Taxation And Christian Practice

...I hope this all makes sense.

But how do we know if we have an inalienable right to own property?

Not all cultures, incidentally, believe(d) that we do.

Which rights are or aren't "inalienable" is not necessarily universally accepted... so in a Republic where inalienable rights supercede even the democratic will of the majority, whose declaration of valid inalienable rights will be the most valid? ;)

...is the State committing theft by demanding he pay or else they'll put him in jail?

I say a secular state enacting taxation laws that the majority support is theft about as much as the OT tithing laws were. Which is, not at all.
 
Last edited:
But how do we know if we have an inalienable right to own property?

Not all cultures, incidentally, believe(d) that we do.

Which rights are or aren't "inalienable" is not necessarily universally accepted... so in a Republic where inalienable rights supercede even the democratic will of the majority, who's declaration of valid inalienable rights will be the most valid? ;)

We don't have a right to property in the sense that we can't say "I'm a human, made in the image of God, therefore I have a right to have property handed to me." However, when we exchange labor for property (whether that be money, goods, or services), we have a right to do with our property as we see fit (provided we don't interject on anyone else's right to property). This is why the Constitution stresses property so heavily. What we choose to do with the property should absolutely be what God has called for us to do, but it shouldn't be mandated by the State. I'd much rather give because it's right rather than give because if I don't, I'm going to jail.

Good question though.

I say a secular state enacting taxation laws that the majority support is theft about as much as the OT tithing laws were. Which is, not at all.

You bring up a good subject. But I think the difference is this; when one tithes, it's especially an act that reflects on one single individual and his obedience to God. When the State (and you said secular, so we'll say Communist Russia from where my great grandparents fled) enacts taxation laws that the majority supports, it doesn't respect the individual who might choose not to support it. In fact, it especially violates that person.
 
I'd much rather give because it's right rather than give because if I don't, I'm going to jail.

So would I. But that's basically just the honour system. You'd have to have some guy walking through the streets holding a basket and clanging a bell yelling, "Come on guys, we need to fix the roads! Just a few dollars more, it's the right thing to do!"

But I think the difference is this; when one tithes, it's especially an act that reflects on one single individual and his obedience to God. When the State (and you said secular, so we'll say Communist Russia from where my great grandparents fled) enacts taxation laws that the majority supports, it doesn't respect the individual who might choose not to support it. In fact, it especially violates that person.

USA tidily meets the conditions for a secular state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

I can totally see what you're saying here. But under OT tithing laws, that's only how it would work ideally, if everyone gave out of obedience alone. If someone chose not to obey, they'd still face the consequences for that choice... so if we're talking about "respect" for the "individual who might choose not to support it" as the qualifier for ethical taxation here... neither system does that.

It's the nature of Democracy to violate the individual for the benefit of the majority. The sanctity of the individual is not protected by law, except by laws supporting rights of the individual that are, in turn, supported by the majority. In other words, you only have the right to not be violated in a particular way if the majority declares that you do. That includes a democratic nation's constitution.
 
Last edited:
So would I. But that's basically just the honour system. You'd have to have some guy walking through the streets holding a basket and clanging a bell yelling, "Come on guys, we need to fix the roads! Just a few dollars more, it's the right thing to do!"

Prior to the State having involvement in the roads, it was done through private exchange (or even individuals in some cases). That's why a lot of Libertarians often joke by saying the phrase "Who's going to build the roads?"

However, in cases of charity where it is absolutely in need--that is precisely what would be done. Reviewing the data not too long ago, I was astounded by the amount of charity provided after taxes. My friend questioned me and said, "that's often in cases of natural disasters--what about helping the needy in everyday circumstances?" Much of that reflects on the employment rate and inflation--which also corresponds to taxation. But there there was a surge of charities and organizations under a less inflated dollar and better economy, and that's despite lesser resources. I picked up a lot of this info from the Bastiat.org, the Mises Institute, and FreedomWorks, along with the public domain.

USA tidily meets the conditions for a secular state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

I can totally see what you're saying here. But under OT tithing laws, that's only how it would work ideally, if everyone gave out of obedience alone. If someone chose not to obey, they'd still face the consequences for that choice... so if we're talking about "respect" for the "individual who might choose not to support it" as the qualifier here... neither system does that.

It's the nature of Democracy to violate the individual for the benefit of the majority. The sanctity of the individual is not protected by law, except by laws supporting rights of the individual that are, in turn, supported by the majority. In other words, you only have the right to not be violated in a particular way if the majority declares that you do.

I have to disagree with this. Forgive me for being cliche in bringing up Nazi Germany, but it was because the majority declared Hitler was right and that Jews were a parasite to humanity did they think it was OK to commit genocide. It doesn't matter what the majority think. The majority under the Stalin regime also sought out to destroy Christians and anyone who was religious at all. This was a majority consensus. The minority--the religious--still had their rights despite what the majority believed.
 
I have to disagree with this. Forgive me for being cliche in bringing up Nazi Germany, but it was because the majority declared Hitler was right and that Jews were a parasite to humanity did they think it was OK to commit genocide. It doesn't matter what the majority think. The majority under the Stalin regime also sought out to destroy Christians and anyone who was religious at all. This was a majority consensus. The minority--the religious--still had their rights despite what the majority believed.

I was referring to legal rights, and the nature of legal rights in a democracy, not indellible rights. I would still challenge the notion that it can even be demonstrated that:

...when we exchange labor for property (whether that be money, goods, or services), we have a right to do with our property as we see fit (provided we don't interject on anyone else's right to property). This is why the Constitution stresses property so heavily.

If it is an inalienable right that "we have a right to do with our property as we see fit..." and "This is why the Constitution stresses property so heavily," then why does the American Constitution so notably overlook the need to protect the people from forced taxation?

(As a non-American, I don't know a great deal about the American constitution. But I know the risk of what I'm saying here -- I'm aware of the American debate about whether or not taxation is really constitutional at all. I should also qualify that in other democratic nations, taxation is clearly the government's constitutional right. In those cases, it seems that you would have to be arguing that those constitutions defy the individual's inalienable rights, and here we would return to you bearing the burden of proof for the questionable claim that "we have a right to do with our property [as exchanged from our labour] as we see fit" actually has validity as being an inalienable right. Also, I'd point out that definition as problematic when you consider that those without the ability to exchange labour would have no rights to property... whew! )
 
I was referring to legal rights, and the nature of legal rights in a democracy, not indellible rights. I would still challenge the notion that it can even be demonstrated that:

If it is an inalienable right that "we have a right to do with our property as we see fit..." and "This is why the Constitution stresses property so heavily," then why does the American Constitution so notably overlook the need to protect the people from forced taxation?

The case for the Constitution itself is a good argument. I blame myself for bringing it up because there's a divide between what the Constitution is supposed to represent (natural law) and what the Constitution has said which contradicts natural law (16th Amendment).

My favorite Abolitionist named Lysander Spooner (which is where I got my name from) wrote a pamphlet called "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" which said at one point that whether addressed in the Constitution or not, there is a natural law that is intended to be upheld, regardless of text. A "legal right" is in violation if it overcasts an inalienable right. I hope this makes sense.

(As a non-American, I don't know a great deal about the American constitution. But I know the risk of what I'm saying here -- I'm aware of the American debate about whether or not taxation is really constitutional at all. I should also qualify that in other democratic nations, taxation is clearly the government's constitutional right. In those cases, it seems that you would have to be arguing that those constitutions defy the individual's inalienable rights, and here we would return to you bearing the burden of proof for the questionable claim that "we have a right to do with our property [as exchanged from our labour] as we see fit" actually has validity as being an inalienable right.

I don't know what kind of proof you're looking for -- it's more of a philosophical position that because we are created in the image of an all-loving, all-knowing, free God, our rights come exclusively from Him and not the State. Perhaps if you could provide evidence or proof that refutes it, it might be easier for me to understand what you mean.

Also, I'd point out that definition as problematic when you consider that those without the ability to exchange labour would have no rights to property... whew! )

Can you give me an example of this? I'm a little confused by this statement (it's my fault for not following).
 
I don't know what kind of proof you're looking for -- it's more of a philosophical position that because we are created in the image of an all-loving, all-knowing, free God, our rights come exclusively from Him and not the State. Perhaps if you could provide evidence or proof that refutes it, it might be easier for me to understand what you mean.

You wrote that it is an inalienable right that "I have the right to use my labor either by exchange or in charity." I contest the notion that it naturally follows that it is also an inalienable right that I have sole ownership of what I exchange my labour for. The state, through its laws, has afforded me certain rights as a worker to fair treatment by my employer, including a minimum wage, which dictates the minimum value of my labour. Without these laws, the value of my work would be arbitrary, and I would be at the mercy of the whims of my employer. For the state to functionally continue to protect these rights of mine, it needs income to sustain itself. Since I benefit from this function of government, it follows that the government has a right to claim part of my wage in order to sustain itself, and continue to protect my rights as a worker.

Can you give me an example of this? I'm a little confused by this statement (it's my fault for not following).

If we are saying that it's our right to exchange labour, and this is our means of income, we should also consider the ethical implications of the fact that not everyone is able to offer labour. The elderly, the sick, people with disabilities, etc would have no "right" to own property (like monetary wealth) since they cannot offer labour.
 
You wrote that it is an inalienable right that "I have the right to use my labor either by exchange or in charity." I contest the notion that it naturally follows that it is also an inalienable right that I have sole ownership of what I exchange my labour for. The state, through its laws, has afforded me certain rights as a worker to fair treatment by my employer, including a minimum wage, which dictates the minimum value of my labour. Without these laws, the value of my work would be arbitrary, and I would be at the mercy of the whims of my employer. For the state to functionally continue to protect these rights of mine, it needs income to sustain itself. Since I benefit from this function of government, it follows that the government has a right to claim part of my wage in order to sustain itself, and continue to protect my rights as a worker.

Indeed. I believe minimum wage laws and labor laws are unjust as they make the claim that they can decide what's best for a business rather than voluntary contract. This isn't to say I condone unjust treatment toward employees, but I believe the State often causes more damage than good. Prior to programs like OSHA, the safety and treatment toward employees were rising in positive ways. When OSHA was introduced, it was like someone jumping in front of an already-in-progress marching band and started to lead it. However, with minimum wage laws for instance, it might mean while one person gets an increase in wages, another person gets fired because the business can't afford to pay both people. This is only a short, basic explanation for the downside to it. There's more to it than that.


If we are saying that it's our right to exchange labour, and this is our means of income, we should also consider the ethical implications of the fact that not everyone is able to offer labour. The elderly, the sick, people with disabilities, etc would have no "right" to own property (like monetary wealth) since they cannot offer labour.

When I say labor, this is only one example. Labor could mean physical labor, but it could also mean time, ideas, creativity, etc. etc. In a word, employment.

Though you are right that there are some people completely unable to work--people in vegetative states, the bed-ridden, etc. This is why charity is so important. Charities, despite fluctuating economies for many years, have provided aid for these people. But even in the midst of bad economies, people have overwhelmingly given to the needy. If the income tax for instance was abolished, folks would (and have according to the Consensus Bureau) be able to provide that much more toward charities.

When Hurricane Sandy struck, a lot of people were willing to bring in canned foods and start food drives for people. Mayor Bloomberg, however, put a ban on these food drives in May of last year because of the salt content. Granted, charity was still offered and provided, but it could have been much stronger if the mayor didn't prop up a nanny-statist regulation.

In short, everyone has the RIGHT to offer their work, but that doesn't mean everyone has the ability to do the work. But for those who don't have the ability, this is why charity is so important, whether it comes from family, organizations, churches, neighbors, or strangers.

And while I understand the argument for subsidies, it comes back to the question of "is it theft?" In other words, does it go against God if we steal from Peter to give to Paul?
 
And while I understand the argument for subsidies, it comes back to the question of "is it theft?" In other words, does it go against God if we steal from Peter to give to Paul?

Wow, when I woke up this morning, I never would have thought I'd be arguing in favour of taxation on Christian forums. Especially right after I've just done my taxes. o_O

I am finally off to bed, but in all seriousness, obviously a government requires income from somewhere to sustain itself. Is it possible for a government to function without taxation?
 
Wow, when I woke up this morning, I never would have thought I'd be arguing in favour of taxation on Christian forums. Especially right after I've just done my taxes. o_O

I am finally off to bed, but in all seriousness, obviously a government requires income from somewhere to sustain itself. Is it possible for a government to function without taxation?

I enjoyed the discussion :) Yeah, I can understand why one wouldn't expect this :p

On a final note, it's not so much that I'm against government, it's that I'm against the initiation of force against people who don't deserve it. If a government can operate without force, then I am OK with that.

But an answer to your question is that it is possible for a government to function without taxation--at the very least, an income/capital gains/payroll/etc. tax--the US government operated that way up until 1913. It was through a consumption tax which I think is at least more ethical. That would provide excellent checks and balances because it would mean the government would have to operate within its means rather than forcing folks to pay portions of what they've worked toward (it's called the Fair Tax--it's a real thing).

God bless you, friend.
 
Back
Top