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).
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.
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.
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.
>"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).
Libertarianism really is the 'only child' of the political world. They really want to have their cake and not share it. And you really still want to paint yourself as a victim; as a slave from birth. The problem with libertarians reappropriating words like this is that they water them down and stop real discussion from happening.
only because I happened to be born in a state which has them
Such a victim! My guess is that like most libertarians (and your handle plus being on HN), you're white, male, skilled, and with a good income (for the record, I am). You may not be, but the chances are that you are. If so, you're in one of the best-off demographics that has existed in the history of the world, and still you want to claim systematic victimhood. And yet, you're trying to identify with slaves, basking in the reflected anti-glory of the word.
Here's the rub: you have a choice. Particularly if you're in the US. You can go off the grid easily. You can live on public lands, moving around. You can support yourself hunting. Or bartering. You can just not engage in things that connect you to the government. Plenty of people do - witness the huge amount of illegal aliens the US has. Hell, you can even emigrate, no-one's stopping you. Millions of people voluntarily migrate every year, including out of developed nations into developing ones. Move to Vanuatu. Good weather. Happy people. Tiny government. No income tax (unless you're a landlord). You can live the libertarian dream of few government services, choosing to hire your own garbage collectors and whatnot. Other places like that exist all over the world.
But no, you want the lifestyle that taxes provide, but without having to pay taxes. So you join a political movement that has no hope of ever gaining real traction with its ideals, all so you can paint yourself as a victim to make yourself feel better. If you want to live without taxes, you can. Bam, your 'slavery' is over.
Libertarianism has great rhetorics and its members are skilled rhetoricians, but it has no answers for people who don't have plenty of privilege - which is most people, and which is why it'll never gain traction. Take the simple case of someone born with a congenital disease or subject to an accident that wasn't their fault. Most other philosophies would say "hey everyone, chip into the pot and that person can be helped", at least as an ideal. Libertarianism takes the "only child" approach of "sucks to be you. making me share is violent, and therefore immoral!". For all its rhetoric, libertarianism is very short on practical answers.
So no, modern taxation is not slavery or anything like it, and you weaken the impact of the word by saying it is. And you can escape the slavery you see yourself in - you are tacitly choosing to remain within it. However oppressed you think you were as an infant (somehow by the tax you weren't paying), you are now an adult, and you are choosing to remain within the system you despise yet can so easily remove yourself from.
