Any libertarian who thinks all taxes are inherently immoral and wants to do away with them, has never considered the alternative.
Imagine a government based on user fees, not taxes. It's not hard, if you try. Just take everything you hate about your health/car insurance provider, and add a law enforcement and military component to it.
Your thinking is completely backwards, based upon the wretchedly immoral class envy. Taxes are theft. Always.
Imagine a government based on user fees, not taxes. It's not hard, if you try. Just take everything you hate about your health/car insurance provider, and add a law enforcement and military component to it.
Related Entries:
- I couldn't help myself
- It's going to be a rough four years
- Hail to the Czar
- No potential for abuse there!
- One way to deal with stores that insist on checking your receipt
- Huckabee defending his attacks on libertarians
- Going John Galt
- A window into the left-wing mind
- Homework
- Jesus: Liar, Lunatic or Leftist?
An even starker example is fire protection. That used to be private... and a lot more buildings used to either burn down or get looted during fires.
The government *does* do some things well...
Now we have a public-private system, which if you listen to idiots like Naomi Klein is as evil as apartheid. How dare insurance companies offer their own additional fire fighting packages on top of whatever the government provides to the public!
Some things oughta be public goods, ironically for reasons of efficiency (I know...the words "government" and "efficiency" in the same sentence. Dogs and cats living together!).
Can you imagine the resource waste and replication of several different private fire departments in a town? And then the territorial fights...I ain't gonna put out your fire because you didn't pay for it...
And taxes are not theft. They are the price one pays for civilization. Yes, taxes are extracted by force. Yes I'm not happy that my taxes are being used to kill babies in utero and to teach college-age women to hate on men. But the simple fact of the matter is that it's only theft if you don't consent to it in some way or another. Live in an area voluntarily, well you chose to be taxed. Suck it up or do something about it. Either way, quit cha bitchin
It's good for society to have private fire companies as an auxiliary to the public ones. When the rich pay for premium fire services, that'll free up a lot of resources for focusing on those who could not afford to buy premium fire services.
And taxes are not theft. They are the price one pays for civilization. Yes, taxes are extracted by force. Yes I'm not happy that my taxes are being used to kill babies in utero and to teach college-age women to hate on men. But the simple fact of the matter is that it's only theft if you don't consent to it in some way or another. Live in an area voluntarily, well you chose to be taxed. Suck it up or do something about it. Either way, quit cha bitchin
Of course they're theft. Calling extorted money "taxes" doesn't make it right.
And what happens when every nation on earth levies taxes? Where exactly am I supposed to move to?
And why should I have to move anyway? My ancestors lived here long before this government was even an itch on George Washington's trigger finger. We were here first; let the government move someplace else.
I'm kind of surprised at you, Wapiti.
He has a general point. I understand your point, and it's the way I am with Republican-types who say "if you don't like America, then leave." My ancestors came here when it was basically just Virginia in his (drug) highness' possession, so I usually say, "how long has your family been in this country?" Still, you have to realize that a lot of times people move to a new place, don't like how it is, and want to change it. Furthermore, we have the freedom to do the same, as witnessed by the Free State project.
Thing is, you don't move to a state like California or Massachusetts and then act surprised if it does a lot of the things that you don't like. You have to take the bad with the good. If that means you can't stand it, then nothing is stopping you from moving elsewhere.
Lastly, Wapiti is right about taxation itself not being theft. It often manifests that way, such as is the case with property taxes, but taxation itself is not theft or extortion. Even the Bible is quite clear on this point, as God explicitly gives the authority to levy taxation on the populace. If you need examples of that:
1) The Old Testament tithe, and the threat by God that the king would take 10% of the earnings of the people.
2) "Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
3) Romans 13
Is a 10% income tax or a 15% sales tax unjust? No. When you have a tax rate that approaches 50% for one's income, and taxation on property ownership, and sales tax, etc., that's when it starts to become unjust.
1) The tithe was explicitly established by God. For that reason, it can not be compared to (or used to justify) any other tax that has been established by men.
2) That was a bit of sophistry on Jesus' part, since he avoided defining what was Caesar's and what wasn't. It was essentially a meaningless statement. If I don't think my money belongs to Caesar, then there's no reason for me to pay taxes to him. Likewise, if I think Caesar is just the bee's knees, and properly owns everything within his country's borders, then I should give everything to him and die of starvation.
3) Romans 13 is usually interpreted as applying only to governments that are enforcing God's laws, not to oppressive, unjust governments. I hardly think any German Christians who rescued Jews from the gas chambers in violation of the laws of their country were violating Romans 13. I prefer to believe Oskar Schindler's criminal activity was an example of the Lord's work rather than the devil's.
Now, if anyone can make the case that the federal government is a just one that is enforcing God's laws, then I'll happily reconsider the morality of taxation in this country.
I disagree. Based on this logic, you would never have to do anything or give anything to Caesar in that situation because Caesar has no temporal authority in your opinion. That, however, was not the case, as Caesar clearly was put into authority over the Roman Republic by God's sovereign hand.
All governments are oppressive to some extent, thus, your argument would turn Romans 13 on its head into something it clearly does not mean. What it generally means is that when the state is acting in its proper realm of authority (keeping the peace, prosecuting criminals as criminality is commonly known and providing for the national defense), it carries God's delegated authority. When it steps outside of that, then its authority is illegitimate and can be rebelled against for Godly purposes.
In the case of Schindler, what he did was clearly a righteous act, as the government had absolutely not a pittance of authority under Romans 13 to do what it did to the prisoners of the third reich. However, if Schindler had refused to help the local police solve a murder by providing them with information, that would have been sin.
The case for overthrowing a government comes when the government's corruption and abuse of its delegated sovereignty become both incorrigible and systematic. Until then, one must realize that the state does have a delegated sovereignty over you.
It is no more unjust than the Roman state at the time that Paul wrote Romans 13. Tyranny can be a punishment for sin, Triton. There are numerous references in the Old Testament to God threatening to impose a foreign tyranny over His people as punishment for their wickedness. Let us not forget the fact that the South was, spiritually speaking, quite wicked in its own respect, and I say this as a Southern patriot and relative of General Picket by marriage (his wife was my cousin LaSalle Corbell) and the descendant of Robert E. Lee's aid de camp. The South is paying the price for the common white hatred of blacks, and the blasphemy that was preached about racism and the Gospel.
At some point, I have little doubt that the federal government will collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy and corruption. Until then, I'll resign myself to the fact that the federal government is, for all intents and purposes, the institution that was put over us by God's sovereign hand.
What it generally means is that when the state is acting in its proper realm of authority (keeping the peace, prosecuting criminals as criminality is commonly known and providing for the national defense), it carries God's delegated authority. When it steps outside of that, then its authority is illegitimate and can be rebelled against for Godly purposes.
That was pretty much my point. I happen to believe that our government does not do those things it should, preferring instead to do those things it shouldn't.
The government does not keep the peace; it is, in fact, quite unnecessarily violent. The government does not prosecute criminals, at least not with the same zeal it harasses the innocent. And it certainly doesn't do any national defending, as evidenced by our nearly non-existent borders. Hence it's immorality.
However, if Schindler had refused to help the local police solve a murder by providing them with information, that would have been sin.
I wouldn't claim otherwise.
Tyranny can be a punishment for sin, Triton. There are numerous references in the Old Testament to God threatening to impose a foreign tyranny over His people as punishment for their wickedness.
I'm aware of that.
The South is paying the price for the common white hatred of blacks, and the blasphemy that was preached about racism and the Gospel.
I doubt that. For one thing, white racism in the South was far worse after the war and Reconstruction than it was before. So either God punished the people for something they, for the most part, had yet to do, or He has yet to punish us for our post-war racism. In which case we're in for a heap of trouble.
Further, white racism was at least as prevalent, and from what I've read worse, in the North than it was in the South. It wouldn't make much sense for God to punish one but not the other.
The case for overthrowing a government comes when the government's corruption and abuse of its delegated sovereignty become both incorrigible and systematic. Until then, one must realize that the state does have a delegated sovereignty over you.
There's a third option: recognizing the state's moral illegitimacy, but going along with its laws anyway. This is the "go along to get along" strategy that I personally employ. I believe this is similar to Jesus' advice in Matthew 5, which seems to be aimed, at least in part, at dealing with the occupying Romans.