Premium
Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft: Why Taxation is “On a Par” with Forced Labor
Author(s) -
Moore Adam D.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the southern journal of philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.281
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 2041-6962
pISSN - 0038-4283
DOI - 10.1111/sjp.12395
Subject(s) - forcing (mathematics) , earnings , economics , law and economics , accounting , climatology , geology
Abstract In 1974, Robert Nozick famously claimed, “taxation of earnings is on a par with forced labor.” If we assume that forced labor is morally objectionable, something akin to slavery, then Nozick’s claim about taxation challenged the very heart of socialist redistributive liberalism. Moving through a series of cases starting with a version of J. J. Thomson’s violinist case, it will be argued that Nozick was basically correct. These cases will establish that 1) forcibly kidnapping someone and hooking them up to a violinist is immoral, 2) forcing others to provide necessities of life for you is morally objectionable, while forcing you to provide for your own necessities is not, 3) being related to the “forcer” does not mitigate the wrongness, 4) receiving benefits does not lessen the wrongness of forcing, 5) majority voting does not diminish the wrongness of forcing, 6) the reply that forced taxation does not really require any forcing—workers could choose to watch sunsets or go on assistance—fails to mitigate the wrongness of forced taxation, and finally 7) the view that income is a social construction is examined and rejected. It is concluded that most forms of taxation are immoral as they contain unjustified forcings and the seizures of value.