[nickff]

You are describing one specific implementation of the income tax. I have three arguments against your attempt at distinction; the first being that what you are proposing is essentially Nozick's 'gracious master' who takes a portion of your earnings (income tax), while retaining the ability to recall you (conscription or jury duty). Another point would be to simply point out that you are specifying 'income tax'; a poll tax with no cutoff is also possible, whereas I never limited my argument to this single implementation, and you have constructed a straw man. My third argument would be that you never took the trouble to define 'tax', and that if you did, you would see the fundamental similarity.

What you call a 'social obligation' seems to be a construct for the rationalization of abhorrent behavior, especially because the moneys collected via taxation have frequently been used to finance the oppression of a great number of people.

[nyolfen]

i form my views on material reality, not nebulous hypotheticals

[nickff]

I have used no nebulous hypothetical, only cited a noted philosopher, given the example of a real system of taxation, and pointed out your failure to address my argument. And I should point out that I am part of material reality, unless my existence is a hypothetical construct (which may very well be true).

[vacri]

I would call equating anyone who pays tax (including powerful CEOs of major companies) as having an experience 'not significantly different' to a slave as 'nebulously hypothetical'. Paying a bit of income tax and sales tax while holding the ability to move around, go off the grid, retire, or emigrate (amongst a vast range of options) is not even remotely similar to being lured to another country with lies, having your passport confiscated, and being forced into prostitution and having your every waking movement dictated.

The extent to which libertarians demand to be painted as hapless victims is incredibly frustrating.

[nickff]

Well, I would both dispute your characterization of what I said, and its nebulousness. I said:

>"If one takes the trouble to define a modern tax system, you will see that there is no significant difference between it and the exactions imposed on a slave."

Which is not hypothetical at all, and is significantly different from:

>"equating anyone who pays tax (including powerful CEOs of major companies) as having an experience 'not significantly different' to a slave"

I was brought into my home country as a helpless child of zero years of age (when I was born,) as are many people, and this system of laws and taxes was imposed on me at that time. I never had any input or decision-making power; please explain how I was in control (, which I presume to be the opposite of being a 'hapless victim').

I should add that I find your obsession with collectivism, and your belief in the moral authority of the state to be "incredibly frustrating", as do most people who agree with me, so at least we all have something in common.

[vacri]

please explain how I was in control

You're asking me to explain why you weren't in control as an infant? Can you explain to me how you were oppressed by taxes as an infant? You're trying to play the victim so explain yourself: where is this indentured infant servitude you're claiming you suffered under?

You're saying that the tax system has no significant difference between it and "the exactions imposed on a slave", which is basically saying that the experience is the same. It beggars belief that anyone that understands the experience of an actual slave would make this comparison; basically you're playing academic parlour tricks with the definitions of words.

your belief in the moral authority of the state

Where did I say that? I said taxation wasn't slavery. I said nothing about state moral authority (which state anyway? which kind of state? It's a silly, simplistic statement, as if there's only one kind of state). If you're going to complain about being misinterpreted, don't use a hydraulic ram to put words in other people's mouths.

[nickff]

>"You're asking me to explain why you weren't in control as an infant? Can you explain to me how you were oppressed by taxes as an infant? You're trying to play the victim so explain yourself: where is this indentured infant servitude you're claiming you suffered under?"

I am subject to my current tax and legal regimes only because I happened to be born in a state which has them. This is what I mean by my lack of choice as an infant.

>"It beggars belief that anyone that understands the experience of an actual slave would make this comparison; basically you're playing academic parlour tricks with the definitions of words."

The moral problem with slavery is not the physical conditions in which slaves are kept (though these have often been horrifically bad); the problem is the lack of liberty of the slave, which is why coercion is the essence of slavery. In many instances throughout history, there have been slaves who lived in better physical conditions than the average person, yet this does not mean the masters are absolved of their guilt.

I never "use[d] a hydraulic ram to put words in [your] mouth[]"; the 'moral authority of the state' is a classic set of terms used to describe a state's authority to compel a citizen to do things the citizen does not believe in. I do not believe I should be forced to do many of the things the state compels me to do, and I do not believe any state has any inherent moral authority to compel me to. You, on the other hand believe some state should be able to compel me to do things I do not believe in, hence you believe in the 'moral authority of the state' (, which does not mean that you believe every state or state agency is moral).

[cozzyd]

I don't have any first hand experience, but I suspect someone who had actually been a slave would find your "slavery" extremely offensive.