Thought of the Day 04.22.08

Opponents of taxation often claim the government is doing what no individual would ever legally or morally be allowed to do: steal your money for their purposes without your consent. Finding the precise flaw in this argument is harder than most people imagine, but we know it must be wrong because, if true, it would outlaw too much.

Not only taxation, but nearly every government activity would be immoral and illegal for a private citizen to do himself. Jail would be kidnapping. Warfare would be murder. Arrests would be battery. Even things as common as street lights and business licenses would be wrong for an individual to impose on others. Everything government does is restrictive, coercive, or punitive in ways that no private citizen may be. Thus, whatever justifies government in doing anything also allows it at least some power to tax.

Yes, it’s difficult to explain why taxation is not theft, but it’s even harder for those who use this argument to avoid being committed by it to advocating the abolition of all government whatsoever. The intellectual footing on the slope toward anarchy is no less slippery than that on the plunge toward tyranny.
Posted by at

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I was intrigued by a recent article exploring the personality types of people who seek public office. Despite their desire to appear noble and serving the good of the public, most are very driven individuals who wish personal power and the ability to control others.
What appears to be the government's continual quest for more power and taxes is actually stems from the personal drive of elected officials to control, not serve, those who elect them.
.One way to avoid either of the slippery slopes you refer to would be to give some direct power to individuals to control the use of their own tax dollars. Initially 10% of one's taxes could be designated for the armed forces, or crime control, education, helping the poor, space exploration, teaching the fundamentals of major religions in public school, or starting innovative government programs.
The choice would apply three years down the road to allow time for the bureaucracies to adapt (fight, try to circumvent) the changes.
Churches and denominations could lead the way in this movement by allowing individuals to designate a certain percentage of their basic giving (not special giving) at the local church, regional, and national levels.
We applied this concept at a church I served a number of years ago. The giving and morale of the church immediately took a great leap forward. Even though the church was in a fairly high crime area of a major city in the United States, we recorded the highest per capita giving of all of our denominational churches in that region, including the suburbs.
Perhaps the churches could begin modeling changes in their own structure to pave the way for changes in the government.

April 23, 2008 at 7:26 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)