[jozo]

I 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]

What 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.