
 </tfoot>
 <tbody>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="A.G.I.">Adjusted Gross Income</th><td class="comma">$23,464</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row">Standard deduction</th><td class="comma">−$15,570</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="Q.B.I. deduction">Qualified Business Income deduction</th><td class="comma">−$0</td></tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
<p>
 The Qualified Business Income deduction is 20% of that portion of my income that comes from self-employment, capped at 20% of what my taxable income would be without the deduction, but minus my capital gains.
 The first Trump administration cut corporate income taxes, and this deduction was designed to give a similar break to non-corporate business entities (like me) who declare business earnings on our personal income tax forms.
 In most years since this deduction was enacted I have qualified for it, but this year my capital gains disqualified me.
 It has never actually made a difference to the bottom line of how much I owe, though.
</p><p>
 Anyway, from there, my tax owed:
</p>
<table class="tax" summary="Add my assessed income tax and my self-employment tax, then subtract the retirement savings contribution credit, to come up with $4,501 as the amount of tax I ostensibly owe.">
 <tfoot>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="tax owed"><b>Tax owed</b></th><td class="comma"><b>$4,501</b></td></tr>
 </tfoot>
 <tbody>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="tax">Income Tax</th><td class="comma">$771</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="credit"><a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=8880">Retirement Savings Contributions Credit</a></th><td class="comma">−$771</td></tr>
  <tr><th scope="row" abbr="self-employment">Self-employment tax</th><td class="comma">$4,501</td></tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
<p>
 I plan to file a tax return that shows these accurate amounts, but I will not include a check for the tax due.
</p>
<h2>Other Goals</h2>
<p>
 I hope other people will resist their taxes too, and I have tried to make <cite class="tpl">The Picket Line</cite> a good resource for people who are resisting or considering it.
 But I’ve been much less active on this front lately.
 A while back I stepped back from the blog and stopped creating new content for it.
 I’d gotten tired of being a tax resistance scholar and activist, and felt like decentering tax resistance in my life, to make it more incidental, and to occupy myself more with other pastimes.
</p><p>
 I did however create a free, on-line version of <a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/TaxStrikeTactics/"><cite class="book">Tax Strike Tactics</cite></a> — an updated version of my book <cite class="book">99 Tactics of Successful Tax Resistance Campaigns</cite>.
 And I spoke on a <abbr class="acronym caps" title="National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee">NWTRCC</abbr> panel about “Resisting Taxes in the Trump Era.”<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=04May25">♦</a>
 It continues to baffle me how few ostensible political activists, principled “opposition” partisans, allegedly god-fearing Christians, and so forth, are willing to consider stopping their support of trumpery and its bipartisan and bureaucratic enablers.
 (There <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/11/trump-income-tax-protest">are</a> <a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/why-im-not-paying-my-federal-taxes-this-year">some</a>!)
 In general, the American people seem doomed to support the government no matter how <i lang="la">reductio ad absurdum</i> that gets.
 But now I’ve just baked that in to my worldview and am trying to Stoically observe it and let it go without getting worked up about it.
</p><p>
 Much of my “activism” of late is less focused on politics and protest and rebellion, particularly on the national/global scale, and much more focused on embarrassingly wholesome direct action at the local scale.
 I’ve been volunteering regularly for the local food bank at one of our farmers’ markets, bringing thousands of pounds of fresh donated produce to a food pantry to give to hungry families.
 And I’ve been working as operations manager for a mobile shower trailer program that serves homeless people in our community several times a week.
 As a side project there, last year I created <a href="https://vivaslo.org/"><i>VivaSLO!</i></a>, a free on-line guide to avoiding, surviving, and escaping homelessness in San Luis Obispo county.
 (All of this volunteer work is easier for me because of the reduced and more-flexible work hours that are part of my tax resistance, and so can be seen as another form of tax <em>redirection</em>.<a href="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=09May08">♦</a>)
</p><p>
 I’ve also been continuing my work on <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/s/xqgwpmwDYsn8osoje">a sequence of essays examining the virtues and how to improve in their practice</a>.
 It has been an unexpected delight this year to discover that <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Deko7pzwQRjvCSLs9/listing-the-virtues-from-claude-s-constitution">virtue-oriented guidance</a> has become one of the best tools yet discovered for <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/constitution">guiding the development of the <abbr class="initialism caps">AI</abbr> characters</a> who are becoming so important in our lives.
 This makes my virtue-scholarship, which at times could feel like nostalgic throwbacks to unfashionable ways of thinking about ethics, feel prescient and very now after all.
</p>
<h2>Prospects for the coming year</h2>
<p>
 We are in an era of (among other things) considerable uncertainty regarding the future (or even the present) of the tax code.
 But assuming tax law (or its equivalent in trumpery) remains more or less the same, and assuming no major unexpected expenses or windfalls, I’m well-positioned to live comfortably and well under the income tax line again <time datetime="2026-03-19/2027-03-18">in the coming year</time>, though I will again likely “owe” (and refuse to pay) self-employment tax.
</p><p>
 I’ve prepared for the possibility that the <abbr class="initialism caps" title="Internal Revenue Service">IRS</abbr> may try to seize money from me for unpaid back taxes, so in case this happens, it won’t be a disaster.
 And, if they fail again, I’m also prepared to dip into my savings to give to charity in celebration.
</p><p>
 So on to <time datetime="2026-03-19/2027-03-18">year twenty-four</time> of my “experiment.”
</p>
</article>]]></content:encoded>
  <link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=19Mar26</link>
<dc:creator>David Gross</dc:creator> </item>

 <item rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=03Dec25">
  <title>Banking on Fog · TPL</title>
  <description>Eichmann in Jerusalem, explaining a prosecutor’s exhibit of a photograph of smoke pouring from crematoria, channels Pete Hegseth.</description>
<dc:subject>Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government →
 not being a “Good German” →
 Adolf Eichmann</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government →
 not being a “Good German” →
 Nuremberg principles / war crimes</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Have things really gotten that bad? →
 U.S. citizens aren’t rising to the challenge →
 public acquiescence / approval / collaboration →
 ready-made excuses for brutality; glory in cruelty</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header><h1 class="date"></h1></header><article>
<figure>
 <img src="https://sniggle.net/TPL/fog-of-war.png" alt="Eichmann in Jerusalem, explaining a prosecutor’s exhibit of a photograph of smoke pouring from crematoria: “This is called the fog of war.”" />
</figure>
</article>]]></content:encoded>
  <link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=03Dec25</link>
<dc:creator>David Gross</dc:creator> </item>

 <item rdf:about="https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=26May25">
  <title>“Intelligent Virtue” by Julia Annas · TPL</title>
  <description>Julia Annas had written most of a book about virtue ethics when, she says, “it became clear… that I was writing the wrong book.” So she scrapped it in order “to start further back and get clear about virtue.” The book that resulted from this second attempt is “Intelligent Virtue,” a clear and well-organized account of the foundations of virtue ethics models</description>
<dc:subject>Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government →
 ethics →
 practice makes perfect; virtue ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Book reviews →
 Intelligent Virtue (Julia Annas)</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header><h1 class="date"></h1></header><article>
<div itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="https://schema.org/Review">
 <meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2025-05-26" />
 <div itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="https://schema.org/Person">
  <meta itemprop="name" content="David M. Gross" />
 </div>
 <div itemprop="itemReviewed" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="https://schema.org/Book">
  <meta itemprop="name" content="Intelligent Virtue" />
  <meta itemprop="author" content="Julia Annas" />
  <meta itemprop="publisher" content="Oxford University Press" />
  <meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2011" />
 </div>
 <div itemprop="reviewBody">
<p class="noindent">
 Julia Annas had written most of a book about virtue ethics when, she says, “it became clear… that I was writing the wrong book.” So she scrapped it in order “to start further back and get clear about virtue.” The book that resulted from this second attempt is <cite class="book">Intelligent Virtue</cite> (Oxford University Press, 2011).
</p><p>
 <cite class="book">Intelligent Virtue</cite> clears up a lot of the fog around questions like “which characteristics are virtues, and why?” and “what is <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i> and what role is it meant to play in virtue-oriented ethics theories?”
 It is a clear and well-organized account of the foundations of virtue ethics models.
</p><p>
 Today I’ll try to summarize what stood out to me in Annas’s account of virtue:
</p>
<h3>What Is a Virtue?</h3>
<p>
 According to Annas, a virtue is a feature or tendency or disposition of a person (not, that is, of an act or a non-person actor) that is:
</p>
<ul>
 <li>persisting, reliable, and characteristic</li>
 <li>active; developing in response to circumstances (not merely a passive disposition)</li>
 <li>deep; central to who that person is</li>
</ul>
<p>
 Virtues prompt virtuous actions, and those actions help to fortify that virtue, in a mutually-supporting way.
</p><p>
 A virtue doesn’t give you a “decision procedure” or instruction manual for deciding what to do.
 If you are skilled at a virtue, you will be able to perform that virtue well and to give an account for why you did it the way you did.
 But this is different from having memorized a rulebook ahead of time and applying its directives to the situation.
</p><p>
 Virtues tend to “cluster” in groups that mutually-support each other.
 Annas gives the example of generosity, which requires a number of other virtues to do well.
 You can’t just give willy-nilly, but you need to give in the right way to the right people, which requires other virtues (such as empathy, tact, benevolence, modesty).
</p><p>
 One virtue that underlies all the others is <i lang="grc">phronesis</i> (practical wisdom).
 It supports the virtues in two ways: 1) each virtue requires <i lang="grc">phronesis</i> in order to master it, and 2) if you have <i lang="grc">phronesis</i> you will understand the importance of the virtues and how to develop them.
</p><p>
 The aim of virtue is “to live <em>well</em>, to live a <em>good</em> life.”
</p>
<h3>Virtue and “Goodness”</h3>
<p>
 All of the virtues support something we can call “goodness” — though Annas tries to remain agnostic as to what goodness consists of (she says that her account of the virtues is compatible with a variety of theories of goodness, from the hedonistic to the Platonic to the Christian).
 Virtue is a sort of “commitment to goodness” while vice is (outside of fictional villains) not so much a commitment to badness as a failure to commit to goodness.
 This reminded me of Hannah Arendt’s observation that the worst of evil is not done by wicked or evil people, but “by people who never made up their mind to be either bad or good.” In support of this, Annas considers the vice of the coward: Unlike the brave person looking back at her brave acts, the coward “cannot look back on his action in satisfaction, thinking that his cowardly act helped him in his overall aim to become a better coward.”
 (But what about a cruel person, I wonder.
 Are there no cruel people who come home from work thinking with satisfaction, “boy howdy, I thought I’d gotten about as cruel as I could get down at the prison, but I really turned things up a notch today!”)
</p><p>
 Annas is skeptical that dispositions like “wittiness, tidiness, and affability” can be true virtues, since they seem to be things that are disconnected from goodness (you could be witty, tidy, or affable either as part of a commitment to goodness or without any such commitment); such things “can be exercised just as well viciously as virtuously.”
</p><p>
 If all virtues aim toward “goodness” (however defined), you might wonder if maybe virtues <em>derive</em> from goodness and that we really should be looking at goodness as the foundational concept and… reinventing consequentialism instead.
 Annas says that the way virtues connect to goodness does not lend itself to consequentialism.
 “&#91;W&#93;hat makes a disposition a virtue is not the <em>results</em> it produces &#91;emphasis mine&#93; but, broadly speaking, the attitude of the person who has the virtue.”
 Or, in another formulation: “exercising virtue is a commitment on the part of the virtuous person to goodness because it is goodness: goodness is not just an outcome.”
</p><p>
 “Virtues are dispositions which are not only admirable but which we find <em>inspiring</em> and take as <em>ideals</em> to aspire to, precisely because of the commitment to goodness which they embody.”
</p>
<h3>Goodness and <i lang="grc">Eudaimonia</i></h3>
<p>
 Annas says that it is a mistake to think of <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i>, as it is used in ancient ethical theories like Aristotle’s, as a precise, well-defined thing.
 It’s more of a description of a thing.
 Annas says that our aims in life tend to “nest”.
 When we explain why we do something (brush our teeth) we do so by appealing to certain aims (to keep our teeth in good working order, to have pleasant breath, to avoid complications at the dentist), and we can then categorize those under broader aims (to be healthy, to be socially successful), and so on.
 Annas thinks <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i> is a label for the outermost nesting; for the place we can stop explaining because it serves as the ultimate rational explanation for our behavior.
 Why do I brush my teeth?
 Ultimately, for <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i>.
 We can try to better understand or specify <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i>, but we don’t need to start with a precise definition: we know it’s there, even if we don’t understand it all that well.
</p><p>
 <i lang="grc">Eudaimonia</i> is related to our <i lang="grc">telos</i>; we aim for <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i>, and that determines our chosen <i lang="grc">telos</i>.
 The human <i lang="grc">telos</i>, then, is not preexisting, but is something we discover or determine through examining the aims we choose.
 By critiquing our aims and bringing them into alignment (and in alignment with our idea of what goodness consists of), we give ourselves an appropriate <i lang="grc">telos</i>.
 “The final end, then, is the indeterminate notion of what I am aiming at in my life as a whole.
 And the role of ethical thinking is to get us to think more determinately about it, to do a better and more intelligently ordered job of what we are already doing anyway.”
</p>
<h3><i lang="grc">Eudaimonia</i> and Happiness</h3>
<p>
 These days it’s common to fret about the word <i lang="grc">eudaimonia</i> and how (or if) to translate it.
 Annas thinks the old-fashioned translation of “happiness” is fine, as long as we’re careful to avoid certain modern uses of the word.
 Happiness is not the same thing as “pleasure” and is not just the name of a certain sort of pleasant feeling.
 It’s not just a matter of having your desires satisfied or feeling satisfied with how things are going in your life right now.
 It’s neither wholly subjective nor wholly objective.
 It has more to do with “the overall end you aim to achieve by living your life well” and as such it is both individual (it’s about <em>your</em> life specifically) and aspirational (you aren’t happy in a static way, but you <em>aim</em> at happiness).
 “Happiness is at least in part <em>activity</em>”: it is a way-of-living.
</p>
<h3>How Do We Acquire Virtue?</h3>
<p>
 A virtue can be best understood by looking at how it is acquired.
 This “involves both the need to learn and the drive to aspire.”
 The acquisition of a virtue is “not a once for all achievement” but involves “coming to understand what you are doing, doing it in a self-directed way, and trying to improve” so that your character develops and your understanding grows as you confront new challenges.
</p><p>
 People do not first decide that a particular virtue is good, then decide to become virtuous in that way, and then develop a virtuous motivation.
 Rather virtuous motivation develops alongside our understanding of the virtue, as “educated developments of our &#91;preexisting&#93; unformed motivations.”
</p><p>
 “Becoming virtuous requires habituation and experience.”
 We may begin to learn virtue by emulating or copying a role model, but learning true virtue demands that we aspire to <em>understand</em> the virtue.
 This involves not just learning that you do something, but learning <em>why</em> you do something; this allows you to apply the virtue in novel circumstances rather than just performing a standardized routine.
 As you learn this, you come to be able to articulate reasons for why you do what you do the way you do.
</p><p>
 In this way a virtue is a lot like a <em>skill</em>.
 When you begin to acquire a difficult skill (piano playing, say) you have to concentrate and you have to drill yourself on particular techniques in a pre-specified way.
 But when you <em>have</em> acquired the skill, you don’t have to concentrate so much on the skill itself, but on how you are applying it in a particular situation.
 Instead of struggling to do it competently, you can focus on doing it most skillfully or most beautifully or to meet certain circumstances.
</p><p>
 As we improve our skill at a virtue in new and different contexts, we flesh-out our understanding of the virtue.
 For example, if we are brave in a variety of situations (not just those requiring physical bravery in the face of a certain sort of threat) then we develop a broader understanding of what bravery consists of — what is common to all those responses that makes “bravery” a good description for them.
 This expanded understanding in turn helps us to recognize and respond to new situations in which bravery is called for.
</p><p>
 A virtuous person cares about being virtuous.
 This is one way virtue is less like a productive skill, in which the point is the product rather than the process of making the product.
 (Performative skills like dancing or acting are more similar to virtue in this way.)
 That the being-virtuous is what matters brings to mind Aristotle’s distinction between a virtuous person (who is not tempted to vice because they care for virtue) and a person who is merely continent (who resists temptations to vice although they have not internalized an overriding love for virtue).
 Both may do the same action in the same circumstance, but the first is virtuous while the second is merely exercising self-control.
</p>
<h3>Why Is Virtue Good for Us?</h3>
<p>
 The enjoyment a virtuous person feels in exercising a virtue is analogous to the pleasant <em>flow</em> state of someone who is fluently practicing a skill, in which: 1) the activity is valued for itself, not just for its end-goal or product; and 2) there is a loss of self-consciousness during the activity.
 Other aspects of flow include being “unhindered” (this does not mean without external obstacles, which can make the activity challenging in an interesting way, but without <em>internal</em> obstacles like reluctance or contrasting temptations); and being harmoniously-integrated (you are of one mind in the essence of what you are doing).
</p><p>
 This also resembles Aristotle’s description in the <cite class="book">Nicomachean Ethics</cite> of the pleasure that accompanies unimpeded activity.
</p>
<h3>Why Do People Fall Short?</h3>
<p>
 If virtue is good for you and promotes happiness, why do people stop short of developing the virtues?
 Annas suggests that this is in part because we love company, and there’s more of it to be found in mediocrity than in being outstanding.
 When you separate from the pack in some particular virtue, say, honesty, you develop a sort of solidarity with other especially honest people, but you also lose some of the tolerance you used to have for people who exhibit commonplace dishonesty.
 The companionship you feel towards your more abstract and dispersed community-of-the-honest is not as viscerally comforting as the more immediate community you used to feel with the people you typically encounter on a day-to-day basis.
 Virtue can be lonely.
</p>
<hr />
<h3>A Grotesque</h3>
<p>
 This is the second time in recent years when I’ve read a book published before Donald Trump’s emergence as a politician in which he was used as a throwaway example of someone of obviously low character.
 Here’s the quote from <cite class="book">Intelligent Virtue</cite>:
</p>
<blockquote class="excerpt">
 <p>
  We encourage children in schools, by means of posters, lessons, and books, to admire and aspire to be like some people and not others, and these are people whose <em>characters</em> are admirable and inspiring because of their commitment to goodness, regardless of whether in worldly terms they succeeded or failed, or were useful and/or agreeable to themselves or to other people.
  This is why it would be grotesque to have posters in elementary schools depicting Donald Trump as a hero for the young, rather than people like King, Gandhi, and Mandela.
 </p>
</blockquote>
 </div><!-- reviewBody -->
</div><!-- Review -->
</article>]]></content:encoded>
  <link>https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=26May25</link>
<dc:creator>David Gross</dc:creator> </item>
</rdf:RDF>
