“Because we have larceny in our hearts, we call it greed when someone wants to keep the money he made, and we don’t call it greed when we want to take it from him” (Rules for Reformers, p. 173).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Theology That Bites Back
Pastor Wilson, as I know you’ve addressed this topic elsewhere in full, please point me to the appropriate blog post, book, etc. that illustrates the line you see drawn between “pay unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (i.e.; legitimate taxation) and “governmental greed with the full support of a SWAT team and prison” (i.e. illegitimate taxation). I think that’s really what this is all about. You’re not saying that there should be NO taxation, right?
Doug is a minimal statist, or “minarchist.” We’ve had some discussions about this before. I believe there was a post in which he established that 10% was the maximum tax rate before it would be considered theft, because the tithe was sufficient for the Israelites to carry out the governing duties in the OT. While I appreciate the efforts of Doug and others to establish some kind of way to draw that line (usually in order to demonstrate how unfair the current tax rates are), these efforts seem completely arbitrary in our day. There really is only one way to… Read more »
“Anything above 0% is immoral” is the ONLY line that makes logical sense? That actually makes NO sense. Taxation, whatever one thinks of it and whatever rates apply upon whatever sources, is the mode by which a government legally acquires funding for its operations. Even Christ acknowledged this fact, regardless of your opinion of Him. The question thus raised by thinking Christians is two-fold: 1) do our current governments, at every level, have the legal authority to demand the taxes that they do, and 2) is there ever a point at which these legal demands become confiscatory, burdensome, and thus,… Read more »
Malachi, which comes first — figuring out what God says is correct or what our constitution says?
Both must be done. Reformational Christians are interested in applying Scripture as the only rule by which we know how we should live. And this is how we would know whether our government has drawn good and right boundaries for itself, regardless of whether it is staying within them.
But of course we must also know what to do when they are out of bounds.
No one can even pretend to know the exact amount of taxation that is legitimate (granting for the sake of argument that it’s above zero). “…[D]o our current governments, at every level, have the legal authority to demand the taxes that they do(?)” I’m not concerned with what’s legal or not. Whether or not some particular tax is permitted according to the Constitution is irrelevant to me, because the Constitution has no legitimate moral authority over any of us (seeing as how it was ratified illegally in order supersede the far less tyrannical Articles of Confederation). What matters is what’s… Read more »
Ben wrote: Does the Bible say the state is always necessary? … The Bible never forbids a stateless society. It says to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but nowhere is it implied (as far as I can tell), that there must always be a Caesar to render something to. Ben has attempted this line of argument before. The problem is that Scripture does specifically say that God gave the sword to the civic magistrate, and it connects the authority of the state with God’s authority. This is no different than parental authority, which God has also established. Ben’s… Read more »
What I’ve said many times before is, why do the civil authorities necessarily have to acquire the means of bearing the sword against violent people by taking money by force from nonviolent people? Why not service fees rather than taxation, in other words? In my island example, which I’ve used before, do those people absolutely have to introduce some element of coercion against those who don’t want to pay for the roads, the police, the fire department, etc., wherein they will throw those people in cages until they pay? The fundamental question is, what criteria do we use to establish… Read more »
Ben wrote: do those people absolutely have to introduce some element of coercion Ben is still avoiding that God introduced the element of coercion when He gave the sword of His wrath to the civic magistrate as a “minister of His wrath”. I wonder if Ben is able to acknowledge that God actually did this, or if Ben is wondering whether God necessarily had to do it that way. Scripture says that He did do it, at any rate. Ben wrote: The fundamental question is, what criteria do we use to establish legitimate state authority (assuming of course that there… Read more »
“Ben is still avoiding that God introduced the element of coercion when He gave the sword of His wrath to the civic magistrate as a “minister of His wrath”. I wonder if Ben is able to acknowledge that God actually did this, or if Ben is wondering whether God necessarily had to do it that way.” I’ve said nothing against the idea of the governing authorities of a society having the power to use coercion as a minister of God’s wrath. The only issue I’ve raised is how such authorities ought to be funded. I don’t see why this aspect… Read more »
Ben wrote: I’ve said nothing against the idea of the governing authorities of a society having the power to use coercion as a minister of God’s wrath. The only issue I’ve raised is how such authorities ought to be funded. I don’t see why this aspect of what I’m saying is so controversial. Ben may want to go review his own comments. He has definitely advanced a stateless vision, free of any coercion, and invited us to ponder whether we even need a state at all, and, if we do, where it might get any real authority (as if God… Read more »
There’s no contradiction in what I’ve been saying about having a stateless society in which the civic magistrate still has the ability to use coercion. The only type of coercion I’m speaking out against is that which is inflicted upon innocent people in order to fund the civic magistrate. I’m not a pacifist at all. Of course in a free society, there will need to be coercion against those who steal, defraud, or initiate violence. But in a free society, those charged with carrying out that task will have been selected voluntarily by those under their “jurisdiction.” Their duties will… Read more »
Ben wrote: “No one can even pretend to know the exact amount of taxation that is legitimate (granting for the sake of argument that it’s above zero).” In regard to parental authority, this argument is like saying: “No one can even pretend to know the exact amount of chores that are legitimate (granting for the sake of argument that it’s above zero).” Therefore, are children off the hook from doing chores? Scripture nowhere defines how much chores they must do, right? Is it possible for parents to require too much of their children? Certainly. But we first acknowledge that they… Read more »
In that quote, I was responding to this statement by Malachi: “And since Scripture has given us the concept of Tithe for the Church’s needs (and our own spiritual edification), I don’t think it unreasonable or arbitrary to draw that same line (10%) for our collective governments.” If Malachi had stated that parents should have their children doing chores 10% of the time they’re at home, then I would have made the exact same statement about chores. But obviously Scripture doesn’t put a number to it, as you said. So we’re in agreement there. But ultimately the comparison of chores… Read more »
This is all very good.
I would be interested in seeing how your ideal society would be organized including delegated authority and funding for the same.
Yeah, me too. No one knows what a free society would look like. I certainly can’t predict it; that would go against the whole idea of decentralizing the planning of society in the first place.
Ben, I’m curious about your reason for concluding that the Constitution was illegally ratified. Did a little surfing and found this article by Michael P Farris J.D., of the Home School Legal Defense Association:
http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring%202011/Constitution%20Illegally%20Adopted.pdf
Where does he go astray?
The Articles of Confederation stated that each state was to retain its sovereignty. The Constitution, however, only required 9 of the 13 states to ratify it. Legal ratification would have required all 13.
Farris addresses this charge beginning on page 6 of the article I linked to. Where does he go wrong?
I wonder if he got this from Rushdoony. Rushdoony says 10% is the max as well.
One way of seeing the difference between legitimate government and theft is to remember what Romans 13, Genesis 9, and other passages say about government. They describe it as government wielding the sword to commend the just and punish the wicked–really primarily about judging, police, and military force as needed. They do not mention, or commend, the Roman practices of bread and circuses, though certainly Peter and Paul would have been dreadfully aware of these phenomena. It parallels the doctrine Adam Smith advanced of “public goods”; things everyone needs, but no one will pay for. Police and military generally fit… Read more »
“It parallels the doctrine Adam Smith advanced of “public goods”; things everyone needs, but no one will pay for.” Why is it assumed that no one will pay for these things? If the military and police disband tomorrow, would the nonviolent members of society, which comprise the vast majority of the population, do nothing to come together and establish private means of protection? The answer should be obvious. There are many situations in which people hire private security to protect their own property because the public police do not, in their mind, provide this service adequately on their own. Why… Read more »
There are some situations in which people hire private security and even private armies, especially in wealthy gated communities, but the general tendency can be found in the book of Judges and into 1 Samuel, where the God-ordained responsibility of men ages 18-46 to arm themselves for the nation’s militia was ignored, and every man did as he pleased. See also the usual record of U.S. militia; it’s not pretty. I would argue that Smith, as well as Romans 13, well characterize a society where a quorum of citizens either are unregenerate altogether, or are “carnal Christians” unwilling to take… Read more »
Militias can be voluntary or coercive. Moreover, I don’t think it’s good to compare OT Israel with our society, since they were a theocracy lead by Yahweh himself, and therefore could be assured that the wars they were engaging in, even the admittedly brutal ones that involved killing all the children, were just wars. In our society, it’s just the opposite; we can be 99% assured, based on the track records of our evil leaders, that any war we engage in will be, to one degree or another, unjust and aggressive.
Uh…WWII? Korea?
And the fact of the matter is that the track record of militia in major battles is utterly miserable. On the field of battle, disciplined professionals win out over enthusiastic amateurs.
Can’t really have professional soldiers without taxes, unless you’re going to hire mercenaries, which generally also doesn’t end well for the hirers.
The reason the politicians got involved in those wars was simple: To steal from the productive in order to enrich themselves and their friends in politically favored industries
“Can’t really have professional soldiers without taxes, unless you’re going to hire mercenaries, which generally also doesn’t end well for the hirers.”
Do you have any evidence for these assertions?
At which point I can say that the reason people don’t want government is so they can do whatever they want and the devil take the hindmost. Makes about as much sense.
“Do you have any evidence for these assertions?”
Given that no government has ever been able to haul together a professional army without paying them, and that governments require taxes to get money, then yes.
As to the point about mercenaries, I recommend studying the condottiere, or Machiavelli.
Ben, the point of bringing up the Old Testament example was to demonstrate human nature. Even in a society where losing a battle meant your wife and daughters were raped while you and your sons would be killed (or have your right eye put out), they couldn’t be persuaded to put some weapons together and train with your neighbors to learn to use them.
It might also be pointed out that whether militia service is voluntary or mandatory, it still represents a tax on your time and effort. No?
Whether militia service is voluntary or mandatory makes all the difference in the world. When you go to work, you don’t say that your boss is “taxing” your time and effort just because you’d rather stay home and do nothing. Taxation means coercion. You’re boss isn’t forcing you at gunpoint to be there. Fundamentally this is no different from serving in a voluntary (i.e. service fee-based) military. It’s no different from any other job.
“Moreover, I don’t think it’s good to compare OT Israel with our
society, since they were a theocracy lead by Yahweh himself, and
therefore could be assured that the wars they were engaging in, even the
admittedly brutal ones that involved killing all the children, were
just wars.”
A close reread of Judges, Kings and Chronicles might change your opinion on that.
No, I understand what you’re saying; the point is that if God in fact did call them to engage in this or that war, then those men who met the criteria for being a soldier would have been required to join. I wasn’t referring to situations in which Israel went rogue. In those cases, it would be morally obligatory to not engage in violence, to be a conscientious objector, since it was not authorized by their King.
In the US… Aren’t we Caesar?
Thank you. “We the people” “it is their right, it is their duty” and all that good stuff. That’s why we (I think, duty bound) to keep trying to figure out a way to not be usurped or assassinated till completely overtaken.