While most people adamantly reject involuntary servitude in theory, few truly oppose it in practice.  The concept of slavery is clear and universally condemned.  What about involuntary servitude that takes the form of partial slavery?  Supporting freedom should, in essence, be the opposite of supporting any form of enslavement.  Yet many who claim to be champions of liberty begin to rationalize their stance when the issue is reduced to a lesser degree of control.

Let’s take a step back and simplify the concept.  Imagine one human being owns another.  Then, the master announces that the slave is free—free to seek any job, free to move from one employer to another.  However, there’s a condition: the newly freed slave must send a portion of his income back to the former master.  Would the so-called freed man believe he has truly been liberated?  Absolutely not.  He would still see himself as enslaved, merely under a different name.  Now, what if that amount was less than half his income?  Is he any less a slave?  No—he remains a slave, working for the master for part of the year.

This scenario underscores a fundamental truth: if you support freedom, you support self-ownership.  In reality, we do not fully own ourselves, nor are we free from involuntary servitude.  The modern worker, subject to income tax, labors part of the year not for personal gain but for the state.  Factor in inflation, and the portion of time spent working for others increases.  Unlike the hypothetical master in the reductio, today’s system compels individuals to work for a collective entity—the government and its beneficiaries.

The income tax is a concept familiar to everyone, yet few question its moral implications.  Even more insidious is the system of withholding, a practice introduced as a temporary wartime measure.  The state often invokes “emergencies” to bypass constitutional protections, and once the emergency fades, these measures have a way of becoming permanent.  Withholding from one’s paycheck without consent is not merely a bureaucratic convenience—it is a quiet erosion of liberty.  The ratchet effect of such policies ensures that while some freedoms are eventually restored, never all of them.  With each crisis, liberty shrinks, never to be fully regained.

Withholding also stands in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination.  Yet, citizens are required to regularly report their income, revealing personal financial details under threat of punishment.  This parallels the modern state’s response to new “emergencies,” where temporary restrictions on freedom often morph into permanent structures.  As freedoms are slowly handed back, it creates the illusion of liberty, but the truth is we are left with less and less autonomy over time.

The true threat to freedom emerges most clearly when the state acts in the face of crisis.  When we lose sight of self-ownership, we inch closer to involuntary servitude—enslaved not by chains but by laws, policies, and systems that strip away our autonomy under the guise of necessity.