Banner
Political Reform Closer to Home PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - Obama Nation Building
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:46 am

My standing joke is that we ought not to allow chaplains to pray in Congress, because the Bible says that we are not supposed to turn a den of thieves into a house of prayer. And make no mistake -- Congress is a den of thieves.

Now Scripture gives the civil government the authority to tax, of course, but that authority is not unbounded. There is a point where legitimate taxation becomes legalized plunder, and we have long since passed that point. So why do we allow this to continue -- since we outnumber them?

Well, the answer is that our elected representatives are not confiscating all this wealth for themselves personally -- although they are doing quite well, thank you. They are more clever than that. They are taking this plunder, and distributing it to others in such a way as to create constituencies with a sense of entitlement. And if you create enough of these constituencies, and tangle them up enough, then this creates the need for pollsters, political consultants, and political experts, and the science of modern politics is born. The modern state is the broker at the great auction of stolen goods.

Now it is easy for us for blame the scoundrels and miscreants of Congress for being such scam artists. But the success of their scam depends entirely on millions of

Americans willing to be on the take. We are represented by these people for a reason. There are multiple examples of this, but the howls of outrage that resulted from Obamacare pilfering Medicare is a case in point. Subsidized prescriptions create a constituency, inflation creates a constituency, student loans guarantee a constituency, ad infinitum, and anybody who thinks that the distributors of all this largesse don't know how to play one constituency off the others is way underestimating them.

Now I recognize that things are far enough gone that it is extraordinarily difficult even to perform ordinary functions without getting some benefit thrust at you, and I also recognize that there are differences between direct subsidies and other things like tax credits, and so on. The thing is complicated. But I have said for years, and continue to say, that we have to learn how to refuse the benefits first. Tax resistance will be vain if it comes from people who want their free chocolate milk from the government, but who cry tyranny if anybody asks them to pay for it. Refusing the benefits first is an important lesson for us all to learn, and I need to develop that further sometime soon. At this point, the main temptation to resist is the temptation to give way to constituent-think.

But what about the sense of helplessness that sets in around this point? Good news -- there is something else we can do even before that, and it does not involve dealing with the government. This is reform that is antecedent to politics -- although it has political consequences.

We have to stop thinking and living as those who presume on those who are close to us. When FDR announced, with monstrous sophistry, that "we owe it to ourselves!" he was appealing to a false sense of family, and he did it so that we could start treating this pseudo-family with the same moral carelessness that many had developed with regard to their real families. But this cavalier attitude toward the property of loved ones is deadly. Someone once defined home as the place where you go when you are tired of being nice -- and if we are comfortable with that, then there is something deeply wrong. But "being nice" involves more than just a pleasant demeanor. The same principle extends to issues of property.

"Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer" (Prov. 28: 24).

So here is a very practical personal step that every Christian who is concerned about the future of our nation can take. This is something that is within reach. It does not depend upon some political upheaval across the continent, and so there is no need to feel helpless. And if you do not take this step, then you are a companion to the destroyers in Washington. They continue to represent you, and they are representing you well.

Inside your family, have you borrowed money and not returned it? Have you busted things and not made it good? If the thing you busted belonged to anybody outside the family, would you have felt the need to make it good? But not here? Have you frittered away what your mom gave you for other purposes, and consoled yourself with the fact that "it is no transgression"? Have you been sloppy with the property interests of anyone close to you, because they were close to you?

Turning the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the hearts of children back to their fathers (Mal. 4:6) is something which, of necessity, contains a significant financial component (Mk. 7:11). And of course, if this does not happen, God comes and strikes the land with a curse. And if you doubt whether that is happening, take a look around.

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Josh C.  - Milk-Swilling Tax Protesters  Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:27 am
Pastor Wilson,

Excellent post; I heartily agree. Conversations with others have raised a question related to one of your points, so I wanted to ask — is there a distinction between:

(1) those who protest government tyranny, only too happy to cut off the pet entitlements of others, while crying bloody murder when anyone threatens to touch their chocolate milk, and

(2) those who are reluctantly on the chocolate milk dole, but who would like nothing more than to have the government butt out so that they can afford to buy it on their own?

The second situation seems to dangerously lead toward the first by confusing the incentives, yet it's a position I've frequently heard argued. Assuming it's genuinely held, is it just as objectionable a position as the first?
Douglas Wilson  - Exactly  Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:04 am
Josh, exactly. So long as a person is not kidding himself (which is a real danger), I actually put a stark difference between the two scenarios you describe. If someone's son in the UK breaks a leg, the father as a positive duty to have NHS treat it. He also has a positive duty to understand that the system which he is forced to use is corrupt.
Tim Enloe  Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:48 am
Here's a practical question based on the principles in your post:

If you file your taxes like a "good little American," in full accord with the regulations they stipulate, and they say that because you are living well below the Official Poverty Level with 3 children and so forth, and so they say you are going to get back WAY more than you paid in that year, is it stealing to accept the refund? I suppose one could simply not cash the refund check, and it is bothersome to me to realize that although I don't think I'm "entitled" to a refund, the immediate feeling I had upon seeing the amount was "Wow, that will really help us out this year."
Tammy  Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:19 am
Tim, It probably isn't more than you "paid" in, once you factor in all the unseen taxes you pay every day.

Liquor tax

gas tax

taxes on corporations that are then passed on to you in the form of higher prices

the employer's side of social security & medicare taxes that are equal to your part that he could have paid to you in the form of higher wages

There are certainly more than that, but those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. I highly doubt that you have ever received back more than what you have actually paid in taxes over the course of the year.
Will S  Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:06 pm
The liquor tax is sort of targeted at Presbyterians isn't it.
Tim Enloe  Saturday, April 03, 2010 3:05 pm
Tammy, no doubt you're right. I think Pastor Wilson is right about developing the ability to reject the "benefits" (so-called) that the Government frequently offers us. I'm sort of putting two and two together here, since Pastor Wilson has written in the past about simply not cashing one's Social Security checks.

I don't suppose I should have put a personal question like that out in a public forum, anyway. This is all just such a mess, this system we have, it's hard sometimes to figure out what the right thing to do is. I would not want to be tacitly stealing from other taxpayers by having the IRS give ME money it has taken from THEM - especially since the taking part is basically "under duress."
Charles Long  - Its own category  Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:12 pm
Doug, have you considered making "Political Reform Closer to Home" its own category? This is the kind of thing a lot of people here can just eat right out of the can, and I can't think of anybody better suited to write posts like this. Please give it some thought!
David DeJong  - evidence please?  Friday, April 09, 2010 8:36 am
I agree with much of this post. But this jumped out at me as lacking foundation:

"Now Scripture gives the civil government the authority to tax, of course, but that authority is not unbounded. There is a point where legitimate taxation becomes legalized plunder, and we have long since passed that point. So why do we allow this to continue -- since we outnumber them?"

You may claim that the US of A has "long since passed that point." However, do you have any historical evidence to back up this claim? Historians estimate that taxation levels in 1st-century Palestine were very highly - between 1/3 and 1/2 of income. The Roman Empire was a huge revenue collector. Both Jesus, Paul, and Peter, however command people to pay their taxes.

I'm no socialist. But I wonder how you can claim that we're past the point where the Biblical command to pay taxes is operative, without a shred of evidence? And then conclude with a populist "might makes right" rationale ("since we outnumber them")? This is hardly justified.
Andrew Roggow  Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:37 pm
"...we have to learn how to refuse the benefits first"

I know this is an old post, but I was reminded of this when I read this article.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/30-00030-000-line-up-589653.html