I have been arguing that Christians need to learn how to stand for liberty, but in order for this to happen they must first learn what it is. And when this happens, they will find themselves saying some outrageous things, like I am about to do.
Human rights — which everyone is automatically in favor of — are nonsensical and absurd unless we have a robust understanding of property rights. Property rights are human rights. In our age, we understand that human rights are a grand and glorious thing, but we are bewildered when it comes to the crucial matter of property. We are entirely in favor a birthday cakes, but are dubious and confused about the concept of cake batter.
First, some history. In 1772, the first statement by the colonial Committees of Correspondence was released. Samuel Adams is credited with being the primary force behind that statement, and it begins by itemizing the rights of the colonists as men. The first right was the right to life, the second was liberty, and the third was property. The echo we hear in the Declaration four years later is obvious. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is therefore grounded in our ability to own property.
But how may a free people, whose rights of property are duly respected, fund the costs of government? We all agree that taxes are a necessity, so how may taxes be levied on a free people? The fundamental principle is that because property is an unalienable right, this means that property can only be released by the consent of the owner, either directly or by his representative in the legislature. This is why taxation without representation is tyranny. The property that the government acquires from a people without their consent is therefore theft.
The whole point of government is the protection and preservation of property. If we call life and liberty our car, property is the fuel pump.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Note that governments do not grant us these rights. Our rights are given by our Creator. Governments are created by the people in order to secure the rights we already have. Governments do not bestow rights upon anyone. Their sole duty is to recognize and protect them.
Now in order to have these rights granted to us by a Creator — follow me closely here — there has to be a Creator. One of the first steps in robbing us of our heritage of political liberty was spreading the insidious and morbid joke of Darwinism. Little bits of protoplasmic froth on the ocean of evolutionary development don’t have any rights to speak of.
Now when government becomes destructive of the central point, the telos of protecting our property, certain things follow from their destructiveness.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
That’s a tall order, and a big responsibility. In subsequent installments, I am going to be making some very practical suggestions. But the first thing — and it is a very necessary first step — is to get our minds around what has happened to us. How is our current government funded? As Hillary Clinton once famously put it, it takes a pillage.There are many examples of this, but our staggering deficit is saddling our great grandchildren with a gargantuan debt, and our great grandchildren don’t have any representatives in Congress. They are being burdened with obligations they have not consented to. That means that our irresponsibility and prodigality are our instruments for enslaving them. Not only so, but some progressives among us have the immortal gall to say that we are doing what we are doing “for the children.”
We are currently living under a form of government that our Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent. We are told ad nauseam that we are a free people, while at the same time our administrative managers, our ruling elites, reserve to themselves the right to dictate to us pretty much anything that comes into their heads. They walk the corridors of power with the demeanor you might expect from such little gods.
When the colonists successfully faced down Parliament over the Stamp Act, and it was reluctantly withdrawn, Parliament at the same time passed the Declaratory Act, which in effect said that while Parliament was rescinding the law, they were not rescinding the principle. Just so you know, “we reserve the right to be tyrannical at any time.”
In this context, the first lesson we have to master is the lesson of understanding what is happening to us. We cannot put any solutions into effect unless and until we understand the problem. The problem is arbitrary administrative government, which is quite a different thing than representative free government.
Obviously it is a sin to steal, and it is not a sin to be stolen from. The first part is flat prohibited in Scripture (Ex. 20:15; Eph. 4:28), and the second part is intuitively obvious. Better to be wronged than to do wrong. But when making this point that it is not a sin to be stolen from, we are talking about someone sneaking into your garage at two in the morning and taking your bicycle. It is not wrong to be wronged in this way.
Our current sin is found in the way we are being stolen from. When God prohibits stealing, this assumes the institution of private property. When God prohibits adultery, what is in the background? Unless there is such a thing as marriage, you cannot have adultery. Adultery is defined as violation of marriage vows. In the same manner, stealing is violation of someone’s right to remain in possession of their own property.
So the requirement here is to learn a little blunt force honesty with yourself. It is not a sin to write a big check to the government. It is not a sin to be stolen from. It is a sin to write that check, so that a couple dozen bureaucrats can go down and pee it into the Potomac, and you tell yourself that you are just “doing your share.” That is the sin of being delusional when God has required us to be clear-headed. It is a sin to believe that our government is anything other than a pirate ship of the thieves, by the thieves, and for the thieves. It is a sin to go on believing the lies when we have no good reason to.
In short, the first step for the Christian taxpayer is the same as what you find in addiction recovery groups. First you have to admit you have a problem.
Ahhh, the first comment calm before the storm…
“The fundamental principle is that because property is an unalienable right, this means that property can only be released by the consent of the owner….”
There is no such thing as voluntary taxation. What you’re describing here is service fees. This is consistent with anarchism.
If we leave the quote whole, then we answer the objection to “voluntary taxation.”
Merriam-Webster FTW:
tax (n.) – “a charge usually of money IMPOSED by authority on persons or property for public purposes
tax (tr.)- “to REQUIRE someone to pay a tax”
(Caps mine, obviously.)
Voluntary taxes are those that are levied “by the consent of the [taxpayer] either directly or by his representative in the legislature.” You can go uber-libertarian if you want, but you’re neglecting how the language of taxation and how taxation itself has worked historically. I’m not denying that our paying taxes is under coercion, but, if those taxes are levied lawfully, according to my consent either directly or indirectly, then they are in fact voluntary. That’s how a representative government works. None of that is to say that our government does in fact work lawfully, according to direct or indirect… Read more »
Laying the blame for rejection of God on Darwinism is silly. Lots of people rejected God before Darwin said a word, and lots of faithful followers of the God of Jesus Christ accept some form of evolutionary theory. There isn’t the least bit of conflict between any purely scientific form of evolutionary theory and our God. (Of course, some atheists have tried to add philosophy/religion that doesn’t belong to the scientific theories, and those misplaced scribbles should be rejected by scientists and Christians both.) Anyone who rejects God because of evolution, or who rejects evolution because of God, is clearly… Read more »
Fantastic post…the problem is out of control….how does one stop it?…..
Tent pegs through the temple.
Wesley, if it’s coerced, it’s not voluntary. Those terms have the exact opposite meanings. If I give someone consent to reach into my pocket and take my money, there’s no need for them to have a gun (that is to say, to use coercion). The only reason they would need a gun is if they want it and I don’t consent. Moreover, I think it’s fair to say that forcing me to “consent” or be shot to death or locked in a cage would fall under the category of “coercion.” Tell me where I’m going wrong. I’m happy to be… Read more »
@Jonathan Franzone
I’ll agree “Laying the blame for rejection of God on Darwinism is silly.” if you agree that once we drop “the” in that sentence it is not altogether silly.
Bear in mind “some form of evolutionary theory” is not necessarily the same thing as Darwinism.
I know JohnM. I once saw a list of 14 different theories that people might be referring to when the reference the “theory of evolution”. I agreed with something like 9 of them and rejected the other 5 (all of which made either unproven scientific claims or unfounded philosophical/theological claims). It pays to define exactly what one is talking about. However, I’ve found in past discussions on this blog that Pastor Wilson and many of the commenters reject all forms of evolutionary science, and tend to call them all “Darwinism”, regardless if there is any objectionable philosophical or theological material… Read more »
@Jonathan Franzone, in all honesty how much have you studied the science? I don’t believe in Darwinism/evolution because of the science. Even were I not a Christian, I could not be Darwinist, of any stripe.
Oddly enough it was evolutionary theory which was a key to my coming to Christ. I have a B.S. In Bio and and a minor in chem. The biology courses were strictly evolutionary. I can distinctly remember it was during the course in embryology that it came to me that none of what they’d been teaching me could have happened they way they were theorizing. I thoroughly rejected evolutionary theory. It was part of my journey towards a living God.
Ben – when God commanded Moses to take money from the Israelites (whether as a one off thing or as an ongoing thing) was this taxation? Was it just?
Do you see any role for government? Has God ordained the government to do any function? If so, how should they be funded?
Josh – God also commanded the Israelites to wipe out entire populations, including children, in order to gain more land for themselves. It would not normally be considered just for a nation to do this, but Israel was an exception because they were under the direct theocratic rule of God. The point is, the two situations are not analogous. If by “government” you simply mean a group of people in charge of certain vital civil functions to maintain order in society, then of course I see this as necessary. What I don’t believe is necessary is the monopoly on force… Read more »
Just an observation for the confused commenters here: I believe the following quote from the above article is the key to understand the whole of it.
“Note that governments do not grant us these rights. Our rights are given by our Creator. Governments are created by the people in order to secure the rights we already have. Governments do not bestow rights upon anyone. Their sole duty is to recognize and protect them.
Now in order to have these rights granted to us by a Creator — follow me closely here — there has to be a Creator.”
Melody,
Excellent.
Like The Man said: “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female…”
The arrogance of humans is always astounding. They insist that because they do not know how something could be, that it therefore cannot be. Creating light because He wanted to, by speaking…
Knowing that should really cause pause.
The Bible simply does not authorize the level of taxation that we have. Samuel warned the people about the government they wanted, and how it would take one tenth of their produce, and thereby enslave them.
1 Samuel 8:17
He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
Ben: that’s a valid point that Israel was unique – though using the example of something that was unique to the start of Israel as a nation (and not a part of it’s continual rules) was probably not the best example to chose. To answer your question, I think government ought to punish crimes, where crimes are determined according to God’s word (something which won’t necessarily be an easy thing to determine in all cases). For instance it is government which ought to enforce “voluntary contractual arrangements.” In an anarchist system who stops someone from breaking their contract? What punishment… Read more »
Sorry. Its a pain I can’t edit appalling uses of “it’s”
If I recall correctly, Samuel shared some words from the Lord about taxation and a whole host of other pitfalls that accompany serving a king. But, as I hear today, the response was that our neighbors have this and that…we want the same. Forget the cost!
How about income tax and sales taxes? A lot of Tribes have used start up money to fund tribally owned businesses I know that a lot of the Colville Tribe’s money comes from a dam on thrir property
Josh, regarding Israel, I was just making the point that it’s not correct to suggest that a particular action undertaken by the ruling class of Nation X is morally permissible because God commanded Israel to take that same action. What if America’s ruling class decided to send in soldiers to kill every man, woman, and child in Baghdad? That would be a one time thing, but obviously you wouldn’t consider that justified just because Israel did it. “To answer your question, I think government ought to punish crimes, where crimes are determined according to God’s word….” I don’t know precisely… Read more »
Ben says, “I can’t imagine you’d advocate for making adultery or fornication illegal.” However, both activities are still illegal in most states. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/us/adultery-an-ancient-crime-still-on-many-books.html?_r=0 As to taxation, there was no income tax in the US until after the Civil War, “In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid… Read more »
Melody, I feel you’re being coy by bringing up the fact that there are some old laws on the books in some states that no one cares about. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that I don’t think Josh (or you for that matter) would ADVOCATE for making those things illegal, or if they are illegal, for actually enforcing those laws. You’re right about the income tax. My personal opinion is that it’s insane that if I hire you to fix my roof for 20 pieces of silver, just as I reach my hand into… Read more »
Ben,
Since you believe that ” the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.”, what do you do with:
“Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Thanks Ben (and thanks Doug for this series, I’m really enjoying it and looking forward to see where it will go). Just a few quick points as time is short: Yes I agree that some sins should not be crimes (and for completeness sake, it’s worth adding that something that isn’t a sin ought not to be a crime). I think I would advocate for adultery and fornication to be illegal. If we’re going to have a category we call “crimes” (i.e. sins punishable by the government) I can’t think of a legitimate reason to make theft and murder a… Read more »
You can’t argue for “Voluntary Taxation” where if you choose to not pay your taxes, unless you also argue for “Voluntary Government” where anyone can choose to opt out. i.e. “Sovereign Citizen” types that argue the Constitution does not apply to them since they didn’t personally sign it.
These same “Sovereign Citizens” that Opt Out of certain taxes would also be Stealing when they then drive down Roads paid for by other people’s Tax Dollars or by the mere act of living behind the Fortress of Protection the Police/Military provides in the chaotic fallen world in which we live.
With decent gun rights and a purely defensive policy, I see no reason for a standing army. Ever heard of Nukes? Ballistic Missles? 9/11? Newsflash, its not 1600 anymore, we live under consta nt threats and are protected by the Fortress our Military and Intelligence services provide us. Since you are going down this path though, Do you think Individual Citizens should be able to Own Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missles, personally? Say, U.S. Citizen Muhammed down the street request to own his very own Nuclear Weapon would you support his “Right” to own the same WMD that the US… Read more »
@Jonathan Franzone, Any origins theory that allows for death in creation before sin is an origins theory that can be rejected out of hand (cf. Rom 8:18-23). Death is an enemy (1 Cor 15:26), one that was introduced by the first Adam (Rom 5:12); one that will be destroyed by the last Adam. Its beginning was by one man’s actions at a particular point in history, just as its end will be by one Man’s actions at a particular point in history. So sure, many Christians reject that reality. But the fact remains that death is the product of Adam’s… Read more »
Please tell me that tall these posts are going to wind up in book form sometime. This is some great stuff.
@RFB I”ll refer you to this article. Below I’ll paste what I think are the best parts. http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/#sthash.H4WKPb3Q.dpbs Regarding submitting to the government: “…… how would the interpretation change if one replaced the words “governing authorities,” “rulers,” and the personal pronouns with the names of the emperor and kings of that time, namely Nero, Herod, or Agrippa? The text would read as follows: 1 Let every person be subject to Nero and Herod; for there is no authority except from God, and Nero and Herod have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists Nero and Herod resists what God… Read more »
@Josh “I can’t think of a legitimate reason to make theft and murder a crime but not adultery and fornication.” The reason is that adultery and fornication are not a violation of the non-aggression principle, which just states that you shouldn’t initiate violence against someone else, either to do them bodily harm or take their property. If we start legislating all morality, and not just when it involves aggression against someone else, it would result in absurdities. “and I’m not sure you’re arguing they would do everything” In a nutshell, what I’m arguing is that all human interaction, whether it… Read more »
@RFB I do have a few questions I’d like to address to you regarding those verses: If you use these verses as an argument for paying taxes, at what point does it go from being legitimate taxation to theft? What percentage is it specifically? And how could you even go about arriving at that percentage? Wouldn’t it just be arbitrary? A common idea in American Christians is that all that the government demands from you that doesn’t violate your conscience is valid and ought to be given to it, not just to avoid punishment, but because it’s actually the right… Read more »
Ben wrote: “Suppose I hire you to fix my roof for 20 one-ounce silver coins, and just as I reach into my bag and pull out the coins to give to you, someone steps in between us and demands eight of them for purposes that have nothing to do with us, with the threat of jail or death. Do you really think those verses teach that this would be morally acceptable? If not, what’s fundamentally different between my example and how things actually are?” Ben is referring to something like a sales tax, which he intends to serve as argumentum… Read more »
I think I was also attacked by an appalling use of “it’s”. Must be something contagious.
Fire and Mirth – I understand the theory of evolution quite well. I had already read and studied on the theory extensively before going to university, but I also graduated with a B.S. in Biophysics, with distinction. Besides the typical coursework in biology, microbiology, biochemistry, etc., I also took a course specifically on the early stages of the origin and evolution of life, which included reading 70+ primary papers on the subject, as well as a course on the history of Christianity and Science in the west (cotaught by a Christian Chemistry professor and an Agnostic History professor). I’ve also… Read more »
Jeff S – I have a close friend who had a story very similar to yours. During a high school biology course he realized that the evolution stuff just couldn’t be true, and that realization led him down the path to Christianity. He was involved in our Christian fellowship in college. Sadly, during his junior year in college, after more coursework, he understood the evidence better and realized that evolution was true, and ended up leaving his Christianity behind. His faith had relied too much on the science, and once the science became believable, the original reason for his faith… Read more »
Ugh, sorry, error up above. I wrote “biochemistry” when I meant to write “organic chemistry”.
Here is a nice blog on interpreting the Bible and creationism, though it’s focused on the argument from Genesis.
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/science-christianity/st-augustine-on-creation-and-evolution
Aside from hijacking the thread to evangelize for evolution, did anyone else notice that Jonathan has actually offered us his personal testimony, credentials, anecdotes, and appeals to authority instead of science? For someone who writes on and on about the unavoidable science of evolution, he’s offered precious little to go on. He doesn’t seem to have offered us his definition of evolution either. So it’s not clear what he’s even evangelizing for, exactly. Is Jonathan saying that abiogenic processes produced life? Is Jonathan saying that common descent is an unavoidable established scientific fact? Is Jonathan saying that genetic copy errors… Read more »
Katecho, the only reason I gave those details was in response to a direct question FOR THOSE DETAILS from Fire and Mirth. And you’ll notice that before I did it, other people gave their own personal background as well. The rest of your post is just a bunch of strawmen posing as hypothetical questions, and it has nothing to do with me. I believe in the interrelation of pretty much all species to each other, and I believe in an old earth and a progression of species. I believe that plants and animals were on earth living and dying many… Read more »
p.s. – I’ve offered tidbits regarding the science of evolution in plenty of other threads on this subject, as recently as yesterday, when necessary to directly contradict a false assertion. And you know this, since you responded to those comments. So you’re attempt to tar me just because I didn’t mention science in this particular thread is, like everything you say about me, a purposeful misrepresentation. Of course, I’ve never laid out the entire theory, for obvious reasons. You, and every commenter here, is well aware that no one is going to learn a major scientific theory from the comments… Read more »
“Are you trying to force the text to say that no living things (animals, plants, bacteria) died before adam and eve sinned?”
@Jonathan Franzone – You are using scientific terms to define what life is and not what the Bible says. Lev 17:11 states that the life is in the blood, so plants and bacteria would not be life and their “death” would be irrelevant when it comes to the issue of death and sin. This is why only the shedding of blood can cover sins.
@Ben.
I enjoyed your heuristic of substituting Nero and Herod’s names into Romans 13. I have on my ‘todo’ list to reduce Pastor Wilson’s ‘On The Lam For Jesus’ post into a concise form that I can memorize and your example should prove to be a useful addition to it.
cheers.
t
@Katecho
I look forward to your continued development of the representatively vs individualistically theme.
btw, do you herd cats? (:
Jonathan wrote: “I believe in the interrelation of pretty much all species to each other, and I believe in an old earth and a progression of species.” “Pretty much all species”? What happened to Jonathan’s scientific confidence? I actually do believe in the interrelation of every last species to each other through a single Creator. This belief doesn’t require us to accept any dogmas of evolution though, so Jonathan needs to be more specific about this particular claim. Science is very specific about its repeatable, verifiable observations. Jonathan wrote: “I believe that plants and animals were on earth living and… Read more »
I prefer crickets. :)
I may not be posting for a few days though.
@Johnathan. Earlier, I wondered if the “on pirate ship governance” thread would shift off-topic to ‘evolution’ and hoped not. However, maybe God is trying to teach us something. Katecho asked some very simple questions that you did not answer directly. Is Jonathan saying that abiogenic processes produced life? Is Jonathan saying that common descent is an unavoidable established scientific fact? Is Jonathan saying that genetic copy errors is a mechanism that can sustain increases of information and increases in ordered complexity through eons of time? 1. Abiogenesis. 2. Common Descent. 3. The efficacy of genetic copy errors in avoiding entropy.… Read more »
David R – so is your position (made by combining two short verses and taking them completely out of context in order to make a point about early earth biology that neither of them is making) that bacteria, plants, fungi, protists, and all animals without blood were living and dying for however long before Adam and Eve sinned, but that animals with blood were eternal until that moment? That sharks and spiders and snakes and tyrannosaurs and all the rest were vegetarians until that moment? And that animals without blood are qualitatively different than animals with blood, such that, say,… Read more »