Since I don’t want to be mistaken for a supporter of involuntary servitude, I’ll depart from the example of my boyhood idol (pictured above) and refrain from holding Dan at gunpoint. But I will follow his example by posing a few riddles:
1) If it’s really involuntary, why does everyone vote to continue if?
2) Locke said it was a contradiction in terms to say people consent to be ruled by an absolute authority, because it amounted to saying you consented to be ruled against your will. Isn’t your claim liable to a similar charge? Isn’t it the point of HT that governance by moral consensus is the alternative to involuntary servitude?
3) If we are broadly Lockean and/or Jeffersonian in our political philosophy, does your position imply the U.S. government is a tyranny?
These may seem to some to be three different ways of asking the same question but they’re not; they’re distinct but related questions.
4) Bonus question: Suppose Social Security was converted to a mandatory private savings program, where everyone is required to save a government-determined amount of money until old age, but you still own your own money. Would it still be involuntary servitude?
While we wait for answers, a note to appease the fans: yes, I know that’s not really a gun he’s holding. It’s fake. He used it to trick Batman into arresting him when he’d done nothing wrong, so he could charge Batman with false arrest and require him to appear in court and reveal his identity. Happy?