Topics Justice

Question Why is it okay for the government to take a person's money (which they probably got by selling their labor), but it is not okay for a government to force people to do labor?

Accepted:
July 21, 2009

Comments

According to political philosophers like John Locke, we all receive certain benefits from government that make us better off than we would be in the 'state of nature.' As long as government makes us 'better off' on the whole over the 'state of nature' Locke says that it is a just situation.

So, taking a certain amount of money through taxation is a small harm compared to the benefits of living in a stable and civilized society. In contrast, if we were enslaved by a government that 'forced us to work,' we would be worse off than in the 'state of nature.' In the state of nature Locke believes we have our life, liberty, and property.... any government that significantly infringes on these rights is unjust. I should point out that Locke seemed to think that even the limited taxation of his day was a 'necessary evil.' It is unlikely that he would have approved of our current degree of taxation.... of course, we also get benefits that Locke never would have imagined.

Question Why is it okay for the government to take a person's money (which they probably got by selling their labor), but it is not okay for a government to force people to do labor? Accepted:July 21, 2009

Question Why is it okay for the government to take a person's money (which they probably got by selling their labor), but it is not okay for a government to force people to do labor?

Accepted:
July 21, 2009