CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I generally recognize taxes (not all taxes)as an important necessity of a properly functioning government. A government must be funded, the problem with taxes is their form. I think that taxes today are too coercive and they don't necessarily need to be.
But as it stands today, if you pay a 15% tax rate, you are working for almost 2 months for nothing. You are working for free. Avoiding this situation means legal punishment. This seems to fit involuntary servitude.
The very point of taxation is that the money is returned in the form of public services - infrastructure, education, etc. One is not working two months for free anymore than one receives public services for free. It is entirely fair to argue that taxes are excessive or that funds are being misallocated, but this does not actually undermine the premise that public services rendered should be financed by the public. An integral function of government is to render those services which cannot otherwise be rendered, or to render them more effectively than might otherwise occur; this requires a source of funding and it seems entirely logical and fair to me that that funding come from the public which enjoys those rendered services.
Even were all of that not at issue and taxation represented an involuntary imposition and restriction of freedom, the action still would not constitute a legitimate basis to claim servitude. By express definition, servitude indicates a condition of total subjugation; taxation may arguably be involuntary but it is certainly not total subjugation.
Servitude: a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.
I fully agree that certain public services are necessary and that funding should come from that same public which gains. The issue is how our taxes are levied and what they are used for. I am not against taxation as such, but taxation and government expenditure as it is today.
I understand that many public goods are essential to all and the cost of those goods needs to be covered by all. But there are programs that strictly benefit one at the expense of others (not to mention the free rider problem).Whatever percent of ones money (labor, time, productivity) that is taken to spend on the welfare of others, is the percent of time one spends in servitude.
You strike me as a more or less reasonable debater, despite some of our earlier contentious interactions. Consequentially I imagine you can also see this devolving into a rather pointless semantic debate. I am not especially interested in that tract; it becomes tedious. Perhaps that is on me for broaching definitions to begin with, and I accept that, though it is something of an adjustment to me to find people defining servitude so laxly. I have a counter-definition and argument fully prepared, but if it's all the same with you I would rather query your other statements (as below). Your thoughts?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you object to the current implementation of taxation rather than to the practice generally. Were it the case that taxation were properly implemented, would you still consider it involuntary servitude? In light of your view that some public financed public services are legitimate, does this by extension mean that you find some degree of involuntary servitude acceptable and fair?
Were it the case that taxation were properly implemented, would you still consider it involuntary servitude?
No, I think there are other ways to implement taxation that would not be coercive. A universal sales tax, though still somewhat coercive, is less so when compared income tax and it is more equitably distributed.
In light of your view that some public financed public services are legitimate, does this by extension mean that you find some degree of involuntary servitude acceptable and fair?
No. It would be nice if taxes were levied in a different way. But the more issue is really how they are spent. We all use roads, street lights, police presence, courts, etc. But we don't all use welfare, obama phones, subsidies, pubilic grants to corporations, etc...These are individual profits at the expense of every tax payer.
I couldn't claim servitude if my money was taken to maintain the things I use. But when money is taken to maintain someone elses books or line their pockets, how is it anything other than servitude?
No, I think there are other ways to implement taxation that would not be coercive. A universal sales tax, though still somewhat coercive, is less so when compared income tax and it is more equitably distributed.
However, and by your own admission, even a universal sales tax is coercive (even if to a lesser extent). If the criteria for inclusion under the term servitude is coercion and involuntariness, then by what rationale is a universal tax excluded from imposing a servile state upon those from which money is being taken? If it is simply a matter of the extent of coercion, by what rationale do you include other forms of taxation? I could equally argue that such forms should not be included because they are relatively less coercive than having your full salary taken from you or not being paid at all.
No. It would be nice if taxes were levied in a different way. But the more issue is really how they are spent. [...] I couldn't claim servitude if my money was taken to maintain the things I use.
You have somewhat side-stepped my hypothetical, the question being: if taxes were spent appropriately would they still constitute servitude? Your other observations aside, it appears that you would negate that observation. But again, if the standard for servitude is that it is coercive and/or involuntary then by what basis does such taxation not impose servitude? There will never be consensus upon what is an "appropriate" use of taxation - I never use that bridge so why should I pay for it, others being more educated improves my society as a whole which does benefit me so I should pay for public education, preventing poverty is a social benefit that indirectly supports me so I'll pay, attracting corporations is important to society so we should pay to retain them, etc.
What distinguishes your perspective on appropriate expenditures from anyone else's? Where can we objectively draw the line for what constitutes non-servile and servile taxation if the criteria (appropriateness, legitimacy, etc) is inherently subjective and lacks consensus?
by what rationale is a universal tax excluded from imposing a servile state upon those from which money is being taken?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking about. I'm also not sure what you are getting at in the rest of the paragraph but I'll take a guess at your question and try to answer. People have not tried to come up with a non-coercive system. One possible starting point would be contract insurance as a means of funding the government. Since one of the most important roles of government is contract enforcement, make it an insurance. You don't have to buy the insurance if you trust the other party, but it won't be enforceable in court. Thousands of contracts are signed daily so this may provide enough revenue for a functional government.
Would you mind re-wording the rest of that paragraph so I can properly respond?
What distinguishes your perspective on appropriate expenditures from anyone else's?
You named a number of public goods that help someone at the expense of the tax payer and you provided the rationale for it. It is not the proper role of the government to try to better society. Take a look at Washington and tell me you really think they know how to make things better. They don't. The government should be protecting people from foreign invaders, protecting people from crooks, and providing courts to resolve honest disputes (I'm not fully set on public roads yet). With this important infrastructure in place, people will be able to maximize their own freedom. Freedom to make better society. If you don't want to help make a better society that's fine too, but you won't be able to make it worse.
I am a free marketeer which means I believe that if they got out of the way, people would do a better job of filling the various roles you mentioned. Public education is failing. Reducing poverty is better accomplished through capitalism rather than government. The best way to attract business is to reduce taxes and red tape regulation, not pay them off.
I understand that people don't agree on what is the legitimate use of taxes, but that's not necessarily because it is a subjective thing. Political philosophy in America is so dis-integrated that half the country hates the other half and if you look close, each half hates itself. People disagree on governmental legitimacy because we are philosophically fractured.
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking about. [...] Would you mind re-wording the rest of that paragraph so I can properly respond?
I think my mark was rather missed, so do let me try again. You have argued that current taxation constitutes involuntary servitude because it is coercive. You then argued that a universal sales tax would be less coercive, and later added that you couldn't claim servitude if your money was taken to maintain the things you use. My argument was that if you consider a universal sales tax to still be coercive yet the money was put into things you use, it would be a coercive act yet not constitute servitude. If an action can be coercive yet not constitute involuntary servitude, then coercion cannot be the actual criteria for determining involuntary servitude. Is that clearer?
For the record, I do no think contract insurance is plausible nor non-coercive. We can go into that if you like, but it is not especially relevant to the point I was actually trying to make.
You named a number of public goods that help someone at the expense of the tax payer and you provided the rationale for it. It is not the proper role of the government to try to better society. [...] I am a free marketeer which means I believe that if they got out of the way, people would do a better job of filling the various roles you mentioned. Public education is failing. [...] I understand that people don't agree on what is the legitimate use of taxes, but that's not necessarily because it is a subjective thing. [...] People disagree on governmental legitimacy because we are philosophically fractured.
I think this argument has been misunderstood as well. I wholly acknowledge that perspectives on the legitimacy of tax revenue spending are subjective; that was rather my point. Your current argument is that if expenditures match your perspective on what is legitimate, then taxation is not a form of involuntary servitude. My question to you was why your perspective should be the criteria for determining which form of taxation is involuntary servitude and which is not. You are advancing a personal argument as an admittedly subjective basis for your argument that taxation can be a form of involuntary servitude. I am arguing that we need a non-subjective criteria for that, and that legitimacy of expenditure cannot be the criteria precisely on account of its innate subjectivity.
Tangent on Free Market and the Role of Government
Just so you are clear where I actually stand on this, as I have been throwing out examples that do not entirely represent my own views but rather hypothetical perspectives (the purpose being to demonstrate the variety of perspectives which can exist).
I consider government to a be a formalized system of social organization, and a byproduct of human evolution. Consequentially, I consider the function of government to be an evolutionary one; in essence, government exists to promote the better conditions for human existence from those available.
As a result, I consider it a legitimate role for the government to improve upon social conditions by investing in social programs. Obviously this should be carefully implemented (e.g. as in not how the U.S. does it but more comparable to Sweden or Norway), but barring poor implementation such programming has demonstrable positive effects on overall quality of life and social stability. I view governments incapable of securing such effects as stability and quality of life, by any means, to be poorly adapted. The U.S. is in many senses a maladaptive country with considerable and serious issues that need to be addressed. I think it is inaccurate to dismiss social programming by using the U.S. as an example for this reason; it does not point to innate flaws in social programming but with implementation which is an overall structural problem unrelated to the mechanism.
I think that free markets have their merits, but unconstrained their drawbacks begin to outweigh those merits. I view the tendency of human society to be towards a natural consolidation of power. To an extent, this can be healthy and adaptive but it can become a maladaptive attribute if taken to excess. To date, no one has adequately demonstrated to me a basis upon which to believe a wholly free market would check itself before it ran into such excess.
. If an action can be coercive yet not constitute involuntary servitude, then coercion cannot be the actual criteria for determining involuntary servitude. Is that clearer?
Very much so. A thief can steal from you, and it isn’t servitude though it is coercive. Servitude involves more than just coercion. If he regularly stole from you, and there is nothing you can do about it, that puts you effectively into a state of servitude. He is living off of your labor. That’s why expenditures have more to do with servitude than coercion even though coercion is a factor.
Your current argument is that if expenditures match your perspective on what is legitimate, then taxation is not a form of involuntary servitude. My question to you was why your perspective should be the criteria for determining which form of taxation is involuntary servitude and which is not.
Not to get semantic but my perspective matches at least one definition of the word servitude. Money is taken from you and used for the benefit of other specific people or groups. Your money produced by your effort, is enjoyed by someone else. The argument is really about whether or not you actually benefit in any way when your money is spent on someone else.
I am arguing that we need a non-subjective criteria for that (taxation as involuntary servitude?), and that legitimacy of expenditure cannot be the criteria precisely on account of its innate subjectivity.
I am saying that government expenditures used to benefit particular parties are by definition, servitude (because their funding is coerced). When taxes are spent in a way that puts the tax payer in a position of servitude, they are illegitimate. This is what happens when tax money is spent on special benefits for particular parties. They are illegitimate according to the principles of classical liberalism which upholds freedom, making servitude in any form illegitimate. They aren't illegitimate if individual rights are trumped by the needs of particular parties. A person can take a different view of servitude, rights, or freedom than that of classical liberalism, but it won’t work out well.
On social programs and Capitalism:
but barring poor implementation such programming has demonstrable positive effects on overall quality of life and social stability
Poor implementation is the hallmark of government programs. Even considering positive effects neglects the opportunity costs of such programs. For example public education is better that no education, but is it better that private education? Russia made sure everyone had shoes, but were they good shoes? No. Government programs can get the goods to the consumer (demonstrable positive effect, but not as well as the free market (demonstrable better effects).
I think that free markets have their merits, but unconstrained their drawbacks begin to outweigh those merits.
We have never seen unconstrained markets, but the extent of economic growth has correlated with the extent of freedom. Every historic occasion of crisis blamed on the markets has bureaucratic webs wrapped all over it. I don’t know anything about Norway, but from what I read of Sweden, they are just the most recent golden child of bureaucrats. It’s on its way down due to inherent failures with such systems. Give it time.
To date, no one has adequately demonstrated to me a basis upon which to believe a wholly free market would check itself before it ran into such excess.
I guess I don’t know what you mean by excess. Various parts of markets will check certain other various parts, but I don’t know what you mean for sure.
This is turning into one of those “Capitalism” debates, which I really like, but is a bit off the mark from servitudinal taxation.
I can start a new debate if we have a specific disagreement.
I imagine you can also see this devolving into a rather pointless semantic debate.
It's important to define ones terms, especially if there is a disagreement. When I looked up the definition I used the one that most closely represented the way I meant to use it. I know there are other definitions that wouldn't necessarily fit. Just as there are different ways to use the word "outrage" haha. Either way, there is at least one definition of servitude that fits my presentation of it in this debate.
On a side note; is "involuntary servitude" redundant?
Very well then; I can similarly find a definition which suits my perspective. Given that your definition precisely matches that used by Merriam-Webster, I presume it as your source. Please do correct me if I am wrong. From that same source, I use the primary definition offered - "a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life" - which is followed by the expanded primary definition - "a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life" (source). By placement, the primary definition is both the original usage and with rare exception the most common usage of a word. Consequentially, there are at least two reasons to prefer my definition to yours.
Ultimately, however, we could go back and forth on this for some time (until we become outraged? ;). I think we both realize we are using the term in quite different fashion, and are aware of how the other is defining it. It strikes me as rather pointless to debate the matter further, since neither of us is likely to alter the definition upon which we have based our statements and contentions.
On your side note, however...
An interesting query, and effectively a question of whether or not one may voluntarily enter into and exist within a voluntary servitude (whatever its scope). I should think that by your definition, this is a more likely scenario as an individual remains free in other respects giving them some recourse to counteract what may have initially been voluntarily but becomes involuntary. A total lack of power and will would seem to negate the premise of voluntarism once the servitude begins. Thoughts?
The important thing in semantics is that others know what you mean when you say something. Our definitions are different, but they are in the open and understood.
On the side note:
"Involuntary Servitude" is redundant by your definition, but not necessarily under mine. No?
With respect to the redundancy of involuntary servitude as a term: I believe my rationale was fairly clear, is there some part of it that did not make sense? Otherwise, please do provide a counter-analysis.
A total lack of power and will would make servitude an involuntary situation in every example, thus "involuntary servitude would be redundant.
Property owned by one but subject to the specified use or enjoyment of another would be a condition of servitude that one could conceivably enter into voluntarily, thus "involuntary servitude" would not necessarily be redundant.
When you take part of a society you benefit from that societies perks through participation. If you decide to get a job, all the roads, electricity, police protection, fire protection (any social service) that you benefit from your customers also benefit from. Without these benefits your livelihood would be less likely.
For instance the first roads were built around the salt trade for the benefit of cities and not for individuals to benefit. This is not saying individuals did not benefit, but that the roads were not built for those individuals alone. A governing force aimed these interests for the good of all and to allow those who participate to grow under this social contract.
Some may argue that 'self interest' of the group could do the same. This concept has not ever historically been shown to be true in a sustainable form. It would also leave out large chunks of the population who would not have incentives to participate in the growth of the group as they are excluded.
It is part of your own choice to take part in this social contract. If you choose not to take part you receive no benefits (not entirely true, you are still protected by the laws that govern these societies) and can avoid almost all the taxes.
By participating and benefiting from the infrastructure that was in place or infrastructure an individual helped grow you are accepting the social cost of keeping the system running for the benefit of yourself and others. Without taxes the system would only benefit a few and the growth of the group would stagnate as it would be unfocused. Not everyone would have the same goals and the aim of a group would be unfocused.
It behooves society for people to want to take part in this social contract. Without incentive to participate in the social contract societies would be hindered by divisiveness. Having a larger population to pull resources from can be advantageous for work forces and thus growth.
This is not to say taxation cannot be skewed and target the wrong group at times, that is an issue of governance and not one of taxation.
The term "social contract" is obnoxiously misleading; it implies mutual consenting parties to the implementation of a pre-negotiated and agreed upon arrangement. This is empirically fallacious. Most of us are born into the societies we live in, and did not choose to exist within society. For those who immigrate into a society, the decision is frequently coerced by lack of alternative. One must select one society or another to live in, making any decision which might be rendered at least partially non-consensual.
Your assertion that you can choose to not take part and receive no benefits is also false. You cannot realistically do this. Governments do not let people do this, because if they do then it undermines their capacity for governance. If you work, you must pay. If you own land, you must pay. In some countries you must actually buy certain things (e.g. health insurance). Whether you are off the grid or not, these will apply.
This is not to say I disagree with your stance entirely, but rather the argument you resort to for its defense. An argument of functionality or necessity is far more compelling; we accept taxation because there is no preferable alternative (which you were rather getting at I think... just, agh, social contract bullshit).
Yes I agree to what you are saying for the most part. The idea is born out of necessity and not by mutually consenting parties as we are born into these societies.
I was shooting from the hip and should have been more concise with the direction I was heading. My bad;P
Your assertion that you can choose to not take part and receive no benefits is also false.
I conceded this point in partial in a parenthetical. I stated this was not entirely true as the laws that protect you/restrain you could still affect you. Again my lack of clarity is my own fault here, upon rereading what I wrote I see this. The extremes one would have to take to sever this 'contract' would be such that one would not want to live in those conditions, and again out of necessity return to the society. My point was one could never fully remove themselves from this idea of a social contract as they would still be under the jurisdiction of the laws of the land.
I make a decent living, but I don't think I can afford to buy a road. They're probably terribly expensive. That sounds like something a large number of people who would find a road mutually beneficial could pay for collectively though. If there were a mechanism of collecting funds from said large group of people...assuming funds existed. It would cost money to produce currency. Where would the money to produce currency come from? And what if people wanted to use the road but not pay for it?
I make a decent living, but I don't think I can afford to buy a road. They're probably terribly expensive.
That is why many people would voluntarily purchase the construction of a road. You're acting as if it's only you who wants a road to be created.
If there were a mechanism of collecting funds from said large group of people...assuming funds existed. It would cost money to produce currency.
No mechanism needs to exist for many people would pay for the road's construction. There would be no need for any mechanism to invade property rights and rob the common man of his earnings. Also if it costs money to produce currency the state can enter the market place and sell goods and make the money. There is no problem with that. If the government wants to open an insurance business or a computer business I would let them since their goods would be voluntarily purchasable and the revenue collected from that would pay for the creation of money.
And what if people wanted to use the road but not pay for it?
Use the roads that the others have already paid for. If somebody want's a road they shall purchase it on the market. However I am sure that many people would already have these road taken care of by now and wouldn't require the population to fork in any more money until damage sets in.
So payment for roads and road repair would be completely optional, and you believe enough people would pay that building a road would be possible. You don't think human nature would dictate that most people would opt not to pay and just hope that everyone else did, resulting in no road (or school, or library or water filtration plant, or police force, or fire department, or bridges or parks or traffic control systems or hospitals) being developed. You expect all of these things to come into existence through optional payment? Really?
So payment for roads and road repair would be completely optional, and you believe enough people would pay that building a road would be possible. You don't think human nature would dictate that most people would opt not to pay and just hope that everyone else did, resulting in no road (or school, or library or water filtration plant, or police force, or fire department, or bridges or parks or traffic control systems or hospitals) being developed.
It would have to occur. Someone will eventually pay for the construction of a road. Major business will pay for multiple roads to keep the employment consistent and to keep services to the public available. Also charitable contribution always occurs. Either through religious organizations or organization built on progress and liberty. They would have no problem paying for roads. If someone wishes to call the police the can do so and then the police can logically charge a small fee. The same with hospitals as well. However insurance may cover all of this. Traffic systems are naturally going to be controlled by AI. Schools would always be funded through voluntary payment or voluntary contribution. You cannot say it doesn't happen. Water filtration would be paid by enforcing a water bill on the population and they can either agree to it's services and pay the monthly fee or live with poor water. That is their choice. Bridges operate the same as roads do. They would be built through voluntary payment.
You expect all of these things to come into existence through optional payment? Really?
Do you buy groceries? Clothes? Or any other goods you want? Then you would do the same on this market. It is no different.
Sounds like a childish pipe dream doesn't it?
No, now you may excuse yourself if you want to make silly statements.
I disagree with this. It is most certainly involuntary and coercive. This is the definition you provided.
Servitude: the condition of being a slave or of having to obey another person
In a sense taxation are forced to be obey, if one avoids taxes they face confiscation or imprisonment. You are being forced to pay taxes. Therefore you are in servitude to the government. You have to obey these tax laws or face the threats.
Are you honestly comparing taxation to being a slave?
Taxation is a coercive power. It gives the government the right to imprison man, and force him into involuntary servitude there, and to confiscate any property it wishes to acquire. Servitude, the condition of being a slave or of having to obey another person, is present since one must obey the tax law or face consequences they never agreed to.
But in a practical sense, you cannot honestly believe that paying your taxes is like being a slave.
The only sense of slavery most people have is of manual labor with little or no pay. Such as the slavery that was present in America. However by definition taxation is involuntary servitude and thus the 13th and 16th amendment contradict each other.
Most people, very obviously including yourself, have no sense of what slavery is at all. Some people, however, have and still do. Slavery in the United States was far more than just working without pay - as a slave, you had absolutely zero rights; you could be raped, mutilated, tortured, sold, separated from your family. That you think slavery is just not getting paid (or even not paid enough) for your work, then you should seriously revisit history. For that matter, study sex trafficking and other forms of contemporary slavery. I think you will find that taxation is not at all comparable to those experiences. As stated in my other reply, to assert otherwise is to dismiss the gravity of actual slavery. It is to compare total oppression to a limited constriction that is arguably even a privilege (taxation implies an opportunity for employment and provision of social services; if that is not the case then the issue is not taxation but overall corrupt governance).
Most people, very obviously including yourself, have no sense of what slavery is at all.
Now you just wanna be rude. I have already told you that even if the servitude is little and practically unnoticed it is still servitude and thus it is logically an unfair levy.
That you think slavery is just not getting paid (or even not paid enough) for your work, then you should seriously revisit history. For that matter, study sex trafficking and other forms of contemporary slavery.
Again, you are failing to understand the base premise of this debate. It is not equating taxation to the slavery experienced whiles ago, no, but rather asking if in any sense if taxation is a form of involuntary servitude and it is. I don't need to study anything. You need to read the actual title of the debate.
As stated in my other reply, to assert otherwise is to dismiss the gravity of actual slavery.
Taxation is actual slavery regardless of the degree of servitude enforced.
It is to compare total oppression to a limited constriction that is arguably even a privilege (taxation implies an opportunity for employment and provision of social services; if that is not the case then the issue is not taxation but overall corrupt governance).
The issue is blatantly taxation for it directly impacts the individual. The government is allowed to coerce through the levy of taxation. It can take what it wants, destroy anyone it disagrees with, or oppress it's moral code on its own population through the power of taxation.
My apologies; it appears I have a low sensitivity for people who trivialize slavery. I am not failing to grasp the concept nor the premise of the debate. You may find my consolidated response to this portion of our discussion on our other thread in this same debate; having two going at the same time is rather redundant. That was my error.
Why would you even bother to tell me to leave the country? How will I spread the word? The Libertarian population is already growing. You wanna go tell all of them to leave too?
The only thing the government asks of you is to respect it's laws and taxes. Not the same thing as involuntary servitude, you can do whatever you want with your life (as long as it's legal)
The only thing the government asks of you is to respect it's laws and taxes.
The government actually presses it's moral code on the entire population. For example the debate about the legality of drugs or even porn. The good and bad effects of the two are irrelevant, but this is what the government uses to ban or unban them. One should discuss the property rights and the right to sell goods on the market. If the laws are unfair then why should we follow them? If the taxes are unfair why should we follow them?
Not the same thing as involuntary servitude, you can do whatever you want with your life (as long as it's legal)
Can one keep all of their income and spend it how they wish?
Can one smoke weed or sell it? I know this isn't legal, but there is no reason as to why it shouldn't be.
Can one sell goods on the market for a higher price than the government would see fit?
A government that is small and participates in the market like other corporations for things it may offer or need. If it needs soldiers it can enlist them on the market.
However, personally I wouldn't mind being an queen though. Ruling over an entire country.
In all seriousness though, I disagree that we are slaves to to the government.
I guess I can understand that. It isn't like the slavery America enforced hundreds of years ago. Just government aggression against the individual so that they consent to pay taxes.
Only by great leaps of the imagination can one construe those definitions to be mutually referential. Slavery represents the total loss of personal sovereignty, taxation is a legitimate and common limitation. To follow your claim to its conclusion, the entire human population is enslaved. That rather dilutes the meaning of slavery, and is actually dismissive of those who actually have or currently are experiencing real slavery (i.e. have no rights, no self-autonomy, no personal sovereignty, etc.).
We also have to follow other laws, like not killing people or stealing, or face the punishments. Does that make us slaves as well? If not, what exactly is the difference between any other law and taxation? If so, then your argument is really that so long as we have governments and societies we are enslaved. By logical extension, your argument is that the only way we can be free is through anarchy. To confuse anarchy for freedom is patently absurd; there is no such thing as total freedom, there never has been and there never will be. Social and governmental structures, while incontestably coercive and oppressive to some extent or another, offer the better alternative to their absence.
Only by great leaps of the imagination can one construe those definitions to be mutually referential. Slavery represents the total loss of personal sovereignty, taxation is a legitimate and common limitation.
That is incorrect. The definitions logically fit. Seeing as to how you are not properly addressing the topic and are to quick to answer I may have to slow this down for you, but I know you are totes super smart so I won't do that. The debate I created is asking if taxation is a form of involuntary servitude. Regardless of the degree of servitude it is still servitude. Even if 3% of one's property is detained and the act becomes involuntary and a person is forced to pay they are using involuntary servitude.
To follow your claim to its conclusion, the entire human population is enslaved.
Now you know the entire population of humans are not enslaved. For some have not even given into taxation. Or don't have a government to impose such a levy.
That rather dilutes the meaning of slavery, and is actually dismissive of those who actually have or currently are experiencing real slavery (i.e. have no rights, no self-autonomy, no personal sovereignty, etc.).
I disagree here as well. My statement above, that regardless of the degree it is still what it is, this logically makes taxation a form of involuntary servitude.
We also have to follow other laws, like not killing people or stealing, or face the punishments. Does that make us slaves as well? If not, what exactly is the difference between any other law and taxation?
These are terrible and non-equatable examples. Laws against killing do not deprive the populace of their right to property. Laws against stealing do not deprive people of their property. That is the difference here. Taxation, involuntarily, imposes and non-mutual consent of payment. One must pay or face consequences.
By logical extension, your argument is that the only way we can be free is through anarchy.
What are you talking about? I'm only talking about taxation. Anything taxes can support the market can also.
To confuse anarchy for freedom is patently absurd; there is no such thing as total freedom, there never has been and there never will be.
In what sense did I ever say anarchy is what needs to occur?
Social and governmental structures, while incontestably coercive and oppressive to some extent or another, offer the better alternative to their absence.
I agree, but particular parts of these "structures" needs to be reformed.
Seeing as to how you are not properly addressing the topic and are to quick to answer I may have to slow this down for you [...]. Regardless of the degree of servitude it is still servitude.
You certainly need not slow anything down on my account. I follow you premise entirely, and I have clearly elucidated the basis for my dissent. Taxation is not a form of involuntary servitude because that term expressly implies the total subjugation of a person. The act of taxation may very well be involuntary, but it does not make a person a slave because one is not wholly subjugated.
Now you know the entire population of humans are not enslaved. For some have not even given into taxation. Or don't have a government to impose such a levy.
And which governments might these be? Or, to which anarchic societies do you refer? Frankly, none come to mind. Of course, you are ignoring my larger point which is that the vast majority of 7+ billion people are servile/enslaved, which remains utterly preposterous.
I disagree here as well. My statement above, that regardless of the degree it is still what it is, this logically makes taxation a form of involuntary servitude.
You disagree by reiterating the very assertion my point deconstructs. By your logic, if I had every possible human freedom in the world but some partial restriction upon one... my status would be comparable to another person who had absolutely no human freedom. By using the term servitude you are directly comparing your experience with being taxed to the experience of people who have been beaten, tortured, raped, and murdered without recourse. There is no manner in which that comparison does not dilute the significance of the terms servitude and slavery.
These are terrible and non-equatable examples. Laws against killing do not deprive the populace of their right to property. Laws against stealing do not deprive people of their property. That is the difference here. Taxation, involuntarily, imposes and non-mutual consent of payment. One must pay or face consequences.
There are not terrible or non-equatable examples. Your sole premise has been that people live in involuntary servitude under taxation because the restriction is involuntary, non-consensual, and backed by the threat of state action. If one wished to steal then the restriction against doing so is involuntary, against their consent, and backed by the threat of state action. On the basis of the criteria you have used to justify your claim, any law constricting or regulating human behavior constitutes servitude. The government is forcing people to conform their behavior to the desires and interests of the state just as equally; that it is non-action being enforced rather than action being forced is entirely irrelevant.
What are you talking about? I'm only talking about taxation. Anything taxes can support the market can also.
Certainly, you never explicitly advocated anarchy but nevertheless it remains the logical extension of the premise you are basing your claim on. You argue that because taxation is involuntary and coercive we live in a state of servitude. Any action by any government that affects human behavior is innately coercive and involuntary, as it is compelling people to act a particular way regardless of their personal interests or desires and under penalty of punishment. Per your argument, any degree of such coercion means we live in servitude. Consequentially, the only way to freedom is the abolition of government as a coercive force (i.e. anarchy).
From the other portion of this debate thread: [...] even if the servitude is little and practically unnoticed it is still servitude and thus it is logically an unfair levy. [...] The government is allowed to coerce through the levy of taxation. It can take what it wants, destroy anyone it disagrees with, or oppress it's moral code on its own population through the power of taxation.
You assert that because taxation is involuntary this makes it "logically unfair". Please, do present your purported logic as to why this is the case. Really, I am curious to know how you as someone who benefits from living in a democratic republic is so grossly imposed upon and made servile by having to pay monetarily for those benefits. There is not a single contemporary (or to my knowledge historic) example of a government of any scale that operated without levying some form of taxation. The basic truth is this, for government to exist it must have a source of financing and it is both logical and fair that those who benefit from its existence should provide that financing. Without taxation, you really have no government.
Your government cannot just "take what it wants"; you have the privilege of living in a democratic republic. While exact percentages of taxation are arguably not wholly controlled by public opinion, it is erroneous to believe that the public has no input at all on taxation. If the majority found taxation truly oppressive and intolerable, we would not have it. In general, taxation hovers between what the majority considers too low and too high. You are a minority in your view that taxation should not exist. Further, there are limits on what the government can take - financially and otherwise. If you were a servile slave your owner could actually take whatever they wanted - you would have no income to begin with but what you did have, such as family or health, could be taken on a whim and you could do nothing about it.
Your government does not "destroy anyone it disagrees with"; you again have the privilege of living in a democratic republic that protects your freedom of belief and freedom of speech to a far greater extent than in many other places in this world. If your statement were true, you could expect to be tortured, killed, or submitted to other atrocities simply for typing what you just did. If you were a slave you would actually be destroyed, in whatever way your owner saw fit, and you would have no recourse.
Your government does not "oppress it's moral code on its own population through the power of taxation." Again, you live in a democratic republic and the moral code that is imposed is the moral code of the prevailing majority. Again, your issue is not the government but that you are a minority that does not get its way on the matter of taxation. Further, the notion that taxation imposes morality is a bit of a reach itself. The mere act of extraction does not impose any morality beyond the view that you owe a financial contribution to sustaining the country that secures and protects the rights you enjoy. Any morality represented in the expenditure of those funds is a separate issue, and again subject to the democratic process. If you have issues with that, you have issues with the democratic process at large.
