Difference between mandatory service and taxation?

Here's a question I've been tossing back and forth for a little while now: Is there a difference (on a philisophical, moral, or ethical level) between some sort of mandatory national service (military or civil, whichever), and mandatory taxation? As a general rule, you earn money through work, and that eats up your time--what are we up to now, 4-6 months a year working to pay for taxes?--could it not be argued that a mandatory servce plan is just a more direct way for the government to conscript part of your time?

Did that make any sense, or do I really need to pop a couple valium and call back in the morning?

How would you pay people on mandatory service if no taxes were collected?

How would you pay for programs like Welfare, Medicare, infrastructure, military, and so on, without taxes?

Unless you're into slave labor, there's no way for mandatory service to take the place of taxes.

While what you're saying is true, it is not quite what I was solliciting opinions about. The first two comments you like assume I was advocating or suggesting a replacement of confiscatory taxing with a system of mandatory labor, which I am not; rather, I am asking if the two ideas are not equivalent expressions of the same idea: that government is entitled to some portion of our labor as compensation for providing those services necessary for a civilized society. Practically, there are HUGE differences, yes. But what about philisophical differences?

The power to tax is an original implied power in the constitution later clarified by the 16th ammendment, Slavery was once considered legal but was abolished by the 13th and 14th ammendments.

The power to tax is stated very explicitly in Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. While you make what is quite possibly a valid argument against the legality of a mandatory service plan, I have two qualms with your post:

1) I'm not aware of any court ruling or legislative definition of mandatory service per se as slavery. We DO have Selective Service, so the concept of mandatory service in some capacity in some circumstances is not impermissible necessarily. I'm not saying it's a fatal flaw to your argument, it's just a point where I think it could be stronger.

2) As I pointed out in response to the first post, I'm curious about your opinions as to any moral/ethical differences between the two ideas. If it's OK for the government to tax us, why, on grounds other than legal, is it NOT OK for the government to confiscate a more literal portion of our labor? In the case of taxes, we work for some entity, be it corporation, small business, or ourselves, earn money in exchange for that work, and promptly turn around and give the money to the government. The direct implication of that chain of events is that the time we worked to earn the money to pay the taxes was the government's; why wouldn't the government be justified in demanding that time that would ordinarily be spent on earning tax money be spent instead on some particular endeavor or labor, at its discretion?

You were correct about section 8, sorry I didn't have the full text in front of me.


slavery <'sleývərý>
noun
1 the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2 the subjection of a person to another person, esp. in being forced into work

3 the condition of being subject to some influence or habit

4 work done in harsh conditions for low pay

I can see this argument going two ways.

In the first, I argue that imposing a tax burden on a citizen which they are mandated to pay forces them into work, and is therefore analagous (sp?) to a system of mandatory service in terms of being equivalent to slavery, and therefore taxes are equally unconstitutional. In this argument we accept the above given definition of slavery.

In the second, I argue the same equivalency between taxation and mandatory service, and then go on to say that mandatory service cannot be considered slavery as long as it does not consume more of someone's life then their tax burden; were the situation otherwise, taxation would have to be considered a form of slavery because of the equivalency, and ergo the Constitution would have a glaring contradiction between Article 1 §8 and Amendment XIII. It would be of primary import to resolve this contradiction, and limiting the definition of slavery would be the easiest route.

Thoughts? Shall I argue the first, the second, both, or neither?

*edited for proper word usage and clarity*

I believe your hypothesis would hold true if:

1. A term of service was made mandatory for a specific class/category of people.

2. While working in this service, these persons contributed time which would ordinarily cost more than what (if anything) they receive as pay for their service.

3. The difference between their remuneration and the valuation of their service in the open market would be equivalent to a tax which they pay to society/the government.

and not some hellish and possibly deadly job you don't want to do.

Also the constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee your right to money. The freedom of action and thought rank much higher in any needs hierarchy than a false libertarian need/right to wealth.

Well, if there's no right to money, than money's not a necessary part of the system, right? And if there wasn't money, than the government would still need to derive its support from SOMETHING, right? Without money being a necessary component of the system, wouldn't that leave labor as the primary resource to tax, and therefore justify the utilization of the government's taxation authority to conscript labor?

Something is only worth the value of the labor that goes into it. We use money as means of transfering the labor value around. In this aspect it is both a very practical and natural way of doing things. In addition the "labor value" for two seperate activities such as forced chain-gang work in southern ditches and the time spent planting flowers might be viewed monetarily equivalent from a detached perspective although certainly not from the participants point of view. The transformation of labor into the form of monetary wealth eliminates these differences and allows people to contribute what the government demands of them in a less offensive manner.

What about a program that DIDN'T involve military service as an option, but just specified that some portion of the citizen's time be spent in community service?

So either we personally do our part of the disposal, or we symbolically do it via taxation.

Taxes are collected partially to pay the folks who dispose of the garbage.

Logic:
My work rewards me with income.
Part of that income goes to pay taxes.
Part of those taxes pay the garbage collector.

Conclusion:
Therefore, my work indirectly helps dispose of all the garbage.
The garbage collector directly helps dispose of all the garbage.

Btw, IMHO, mandantory service is much less efficient than taxation. You want folks who are skilled at something to work on what they are skilled at, not something someone else would be better at doing.

Are you _seriously_ accepting an argument I put forth? I don't know if my heart can take it! :P

But not otherwise :evilgrin:

I don't know what you're talking about. Could you explain further please.

By mandatory service, I initially meant a government-mandated program of service, wherein citizens are compelled to give their time and energy in either a civil or military role. This could be something along the lines of community service, involvement in civil administration, military positions, etc.

In some of the posts there have been limitations imposed as to what would be an acceptable variety of mandatory service; this generally has involved limiting a program of service to civil/community work, not the military, where one is significantly more likely to die.

The inspiration for this question came from both from some personal thought and the preponderance of threads about Kerry's service proposals. Looking at those threads would provide some illustrations to what I mean as well.

That's what I'm confused about.

He is proposing a federal program to include community service in a high school civics class as a graduation requirement. Federal programs are always based on funding. Accept the funding, do the program. Reject the funding, don't do the program. Howard Dean raised a bit of a ruckous in Vermont when he recommended the State reject LNCB because it wasn't adequately funded.

The rest of Kerry's programs are all strictly voluntary. So I don't see why people keep posting that they're mandatory. (Well, I DO see why, but I'll let it go)

I should have said that the types of service presented in those threads are good examples of the type of service I mean; the difference being that in my initial question, those services would be mandated. I don't mean to imply Kerry is actually for the creation of some type of mandatory labor, and if my post gave that impression, that is my error. Oops. I am not particularly familiar with his policies. Those threads do give some decent impressions of civilian/community service. That's all I meant.

Better? Or should I rephrase this to make more sense (I'm aware I can phrase things quite poorly, if I have, let me know)?