The Ethics of Taxation: Forced Labour vs. Economic Development

This essay critically analyzes the argument that taxation constitutes forced labour, contrasting perspectives from economists and philosophers like Nozick and Rawls. It examines the ethical and economic implications of taxation, exploring whether income tax infringes on individual autonomy and constitutes a form of involuntary servitude. The essay discusses arguments for and against this claim, considering the role of government in resource allocation, the concept of ownership, and the principles of justice. It further explores how taxation impacts individual liberties, economic development, and the provision of public services, ultimately questioning the validity of characterizing taxation as forced labour. The essay emphasizes the importance of citizen contributions to the government through income tax, the need for transparency in government spending, and the importance of balancing individual rights with the collective good. The conclusion highlights the complexity of the issue, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of taxation's role in society.

TAXATION AS A FORM OF FORCED LABOUR
Taxes are a subject of redistribution of prosperity in a group of people. The civil importance
entailed is communism, which requires us to donate to a good course with respect to our
ability to do so. Different countries all over the world subject their citizens or anyone
working in their countries to paying taxes. Individuals are put through different forms of
taxation. Some tax is deducted from salaries in form of PAYE (pay as you earn) some is
imposed on commodities consumed by people1. Other taxes are imposed on Imports exports
and several other places. Not many persons are always ready to part with their hard earned
fortunes in the form of being taxed and I am of the idea that people ought not to be made to
pay tax if they are not willing.
An authority’s imposition of taxes allows for the allocation of richness where the allocation
of prosperity is justified. This does not however validate levy collection in all situations.
Restrictions are important as an applied issue, and hence the bodies in charge ought to always
be subjected to scrutiny. This is done since the leadership is not meant to from nowhere
impose levy carelessly as those in control of the systems view it. Nozick came up with
different arguments that justify the fact that taxation is a form of forced labour.
The tenacious charade brought forward by Nozick explaining that paying taxes on income
earned is a form of forced labour is a form of informed claims that has no ethical grounds in
rescuing justice2. If this argument is true to some extent, it therefore means that imposing of
taxes on income earned is a form of theft which in turn evokes the old Marxist argument that
explains that property is theft. In the end, this set down on the fact that we clearly don’t
understand how a government works and the contribution of its citizen to the nation to enable
1 Vallentyne, Peter. "Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia." In Central Works of Philosophy v5, (Routledge,
2014). 115
2 Feser, Edward. "Taxation, forced labor, and theft." The Independent Review 5, no. 2 (2000), 224.

its growth and sustainable development to the future generations. A government is just like
any other institution that requires resources to enable its daily running of activities. The
disposable income earned is always directed to take care of a number of activities in the lives
of a human being, it therefore means the tax obtained from income earned is part of the many
activities that the money is supposed to attend to, and not a form of slavery. The thesis
statement is this argument states that taxes on income is not a form of forced labour as put
forward by Nozick, however it is one of the avenue where citizens given an opportunity to
work, gives back to the government as a form of appreciation, which on the other hand
benefits the citizens in one way or another in form of development and services rendered.
A rational human being will definitely repudiate Nozicks philosophical approach that states
that taxes on income forces people to work for more hours3. The claim is far from the truth
and can’t be listed among the reasons why people work for more hours. First, what makes
something to be termed as forced labour, it’s when you have no other choice but to expend
the labour. In most cases, forced labour is associated with some external forces or pressure
imposed on people to work with no alternative given. Hence, when there is no external forces
to it, we can’t term this as forced labour. However, this notion misinterpreted the reality of
how income tax affects the lives of people. There are a number of reasons supporting the idea
that no forced labour is involved in this argument. First, it is evident that income tax cannot
force someone who is not currently working to start working. Secondly, income tax will not
make someone who is currently working to quit his job. Thirdly, an employee of any
organization cannot be prevented to reduce his or her working hours because of income tax.
In short, income tax has nothing to do with a person’s job, working hours and the kind of job
the person is doing.
3 Tondani, Davide. "Universal basic income and negative income tax: Two different ways of thinking
redistribution." The Journal of Socio-Economics 38, no. 2 (2009), 250

The first argument brought forward by Nozick (1974,169-71) when someone is subject to
paying tax unwillingly from a salary you have really worked for, the individual is a victim of
forced labour in that, an individual’s fortune after great struggle is taken away from him or
her against their consent and is used to satisfy a different person’s needs4. When a person
paying tax carries out a task mandated to him it is fine. But now when he or she works hard
then you come slash part of his salary to go and give it to someone else that is forced labour.
Nozik argues that, the point at which an individual carries out task and the amount is used to
pay tax without his or her acknowledgment that is forced labour.
The next argument by Nozik (1974, 171-72) poses that a person fully owns his or her body
and even the labour he or she outputs. Nozik argues that an individual is entitled to do
anything he or she wants to do and that one cannot be forced to do otherwise unless there is a
legal binding that requires him or her to perform that task assignment by a different person.
The state normally uses the taxes collected to improve the different services and amenities in
a given locality. These amenities are all used by the people who have been taxed and those
that haven’t been taxed. The act done by the state to forcefully take your money to go and do
a development that you are not approving means that they have forcefully used your labour.
This makes the state to partly own a person whereas a person meant to be fully independent.
This act has to be greatly opposed by all means.
In opposing Nozik’s arguments on how taxation subjects individuals to forced labour, we get
to look at Rawl’s 2nd principle of justice which generally states that, “Social and economic
inequalities have to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged persons, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
equality of opportunity5”.
4Archer, Verity. "Dole bludgers, tax payers and the New Right: Constructing discourses of welfare in 1970s
Australia." Labour History (2009), 182.
5 Wolff, Jonathan. Robert Nozick: property, justice and the minimal state. (John Wiley & Sons, 2018), 102

Rawl’s reasoning for the principle is determinant on the premise citizens have two moral
powers. The first is being in a position to bring, suggest and perform on the philosophies of
fairness that every individual involved can agree with. The second one is the capability to
grasp, go through and follow the beginning of what is right6. It tracks that any principle of
justice, counting all that control the social and monetary differences, have to be taken by each
and every individual and are mandated to assist residents to follow their beliefs of what is
acceptable.
Rawl contends that’s inhabitants involved with the keeping safe and practising ethical powers
would come to a consensus on the philosophies that ensure no bias when it comes to the
rights and capital to follow their good7. Residents cannot by any instance select a law that
needs total equity to people since individuals can do great through the permitting of
unfairness which promotes economic development. Laws that permit increased unfairness
than difference principles call for the bad to come into terms with inequalities that in a way
do not fit them; this disrupts mutuality. To add on that, nationalities have s duty of ensuring
that they respect themselves before they start following their good. Having the individual
admiration depends both possessing the capital to follow one’s positives and that of others.
This modification philosophy encourages the individual respect of the worst off more than
the other substitute laws since it capitalises individuals’ capital and conveys the pledge of the
well off to part their destiny.
Opponents have accused that Rawl’s dispute neglects the law that individuals with better
capacities appreciation than the rest. However, Rawls replies that the aim of any form of
collaboration residents come up with is to allow them to implement their ethical strengths and
6 Brown, Alexander. "The slavery of the not so talented." Ethical theory and moral practice 14, no. 2 (2011),
188
7 Brown, Alexander. "The slavery of the not so talented." Ethical theory and moral practice 14, no. 2 (2011),
192.

follow their good. Due to the fact that citizens are like in their proper characteristics, they
hold an equivalent claim to the profits from the system of teamwork. The rule of desert shows
the support organizations ought to gift talent as opposed to reacting to the basic ethical
values. Rawls says that individuals don’t merit their abilities or behaviours that enable them
to grow it, and have shown no level of determination to grow it.
If the two arguments from Nozik are Rawl are looked into very keenly, both have a basis of
argument. In one side one opposes tax payment terming it as unfair and way of stealing from
individuals8. On the other side one tries to show justify how inequality is the reason for
increased development and so in a way this tries to point out that the unfairness used to
subject individuals to paying taxes is something that is legally right and has to be upheld9. An
individual wonders why they are subjected to taxation yet this tax only benefits those in
power as opposed to everyone regardless of the social class as it is supposed to be. In a way
the argument made by Rawl is questionable since it mostly champions for the inequality of
resources hence subjecting people to taxation.
Nozik’s arguments are less convincing and ought to be ignored by different states. People can
only be subjected to income tax if they got the opportunity to work and not taxing them
beyond what they earn. Before any government taxes anyone, they first have to summon
them and come to a consensus whether their incomes can be taxed or not. The next thing is
that a legal document needs to be signed by both parties to show the kind of a conclusion they
both came to. Any part that breaks or acts contrary to the terms agreed on is subject to being
fined heavily10. For those that argue that the government will lack funds to run its services if
8 Bird-Pollan, Jennifer. "Death, Taxes and Property (Rights): Nozick, Libertarianism, and the Estate Tax." Me. L.
Rev. 66 (2013): 1.
9 Wei, Xiaoping. "From principle to context: Marx versus Nozick and Rawls on distributive justice." Rethinking
Marxism 20, no. 3 (2008), 479
10 Archer, Verity. "Dole bludgers, tax payers and the New Right: Constructing discourses of welfare in 1970s
Australia." Labour History (2009), 184.

the taxes are made optional, different governments have different resources within their
countries and this can now be utilised well to run government operations. However, income
tax also can help a great deal in developing a country, as citizens, it is important to contribute
to the development of our nations on services delivery, and to be part of this drive, we have to
contribute our resources through income tax. It’s a unique kind of contribution that will go
around and come around to help the very people who were taxed on income earned.
If it is a matter of development people within the area that needs to be developed can be
summoned and they agree among themselves on how they are going to carry out a specific
initiative. This process is effective since there is transparency no one will joke with another
person’s contribution since they all come from same locality. Quality of work will also be on
point since the involved residents will be supervising their project hence no poor work shall
be done unlike the situation where the government never supervises its projects.
It is true that tax is good when it is paid willingly without subjecting anyone to forced
payment. However, paying of tax is not a question of yes or no. It’s our responsibility as
citizens to pay taxes11. Since it’s our duty, then it cannot be termed as be forced labour. You
want good services delivery, then you have to pay taxes either through other forms or
incomes taxes it will still culminated down to taxes. Tax collected has to be accounted for
fully by the government to the last cent. All projects managed by the government have to be
thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that there are no money laundering deals happening behind
the curtains12. If this happens then it can be summed up as forced labour because value for
money is not attained. If a government manages to achieve that then in a way it might
convince more citizens into paying the taxes but otherwise no one shall be ready to part ways
with his or her income.
11 Fabre, Cécile. "Distributive justice and freedom: Cohen on money and labour." Utilitas 22, no. 4 (2010), 401
12 Wolff, Jonathan. Robert Nozick: property, justice and the minimal state. (John Wiley & Sons, 2018), 180

To sum up all this discussion is that it is possible for a government to operate without having
to subject its citizens to tax. However, income tax is one avenue of generating government
revenue that can be used in the development of the country for the betterment of the nation
and its people and not only benefiting the government but also the people who paid the
income tax. In one way or another it benefits them so we can argue that it’s forced labour, it
can only be forced labour if the money is not used to improve the people’s lives. Nozik’s
claims are repudiatory and therefore has to be looked into critically and maybe borrow few
aspects from Rawl's 2nd principle of redistribution of resources and come up with something
concrete on taxation as a whole and how his notion on income taxation can be refuted
logically.
BIBLIOGRAHY
Archer, Verity. "Dole bludgers, tax payers and the New Right: Constructing discourses of
welfare in 1970s Australia." Labour History (2009): 177-190.
Brown, Alexander. "The slavery of the not so talented." Ethical theory and moral
practice 14, no. 2 (2011): 185-196.

Bird-Pollan, Jennifer. "Death, Taxes and Property (Rights): Nozick, Libertarianism, and the
Estate Tax." Me. L. Rev. 66 (2013): 1.
Fabre, Cécile. "Distributive justice and freedom: Cohen on money and labour." Utilitas 22,
no. 4 (2010): 393-412.
Feser, Edward. "Taxation, forced labor, and theft." The Independent Review 5, no. 2 (2000):
219-235.
Tondani, Davide. "Universal basic income and negative income tax: Two different ways of
thinking redistribution." The Journal of Socio-Economics 38, no. 2 (2009): 246-255.
Tondani, Davide. "Universal basic income and negative income tax: Two different ways of
thinking redistribution." The Journal of Socio-Economics 38, no. 2 (2009): 246-255.
Vallentyne, Peter. "Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia." In Central Works of
Philosophy v5, pp. 108-125. (Routledge, 2014).
Wolff, Jonathan. Robert Nozick: property, justice and the minimal state. (John Wiley & Sons,
2018).
Wei, Xiaoping. "From principle to context: Marx versus Nozick and Rawls on distributive
justice." Rethinking Marxism 20, no. 3 (2008): 472-486.