[Dylan16807]

>The government demands and punishes non-compliance with expropriation of private property and or prison.

In your ideal world, when you legitimately owe someone money and you're past due, what should happen when you refuse to pay, and you're willing to escalate as far as possible? You seem to object to the idea that repeated noncompliance can increase the severity of punishment. But what's the alternative? To not enforce small crimes at all?

[aminok]

Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.

[Dylan16807]

That's a valid distinction to make, but as long as you accept that small punishments like fines will have the full force of the legal system behind them, it's disingenuous to pretend the punishment for not paying taxes is anything other than a fine backed by the legal system.

Or in other words: You started the discussion by saying it's terrible to "threaten to throw someone in prison" for X. The normal interpretation of that phrase is that the direct punishment you get is prison. But that's not true, the direct punishment you get is a fine. The sense in which you could go to prison is equivalent to the statement "the law is actually enforced". You have to fight pretty hard to end up in prison over it. It's not a violation of human rights to have some fees for things, and it's not a violation of human rights that laws are actually enforced.

[aminok]

>The normal interpretation of that phrase is that the direct punishment you get is prison.

I'm arguing that this interpretation is wrong, as it ignores the violence and force that ultimately backs all government mandates.

The violent/forceful quality of government mandates is why we should not be making morally legitimate behavior, like refusing to honour a debt that one did not voluntarily assume, or refusing to surrender one's privacy, a civil or criminal offence.

[Dylan16807]

The thing is, you can reach prison for even a $5 voluntary debt if you keep escalating hard enough. So it's not meaningfully bad that X thing could theoretically escalate to prison, because everything can, even a $5 debt. The end impression once you take in the whole situation is not "the government is going too far with this law", it's "the government is going as far as it would with a $5 voluntary debt, meh".

[aminok]

Imprisoning someone for refusing to pay a $5 voluntary debt is morally different from imprisoning someone for refusing to pay a $5 involuntary debt. It's important to understand that all government mandates are backed, ultimately, by the threat of violence/imprisonment, to inform our decisions about what behaviour to mandate.

[Dylan16807]

While that's true, it's important to keep a measured understanding that it's a rare occurrence and the threat is only there because we haven't figured out a way to enforce rules without it. There's a big difference between something where prison happens 80% of the time and .01% of the time.