"But the toll on your own people has real consequences that you can prevent. Killing someone is the sort of thing that makes you question your own right to life."

Agreed. We never consider the toll this takes on the executioner. How about the cost to society? The people that have to witness death will have long term psychological issues. How about the cost to society when we realize we've executed the wrong person? The downsides to our barbaric practice of executions are huge, and quantifiable.

What's not quantifiable is the motivation for keeping the death penalty. The only justification after debunking all other reasons is belief. People "believe" that killing is the only punishment that fits the crime. We should not be in the practice of making life or death decisions based on belief.

>Killing someone is the sort of thing that makes you question your own right to life.

This is part of what I would mean by saying life is hallowed. I don't think it a red herring. Killing does damage to the killers as well as those killed. To choose it under less than terrible necessity is a mistake.

I hear what you're saying, but in English-speaking Christianity, the word "hallowed" is strongly associated with religious obligation. And invoking God just takes the conversation down a highly polarized path.

You must use a different dictionary. Merriam-Webster lists:

    1: holy, consecrated <the church stands on hallowed ground>

    2: sacred, revered <the university's hallowed halls> <hallowed customs>

The second is a perfectly reasonable usage.

>You don't "have to" pay taxes. Someone's going to come after you, but they're not going to kill you over it.

While they may not kill you directly for paying taxes, if they come for you, or your property, and you attempt to defend yourself they will kill you

Thus I believe that is in fact being killing because you did not pay taxes and that also means you in fact you "have to" pay taxes

You should really define "defend yourself".

Sure, if an IRS agent comes with a policeman, and you pickup a gun and start waving it, you may get shot. But if you just don't give money to the IRS, nobody is going to actively try to kill you. Your life gets much, much worse, but you aren't killed.

IRS agents, or more likely local tax agents will attempt to take your stuff, i.e your home, land, etc to cover your "debt" to them

if you attempt to defend your property from their theft then you will be shot.

So yes they will actively kill you.

If you owe taxes, the government's actions to reclaim those don't constitute theft.

If anyone is stealing, in this hypothetical where you aren't paying your taxes, it's you, from the rest of us.

Why do you believe you have a ethical claim on my labor? Do you own me?

While there can be a case for Land taxation, there is no ethical claim for Income Taxation.

Then why is land taxation ok, but not income?

With any good or service, there is the same economic trace back to government subsidies. Your income comes from the trading of goods or services.

If you fail to pay your taxes to the government, and the government takes your land – you have to ask, where did you get your land from?

I own a house, if you trace back the chain of land ownership, the original title was issued by the government. (Where did the government get that land from? They stole it from the indigenous people.) When the government gave the first titleholder the land, they granted that title subject to the understanding that taxes would be paid and laws would be obeyed (including taxes and laws introduced after the original title was issued.) You can't give better title than what you have, so every subsequent owner, up to myself, has inherited the same obligation to pay taxes and obey laws. If the government's right to tax me is invalid, then my ownership of the land my house is built on is invalid too.

This would be valid if we were only talking about taxation applied to the actual land.

The scenario I described was the IRS taking your land to cover taxation based on your Income, IRS does not tax land in any way. They tax income and other transactions but not land.

The IRS however can take your home, car, or any other personal property you own to cover income based taxation.

I actually agree with your assessment for pure land taxation (not to include any structures, or other items you places upon the land)

Taxing land value I believe has a ethical foundation for the reasons you stated, taxing income has no ethical foundation for those same reasons. If you believe the government has the right to tax land because it has or once had an ownership interest over that land, then the only possible reason you could agree that the government has the right to tax income is if you believe the government has a ownership interest over your person.

When the government gave or sold the land to the first titleholder, it was not giving or selling absolute rights over the land – that is sovereignity, which governments usually don't sell or give up (although occasionally they do, e.g. Russia selling Alaska to the US) – it was giving or selling only partial rights. Even if it labelled the transaction "freehold", I think in reality all real estate is actually leasehold, with the government as the landlord, subject to lease conditions (laws) and rent due (taxation). It retained the ultimate ownership of the land, and only sold/gave a limited and subordinated form of ownership.

Suppose someone wants to lease land, and make the rent proportional to the tenant's income. You might think it is an odd arrangement, but freedom of contract implies if landlord and tenant agree on this it is binding. Now, that essentially describes income tax. The government owns all its territory, it has leased it to the residents of that territory, it has made the rent (tax) proportional to income. If you don't pay your rent, the government can seize your moveable property, just like how your landlord can seize your moveable property if you don't pay your rent. (Unpaid rent is a debt, and its collection can be compelled through the same legal processes as any other debt.)

That argument doesn't follow at all.

Well, you're figuratively killed in prison.

You're not figuratively killed in prison. You're held for punishment.

And what happens when you get out? For some, they can never get back into normal life and end up in a cyclic life of crime/prison

> Your life gets much, much worse, but you aren't killed.

As I said, you are not figuratively killed in prison.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're life on the streets is over due to a cyclic prison/crime cycle, how is your day to day life not over?

Well first, you're assuming that everyone that goes to prison gets stuck in that cycle. Prison does you no favors, but I've seen first hand that the cycle does not always happen.

Secondly, prison does not end your day to day life. There are many people serving time who will get out and be able to go on with their life. Not everyone who goes to prison gets a life sentence. And even for those who are doing long stints, they very well do have a life worth living. Prison sucks, but saying someone who's doing a stint (or multiple) doesn't have a life worth living is a akin to telling them to commit suicide.

I understand you were probably engaging in hyperbole, but it's clear (to me at least) that you probably have not encountered many (or any) people who have gone to prison. Your view of prison inmates is probably a combination of a few tv shows. As someone who has a better view I'll say that prisoners do have lives worth living, they do have rights, and (when prison is done correctly) they should come out better on the other side.

Prison is shitty, and leaves a stigma on people that is hard to shake. But prisoner is in that situation, not of that situation.