>I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system.

The law already does. In the former case, we're talking about debts established in the course of various financial transactions between private parties. In the latter case, we're talking about fees (or more specifically in this case, what would colloquially be known as fines) that are imposed by the state for punitive and administrative reasons. Skipping out on the former will (generally) result in ruined credit scores and civil suits; skipping out on the latter is an civil or criminal offense against the state.

>even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things!

The term 'debtor's prison' is a loaded term, perjoratively describing historical cases of imprisonment of persons for failing to pay private debts. Barring edge cases (i.e., fraud), this has largely been eliminated in the USA. Imprisonment for failing to pay fines imposed for offenses against the law, on the other hand, is not a practice that has ever been (nor is likely to be) eliminated. And I don't buy that there are 'good reasons to get rid of such things', but that's a different discussion than the one at hand.

>Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems.

Be that as it may, it's not germane to whether or not it's okay for the state to use creative ways to collect on previous assessed fines.

>I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest!
Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't.

Actually, I do think it's justified. Dealing with low level tickets is hardly difficult or burdensome, and the state has excellent reasons to create strong disincentives for dodging punishment. Further, paying a steep premium for irresponsible handling of your incident seems far preferable to serving actual jail time, or facing some other less dignified form of corporal punishment (as you might receive in a less westernized nations).

> they are extorting people because they are behind on payments

There's no extortion going on. It's implicit that the state's agents possess the means to impose compliance with the law; in cases where the law dictates that individuals pay a fine, it's reasonable for the state's agents to collect that fine or initiate further punishment for noncompliance with the law. Given the choice between jail + the courts and paying a high fee (some of which is to cover the costs associated with payment collection), a 25% premium hardly seems unreasonable.