That book is not going to support your argument, and you know it.
The point is not that taxation is bad, but that corrupt systems of taxation are bad
There is a fuckton of a difference between a high taxation and a corrupt taxation regime.
Wow, way to move the goalposts and accuse me of a bad faith argument, while selectively quoting an Amazon review of a book you have clearly not read. The full sentence you selectively quote is:
The point is not that taxation is bad, but that corrupt systems of taxation are bad and that taxation above a certain level is bound to fail since people will find ways to avoid it . [Emphasis added]
Unlike you, I have read the book. Yes, he talks about corrupt tax systems (e.g. the use of independent "tax farmers" to collect revenue). But no, it's not simply about corruption, and documents many instances of high tax systems being bad. E.g., Crete was a major Mediterranean power that derived a great deal of revenue from taxing traders. Then the relative backwater of Rome offered duty-free ports, traders preferred that, and Rome rose while Crete fell. Hundreds of years later, the Roman empire was huge and taxes were high. When barbarian invaders came from the North, many communities did not resist, because at least their taxes would be lower. Part of the early spread of Islam happened similarly: the Muslims promised lower taxes for conversion, so rather than fight or pay extra tax as Christians, they converted.
