Words and Phrases to Avoid on April 15







We hear a lot about words and phrases we should or shouldn’t use these days, politics having crept into virtually every area of our lives. At the risk of promoting even more “political correctness,” here are some terms that can legitimately be considered “microaggressions” when used in the presence of net taxpayers on April 15:

fair share

not paying their fair share

common good

common sense (when used as an adjective)

public goods

the public interest

public servant

public spirit

public education

social contract

general will

will of the people

national conversation

“our” seniors

“our” roads

“our” schools

“our” infrastructure

“our” veterans

rebuild the military

support the troops

thank the troops

freedom isn’t free

keeping us safe

fighting for our freedom

national interest

the poor

the rich

the children

the troops

working Americans

work of the American people


green energy

Green New Deal

(the old) New Deal

green anything

income inequality

the gender gap

the wealth gap

healthcare is a right

Medicare for all

single payer

These are just a few things to avoid saying on this somber day for freedom. If you find yourself about to parrot any of these talking points, then at least for today, please say the following instead:


To all those who grant this humble request, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

7 thoughts on “Words and Phrases to Avoid on April 15

  1. Ike Raggi

    It’s too bad this post (or any other post for that matter) can’t explain how taxation is inherent theft. In order for it to be inherent theft, there would have to be sacred boundaries that form between a person and their “voluntarily traded” possessions whenever they’re traded.
    If such boundaries could be demonstrated to exist, their probably of existing would need to be 100%, and shown to be 100% within a single step. After all, no libertarian of this flavor claims that “there’s a 33% chance that tax is theft,” and they also never claim that this conclusion is fundamentally an assumption (which would render its probability unknown). They always act like it’s certain.
    Therefore, if tax is inherent theft, there should be a way to prove that claim true, in a single step. So, why can’t Tom just take his single-step proof to Congress, and prove that these sacred boundaries exist, therefore immediately proving that all tax must be abolished right away?

    1. Tom Mullen Post author

      I’ll make this easy for you. Step One: Explain why it would be wrong of me to show at your house, armed, and take everything you own. Step Two: Replace “me” with “the government.” No other changes are needed.

      1. Ike Raggi

        I would certainly be against a government showing up at my house, and taking everything.
        However, that conclusion doesn’t defend the claim that taxation is inherent theft. If it were theft, it would still be theft even if the government were to take only a dollar out of my checking account.

        Just to take a step back here, I also (assume) that, in claiming that tax is theft, you also want to imply that “all theft is unjust.” I don’t know (for sure) that you endorse that claim as well, but… I’ll assume you do.

        You could (indeed) set the definition of theft so that taxation is always theft. However, that will leave open the ability to imagine conditions in which theft is justified. This becomes easily visible in an emergency analogy.

        Suppose the world were in danger in such a way that, in order to prevent a whole city from being destroyed, a government would have to take away a huge portion of someone’s property, but the owner doesn’t consent to it.

        Certainly, this analogy is not really useful in the real-world, but… it doesn’t need to be. It’s enough to prove one of two claims: either a) tax is always theft, but it’s possible to imagine theft being justified, or b) tax isn’t necessarily theft, but it’s possible to know that all theft is unjustified.

    2. Nathan

      The taxation discussed in this article is not a tax on items traded. At least not tangible items. It is a tax that is imposed on the trade for time. Literally, your time in this plane of existence. Hours from your life. Hours that you could use for ANYTHING else except to trade for wages. Wages you require in order to eat, sleep, stay sheltered, stay healthy. It is a, very much, not for profit organization. Yes, some have found ways to make the best of their traded time. Business owners of all different types. However, they are still held to the idea that they must do something in order to earn money. Therefore, time spent on other, more enjoyable, things is spent in this necessary trade.
      You must have “money” in this established economy to live. You must spend time working, in some way, to earn this “money”. You are taxed on this “money” that is traded for your time. Therefore, you are being taxed for your existence. Maybe it isn’t theft. Maybe it’s oppression. Perhaps, slavery, even.

  2. Pingback: Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’: Uncle Sam is Coming For You! | The New Democrat Plus

  3. Pingback: Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’: Uncle Sam is Coming For You! | FreeState Now Plus

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *