[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.

[aminok]

The carrying out of the threat may be rare, but the use of the threat to deprive someone of their rights is not. It is endemic. A person has a right to their property and their privacy and income tax laws violate both.