An Objection to the Argument Against Taxation and Imprisonment

An Objection to the Argument Against Taxation and Imprisonment
NAME
Word Count: 1345
1 Introduction
 In Taxation is Immoral, Korman argues that it is immoral for governments to levy tax and imprison their citizens. The argument is based on the premise that there is no true moral distinction between taxation and extortion and between imprisonment and kidnapping. The aim of this paper is to show why Korman’s argument fails to convincingly oppose taxation and imprisonment. Korman cites ownership as the reason for the government’s actions being immoral but fails to account for several factors. In section 1, I will present Korman’s argument against taxation and imprisonment and discuss the major assumptions underlying it. In section 2, I will present my main objection to Korman’s argument, and in section 3, I will address possible criticisms of my objection. 
2 The Arguments for Taxation and Imprisonment Being Immoral
Korman argues that governments do not have the moral right to levy taxes and imprison citizens, as these acts are no different from extortion and kidnapping. Korman buttresses this argument by comparing governments’ actions with those of a vigilante named Jasmine. This vigilante kidnaps some con men in her neighborhood and imprisons them in her basement as the punishment. Later, realizing that feeding prisoners is expensive, Jasmine extorts money from her neighbors for the prisoners’ upkeep (Korman, 110). Those who refuse to pay are imprisoned in the basement with the con men. Korman’s argument is based purely on the morality of actions. He suggests that the vigilante’s actions and governments’ actions are of same kind: immoral. Korman elaborates on this argument as follows (Korman, 112):
(A1) If there is no significant moral difference between two actions A and B, then if A is wrong, B is wrong.
(A2) It is immoral for Jasmine to extort money from and kidnap her neighbors.
(A3) There is no significant difference between Jasmine extorting money from and kidnapping her neighbors and a government taxing and imprisoning its citizens.
(A4) Therefore, it is wrong for a government to tax and imprison its citizens.
Premise A1 claims that when there is no significant moral difference between actions, they are equally right or wrong. Korman fails to note that there is a significant difference between vigilantism and a government’s protection of citizens. To accept A1 means ignoring the contextual moral differences and treating these actions as comparable. Premise A1 urges us to disregard moral differences between these actions and see them as equally wrong or right. Therefore, if the government’s actions are viewed as moral, then the vigilante’s actions cannot be deemed as immoral.
Premise A2 simply claims that extortion and kidnapping are wrong, as these acts violate society’s moral norms. However, convincing the reader in favor of premise A3 is challenging, as society has been conditioned to see the government as the legal ruler. The government’s act of taxing people is accepted as legal, whereas the act of demanding money, even for a useful service such as protection from con men, is considered immoral and called extortion—one is considered right and the other wrong because one is legal and the other illegal. Korman, however, asserts that they are the same because legal action is not necessarily moral, just as a moral action is not necessarily legal. For instance, some consider abortion to be immoral even though it is legal in some parts of the world. Korman claims that taxation and imprisonment by the government are immoral, albeit legal. One might note that the government officials are elected by the people to represent them, unlike the relationship between Jasmine and her neighbors. To overcome that difference, Korman has Jasmine elected by her neighbors to extort and...