Monday, October 15, 2012

Slaves Have Choices

"Relax," said the nightman.
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like.
But you can never leave."
--Eagles

Recently I was engaged in a debate about the similarities between slavery and income taxes. This is not a new argument for these pages, nor is it a novel consideration for thinkers far above my pay grade (example1, example2, example3).

The argument is straightforward. Both slavery and income taxes are institutions of force. Both confiscate production from some for the benefit of others. A payer of income tax, therefore, is seemingly a slave.

Liberals in particular face difficulty when confronting this argument. In general, this group disapproves of slavery while approving income taxes. To avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, liberals must rationalize differences between slavery and income taxes that justify the institution of the latter.

In the particular debate that I was engaged in, liberals seemed to favor this line of thought: Income taxes are different from slavery in that payers of income tax are free to leave the system while slaves are not. Slaves have no choice in the matter.

Precisely how this is supposed to refute the claim of similarity between slavery and income taxes is unclear. Is it suggesting that income taxes are not institutions of force? Such a claim would be delusional.

Let's examine the core assertion that slaves have no choice in the matter of their predicament. Assume that an individual has already been enslaved, and that the person prefers freedom over slavery. What primary decision alternatives does the slave face? I can think of four.

One choice is to remain a slave--toil for the benefit of others under conditions of force. Although we stipulated that the enslaved individual prefers freedom over slavery, remaining a slave may be preferable when the penalties for pursuing other alternatives are estimated to exceed the disutility of slavery. This choice could also be desirable if the slave anticipates that the institution may collapse within a reasonable period of time, thus motivating the slave to 'tough it out' until the system changes.

A second choice is to cease productive effort as a slave. In this mode, the slave either does not work (e.g., sit down or slow down strike), or produces income that the slave tries to hide from the purview of the production control system. If it is difficult to monitor the effort or output of slaves, then this choice may have merit. If oversight is easy, then this choice may carry significant penalty.

A third choice is to seek to leave the system. While this choice may seem most prefereable, seeking to escape slavery could carry significant risk. The escape route may be physically challenging or even deadly. If caught trying to escape, the slave may face severe penalty including lethal sanction. There are other costs to consider as well. A successful exit may require the slave to leave valuable interests (e.g., family, friends, possessions, pursuits) behind. The decision to pursue escape implies that the utility of being outside the system is estimated to be higher than the risks/penalties of an unsuccessful attempt + the costs of interests left behind.

A fourth choice is to fight back. If a slave views liberty as an inalienable right, then that individual may choose to defend that right. The other alternatives elaborated above may be seen as undesirable compromises of the right to pursue one's interests unencumbered by forceful interference. Rather than comply, avoid, or run, the slave may choose to fight the hostile aggression of slavery operators and throw off the system.

The relative attractiveness of these choices will depend on various factors, including the utility that individuals place on liberty, the features and penalties associated with particular institutional designs, etc.

However these factors stack up, it is evident that several choices are available to slaves for coping with their situation. The assertion that slaves do not have choice, and in particular that they do not have a choice to try to leave the system, is plainly false. Depending on the institutional context, some slaves may not even view the escape alternative as preferable.

The fact that choices are available to slaves in no way diminishes the underlying evil of the institution: forcing some to work for the benefit of others.

2 comments:

dgeorge12358 said...

When the government takes part of what you earn in taxes, it in effect forces you to labor for the state. Just as the slave does not get to keep what he produces but must surrender it to the master, so must the taxpayer give up part of what he makes to the government. One might object that someone can avoid being taxed by refusing to work, but this is hardly a viable alternative. A slave system in which slaves could refuse to work, at the cost of not being supplied with any provisions, would hardly strike us as much of an improvement over simple slavery.
~David Gordon

dgeorge12358 said...

In a democracy, the majority acts as the slave master. So long as the individual cannot exercise full control over his own body, he is to that extent a slave. The fact that he, along with his fellow slaves, has a share in determining what he will do still leaves him unfree.

Democracy, in Rothbard’s view, is a system in which each person owns a share of everyone else. It is merely a variant of slavery. The choice cannot be evaded: one must either favor self-ownership or slavery.
~David Gordon summarizing Murray Rothbard