Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[steve]

Paidion,

I had the same thoughts as Peter. I think some of the examples you gave really do constitute wrongful confiscation. I objected to being taxed for public schools, since none of my children ever attended them, and I was philosophically opposed to them. However, I paid my taxes, knowing that some of the money would support projects of which I disapproved. To philosophize as to which taxes are just and which are unjust does not mean that one is not planning to pay all the taxes levied against him, including the unjust ones. It simply means that, when we are called upon to vote or support a tax, we should distinguish between what taxes should and which should not be instituted.

Peter may not agree with me, because I am not particularly an anarchist, and I accept the role of government as a defense of innocent people against criminal attacks. However, I believe that, to the extent that a government provides services other than the provision of safety against unjust assault and theft, that government is going beyond the purpose for which God ordained its existence. If citizens wish to pool resources to provide libraries, fire departments, group education or health insurance, I believe that they may group together privately to do so without involving others as unwilling participants.

Maintaining roads would be a different issue, as it would arguably be directly related to the public safety. Roads are not optional in the modern world (unlike, say, public education, health insurance, or the internet—which some people can easily get by without). Even those who do not have cars actually need and make use of roads (with the exception of that tiny minority who live in the woods and travel only on foot or on horseback—who could be exempted from taxes for road maintenance).

[mkprr]

I am undecided on what is and what isn’t appropriate for the government to be involved in which is why I am asking so many questions. I hope I’m not coming across as someone who just wants to argue.

Thrombomodulin wrote:

“Edit to add a better example: "If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.". Thus, would not the same method of interpretation lead one to conclude that ones cloak belongs to anyone whom files a lawsuit against him?”

No I don’t think it would. The difference being, Jesus commanded us to render to Cesar what is his, While in the case of the tunic, he is commanding us to give what is ours. This seems to imply that the one demanding the tunic is asking for something that isn’t rightfully there own, but Cesar is asking for something that is rightfully his. This is why I think that taxation is not equal to thievery, but I am seeing the point that many are making here that it is immoral if done for the wrong reasons.
Steve, if roads are not immoral to demand taxes on because it is “arguably directly related to the public safety” I think the logic would follow to make the same argument for fire stations (fires spread afterall and can affect everyone in a region) and even feeding the very poor in an effort to prevent crime.
How about Joseph of Egypt, he yoked himself with a government of a nation of unbelievers to relieve the region from famine and God seemed to approve. Could this mean that it may be appropriate for government to be involved in some types of emergency relief? I don’t know if taxes would be appropriate to fund such relief efforts, it seems that people still paid for their food during the famine, but government facilities seemed to be used for the storage and distribution of food during that event which means that taxes were likely somehow involved right?

[thrombomodulin]

The difference being, Jesus commanded us to render to Cesar what is his

Jesus response leaves open the possibility that nothing is owed to Caesar because nothing can properly be reckoned as belonging to him. If Caesar imprints a coin with his image and buys something with it, I do not suppose we should conclude that both the coin and what was purchased belong to Caesar. Rather, the item purchased belongs to Caesar and the coin has found a new owner. If Caesar has a claim of ownership, from where does it come and how far does it reach? It would have been very helpful if someone asked the follow up question "What then is Caesars?", but unfortunately no one did.

Recall Luke 23:2. "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.". Consider, the possibility that it may not have been a false accusation. John Cobin suggests avoiding government interference in ones life that would distract from the kingdom of God (e.g. by paying taxes) is mainly a pragmatic matter for the Christian. That is, we don't have to actively seek to comply with every decree of Caesar (what a burden that would be!), but only comply as needed to "stay out of trouble". I am not sure if Cobin's view is correct.

Steve, if roads are not immoral to demand taxes on because it is “arguably directly related to the public safety” I think the logic would follow ...

In my opinion this is criticism is valid and does refute this particular aspect of Steve's position, which is why roads should not be considered as within Caesar's jurisdiction. There is a history of private road construction in the 1800's and earlier in both Europe and the US. Government need not supply these, as private individuals are able. Walter Block has written a book length treatment of the subject, of which I read about half of it.

For what its worth I remain undecided about whether anarcho-capitialism or minarchism (government exists for retribution and restitution only) is correct. You're not coming across as someone who has spoken to much or just wants to argue. If anything, I am the one writing too much in this thread.

[Paidion]

So how do YOU interpret, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"?

[steve]

Steve, if roads are not immoral to demand taxes on because it is “arguably directly related to the public safety” I think the logic would follow to make the same argument for fire stations (fires spread afterall and can affect everyone in a region) and even feeding the very poor in an effort to prevent crime.

I selected roads as an example of something essential to public safety which, I assumed, could not be provided by private citizens for themselves, and which everyone is obliged to make use of. Of course, many people manage to pave their own roads on or near their own property. I was thinking more of the vast system of interstate highways upon which our modern society has come to depend.

I suppose Peter is correct that even these could be built and maintained by private contractors (probably more efficiently than by government crews), and paid for on a per-use basis by travelers. I had not thought of that. The enterprise seemed too large for private companies to manage, but I guess I was mistaken.

As for fire departments, they can be managed by private companies as well, or by volunteer organizations. Of course, this might not be adequate for wide-ranging fires, spreading across non-private lands.

As for the poor, we should feed them, not for fear of their crimes, but just because of their need. I do not consider their poverty to be the cause of crime, nor do I think it a problem to be solved by government agencies. Crime is not caused by poverty (though the temptation to commit a crime may be fueled by poverty—or hatred, or lust, or greed). Criminal behavior is a character problem, not an economic one. People do not steal strictly because they are poor, but because they are dishonest. Honest poor people do not steal, and dishonest people, having plenty in their stomachs, often steal. It is a matter of character. I don't think that government-style assistance to the poor encourages good character, as I mentioned previously.

[mkprr]

So I was talking to a friend who considers himself a centrist about this topic and his take on it is that taxes are a fee for living in a society that provides services. As long as one is free to leave the society that is collecting taxes and providing services, there is nothing any more sinful about imposing taxes as there would be about charging a patron to spend the day at Disneyland.


If that is the case, taxes aren't stealing even if we don't utilize all of the services that are upheld by taxes. It's a package deal and we can take it or leave it (and in the case of the US, we can change it around if we can convince enough people that it needs to be changed)



My main concern is: Is taxation stealing? If it isn't always stealing, when if ever, does it cross that line? And most importantly, can we settle the question authoritatively by an appeal to the Bible or is it simply not addressed clearly enough to know for sure. If it isn't clearly addressed, I think it is spiritually dangerous to be dogmatic about it and it is wrong to accuse someone of theft for supporting taxes. If it is clearly addressed by scripture, I want to be on the correct side of the issue.

[Singalphile]

Interesting reading.

No one has mentioned 1 Samuel 8, I think. God Himself seemed to warn the Israelis against having a king (human government) partly because of the taxes that the king will impose.

As for what taxes are legitimate, the question is: What is the government's proper role/duty and what is necessary for it to carry out that role.

My reasoning:

1. The role of government is to govern our worst impulses. People kidnap, steal, murder, cheat, etc. It is therefore necessary to appoint some human agency to in turn kidnap, steal, and murder those people. Of course, the government does not kidnap, steal from, and murder victims; the government imprisons, fines, and executes criminals. That is the general role of government described in Romans 13.

2. Therefore the government needs (or is) a police force and military. It may take other necessary powers or actions - like building roads, arguably - to carry out its purpose. For that, it needs money. When it gets money by taxing*, it gets money by stealing. Taking money by force from another innocent person without his consent is stealing and stealing is evil. The question, though, is whether it is a necessary evil.

3. Taxes and laws that are necessary for the government to fulfill its police/military duties, are necessary evils, imo, just as the use of force or war may sometimes be a necessary evil.

4. And other taxes or restrictive laws that are not necessary for or related to the governments proper duties are just evil, imo. The government can do other things, I guess, but it should do it with volunteers and/or service fees or membership dues, just as any other non-profit organization might. Necessary evils ought to always be kept to a minimum.

* Income taxes, at least.

[mkprr]

that is a really good scripture thanks for bringing that up. It is clear that God would prefer his people to not be constrained by worldly governments.

When you call it a necessary evil, are you using evil in the sense that it is a sin that must be repented of, or just in the case that it is unfortunate and less than ideal? Stealing of course is a sin that must be repented of if a done by a Christian but what about voting for a government program that arguably doesn't directly relate to law enforcement?

I can see how roads could be important for law enforcement and therefore perhaps part of the governments responsibility as outlined by Paul.

[SteveF]

Hi Steve,

I’m obviously not entirely familiar health care in the United States, but it’s my understanding that health care for seniors, those with disabilities etc… is provided via a social program called Medicare (correct me if I’m wrong).

Let’s assume that’s the case (in Canada everyone is covered in such fashion). Would you consider a senior or disabled person to be stealing if they took advantage of the Medicare program since they would be using stolen money to pay for their health needs? Their only options in that case would appear to be:

A) Insist on paying for the procedure with their own money
B) Decline treatment if they can’t afford it

You wrote:

Maintaining roads would be a different issue, as it would arguably be directly related to the public safety

Would you include things like sewage, street lights (especially appreciated by ladies), meat inspectors etc… as things that are beneficial for the safety of a society and to be included along with roads?

I suppose Peter is correct that even these could be built and maintained by private contractors (probably more efficiently than by government crews), and paid for on a per-use basis by travelers. I had not thought of that. The enterprise seemed too large for private companies to manage, but I guess I was mistaken.

We have a private highway in our province which is now owned by an Australian company. I think it still requires government (hiring or contracting city planners etc) to allocate land for such a project and that kind of administration requires money (taxes) as well. You know, the same administrators who tell you, you can't build a skyscraper right in front of an airport landing strip etc..

God Bless,
SteveF

[Singalphile]

mkprr wrote:
When you call it a necessary evil, are you using evil in the sense that it is a sin that must be repented of, or just in the case that it is unfortunate and less than ideal?

The latter. To me, a "necessary evil" is no longer evil. (I know the word "evil" is strong. I only use it here as part of that useful phrase.)

mkprr wrote:
Stealing of course is a sin that must be repented of if a done by a Christian but what about voting for a government program that arguably doesn't directly relate to law enforcement?

Is it a sin? I don't know. Kind of seems like it to me, but I wouldn't want to say so. edit: To me, government should be just about the last resort.