Last year, I debated philosopher Michael Huemer on taxation. Huemer is a prominent libertarian who believes that taxes are “theft,” and in many ways, the debate was typical of those that take place between socialists and libertarians on that topic. He surprised me, though, when he started talking about hypothetical conditions under which taxation might be justified.

In Huemer’s thinking, such “theft” might be morally defensible if it serves important enough purposes — and Huemer had some very specific ideas about what such purposes would look like. The money, he said, would have to be transferred to charities endorsed by “effective altruism” organizations.

Effective altruism (EA) was something I’d long heard about in academic contexts, but now it’s everywhere. This spring, Politico ran a long profile on Oregon congressional candidate and EA enthusiast Carrick Flynn. EA, the article tells us, “transformed the philanthropy world,” and it’s “coming for Washington.” (As it turns out, it’s not coming very soon — despite lavish backing by crypto-currency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, Flynn lost his primary by 19 points.) A few months later, EA was in the New Yorker with a profile of Oxford ethicist and EA proponent William Mac-Askill. The glowing write-up dubbed him the “reluctant prophet” of effective altruism.