Ten Principles on Redistributive Taxation as Theft

Culture and Politics - Obama Nation Building

Written by Douglas Wilson

Saturday, April 10, 2010 5:14 am

Quite a discussion broke out over the questions surrounding taxation, theft and redistribution, and so I thought it would be good to set down some basic principles on the subject. This is to prevent the "guiding principle" from becoming a charge of theft for any tax I might find distasteful.

1. The point is not that taxation is theft, but rather that taxation can be theft. Obviously, in Scripture, there is legitimate taxation (Rom. 13:7), which would not be theft, and illegitimate taxation, which is (Matt. 17:25-27). If that is the case, then there is a line that a state must not cross, and it is incumbent upon both rulers and citizens to know where that line is, and why it is there.

2. In biblical law, the fact that the civil rulers can steal is indisputable. Ahab stole Naboth's vineyard (1 Kings 21:7), and it would not alter the facts of the case if it had been done under cover of zoning regulations or land reform. How hard would it be for a Michael Moore kind of filmmaker to make Naboth out to be a greedy "landowner" who cared more about the "land of his fathers" than he did about "the good of the people." And by "people," we of course mean "Ahab." Ahab's a people.

3. If a state can steal, then the question becomes "how do we tell?" Anybody who wants to give the authorities an automatic pass because what they did was perfectly legal is a naif who ought to have his drivers licence revoked. Anybody who resents giving any portion of his income for legitimate civic purposes is a scofflaw. So, where is the line?

4. The line will of necessity have to be enforced by the rulers of the people, and this is why one of the first principles is that the rulers of the people are not qualified for their task unless they are men who hate covetousness.

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens"
(Ex. 18:21).

"The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days" (Prov. 28:16).

But we are currently governed by men who love covetousness.

5. Determining the line between legitimate taxation and illegitimate thieving taxation is not necessarily an easy task. It can be complicated. I acknowledge that it could be a challenging task for men who fear God. And so this is why we must be led by men who fear God. And it is also why I deny that it can be done by our current gaggle of miscreants, buffoons, knaves, poltroons, scoundrels, and then, of course, there's the Democrats.

6. One approach to answering the question would be Samuel's dire warning to the Israelites, when they asked for a king "like the other nations." He said that if they did that, the result would be an unthinkable level of taxation . . . at ten percent. And here we are, looking back longingly at ten percent levels like they were the leeks of Egypt or something. When the state takes more than ten percent, then the state is claiming more than God claims in the tithe. When this happens, if the state has not done something overweening or despotic, then wait ten minutes.

7. While the ten percent ceiling is a good rule of thumb, a better approach would be to measure by what God tells the civil government to do. The state is God's deacon (Rom. 13:4), and God never leaves His deacons without instructions. A deacon is, by definition, under authority. We should measure his appropriations and expenditures over against what he was told to do. When servants use the master's resources for tasks unassigned by him (Luke 12:46-47), what is the result? When the Lord comes back to evaluate His deacons in the Congress, what will He do? He will not be indiscriminate; the punishments will fit the crimes. Some He will cut in sunder, and others will simply be beaten with many stripes. This will not happen because our rulers are not His deacons; rather, it will happen because they are.

8. The assigned task that was given to the civil rulers was to punish the wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4). It most emphatically was not to level the economic playing field. Anybody who can read the New Testament and think that it is the under-deacons role to preemptively make sure that the servant with ten talents is left with only three, and the one who hid his one talent is given two more to hide, is radically out of touch with the spirit of the Bible.

9. The U.S. Constitution is an "express powers" document. With regard to the risks involved in letting sinful men rule over other sinful men, this is a wise and biblical approach. It means that those who rule can only do what was laid down for them beforehand to do. That which is not required of them is prohibited to them. This is in the spirit of the Bible -- civil rulers can rule, and they can tax us for that rule, and in exchange, they need to be able to show us from the Bible how that task they have undertaken is legitimate. If they need funds for the cops to chase down the murderers, this is easy to do, and no one who is biblically informed would begrudge it. If they need funds to send Charlie Rangel to the Bahamas, the authorization is a bit more murky.

10. In the Hebraic parallelism cited above (Prov. 28:16), a prince who does not hate covetousness, besides ruining himself, is also oppressing the people. And when it comes to understanding the nature of this oppression, trust the feedback you get from a welder who attends the academically-disreputable tea parties, and not the sycophantic musings of the prince's hired economic brains, who can write learnedly of this and that. Oppression is as oppression does.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Josh	Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:18 am

Would you be able to go into a bit more detail about where this line falls? Apart from justice and, presumably by extension, defense does the state have the authority to gather taxes for other functions. Transport for example?

And what do you think the role of the church should be? Should the church have an active role in providing healthcare for its members? For those who aren't its members? To what extent does government take on responsibilities it shouldn't do because it sees the church failing to do the things the church should do?

Thanks!

Bill Banting

Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:19 am

I wish I could feel as confident as you do, Pastor Wilson, about biblical sanction for the specifics of earthly governments. To be clear, I mean this in contrast to your own political opinion, which is clearly strong and informed.

I am not confident for a couple of reasons:

1) The prooftexts and historical precedents often cited strike me as awfully marginal. In fairness, there quite likely isn't enough room in a blog post to post the biblical evidence exhausively. But Matt 17:25–27 as the basis for a real concept of "illegitimate taxation"? Common levels of taxation in the Middle East at the time of Samuel (I'll take your word for the 10% figure) as constituting a "rule of thumb" for all governments, at all times, everywhere?

2) The various First World, Capitalist, Western governments often do things in very different ways, and to me, it's not at all obvious that any one economic model is more "Christian" than all the others. I am from Canada, which means I pay a good bit more tax than you do. I freely admit this can be painful. At the same time, I've never paid a health insurance premium in my life, nor has anyone in my family. My point here is not that our system is better than yours; it's that if you want to convince me that our system is fundamentally less biblical, you'll need to do better than the biblical argument I've seen thus far.

Enjoying the blog, thank you!

Joe Rigney

Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:44 am

Doug,

Very helpful. Thanks for this. I feel like it pulls together your thoughts from a lot of previous posts. One follow-up question: In the comments on the last post, David DeJong brought up Hebrews 10:34-36 (joyfully accepting the plundering of your property). I'd love to hear your thoughts on this text. Here are two options that I can think of that would maintain consonance with what you've said so far.

1. Joyfully accepting the current plunder of your property is not inconsistent with calling the plundering, you know, plundering and also, insofar as you're able, and using biblically-permissible means (another tricky subject) acting to ensure that future plundering doesn't occur.

The important thing here is that, if the state is doing the plundering in Heb 10, there's no hint that what they are doing is legitimate; it's called "plundering" in the text. And therefore, at the very least, we shouldn't sanction it simply because the state is established by God as a deacon.

2. Another option would be to say that while it is acceptable in certain circumstances to simply accept the plundering (period), the Bible also teaches that a different (or at least additional) response is possible in other circumstances. As a parallel, think of the persecution of apostles in Acts. Peter and John joyfully accepted their beating by the Sanhedrin (Acts 4), just like Heb 10. However, in Acts 22, Paul is about to get a similar beating at the hands of the Roman tribune and appeals to Roman law to avoid his fate (cf. appealing to the Constitution or state governments to get the feds to knock the plundering off). Thus, while Heb 10 gives us one response in one type of circumstance, there may be another. So what's the difference? My guess is that it has something to do with biblical wisdom and godly maturity, which we're all trying to grow up into.

Thoughts?

gullchasedship

Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:30 am

When Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's, I'm fairly certain that the Caesar of the times wasn't free from covetousness.

Josh	Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:37 am

Is there a difference here between what Ceasar can and can't do, and what his subjects should do in response?

If I act out of selfish motivations and ask my wife to do something which isn't in her best interest, her godly response would be to submit to such a request (and in doing so pours burning coals on my head). I don't have the right to make that request, but she still obeys me. Obviously if I request her to do something ungodly she should refuse.

Presumably our relationship with the government is similar. They can make demands of me which they have no right to do so (and consequently they will be judged for usurping their authority), but my godly response will be to obey and be content in the knowledge that Christ will judge all wickedness. At other times, if they ask me to do what is wicked, civil disobedience becomes the godly course of action.

If this is so, then there are two lines in the sand: one indicating what government can and can't do, and another one showing what things we can and can't obey.

Doug: please correct me if I'm wrong!

Tim Enloe

Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:57 am

Just in case I wasn't clear in the other post, or in case it got lost in the shuffle, I did not claim that ALL taxation is theft. I did not even make the claim (at least, I don't think I did, without going back and reading all my words again) that the whole U.S. tax system is an example of utter theft.

My remarks originally concerned my own personal situation, in which I am attempting to figure out what I should do with a rather large income tax "refund" (so-called) given to me by the Government merely because in its great "wisdom" it has decreed me to be a radically poor person who "deserves" receiving a "refund" that is made up of monies taken by implied force from my neighbors.

My original question was whether it is theft for me to take this "refund." Implied in that question is whether it is "theft" for the Government to take that money from my neighbors and give it to me, but the primary issue of concern to me is making sure that I myself do not become involved in theft, even implicitly.

David DeJong

Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:31 pm

In terms of your specific predicament, Tim, I would look at Pastor Wilson's comment on the previous post. Even if you think the gov't is stealing in its taxation policies, you are not implicated in that theft by taking their money. I think the example was: if someone lives in the UK, and so is forced to use gov't run health-care, even though he may believe the gov't is overstepping its bounds in compelling him to use said health care, nevertheless it is not wrong for him to use it.

Mark	Saturday, April 10, 2010 4:21 pm

"Even if you think the gov't is stealing in its taxation policies, you are not implicated in that theft by taking their money."

I didn't read the other post, but this brings to mind another other post. I hope I don't make hash out of the story and its application. I remember Pastor Wilson making up a story about a thief taking money from your neighbor, and then giving the money to you. Whether or not I got that right, imagine it. You see a thief stealing from the guy next door, and then bringing it to you because he thinks he's making the world a better place.

David DeJong

Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:43 am

1. A note on Mt 17: this passage has nothing to do with illegitimate taxation. The temple tax was in fact commanded by God (Exod 30:11-16). The point of this passage is that the new age is dawning in Jesus, and the old order is passing away. Those who are a part of the new temple are not bound to prop up the old order any longer. This is why obedience to the Mosaic law is construed not as necessity but in order not to give offense (compare here Jesus' instructions to healed lepers, Lk 17).

2. Of course Ahab was stealing. And if Obama was using public funds to buy personal estates in California, I'd call that theft too (if you think this no longer happens, check out the personal wealth of the Saudi royals).

The rest of your post is basically bald assertion. I'd like to see you do some serious research into what taxation was like at the time that Jesus, Peter, and Paul were speaking to it. Then we'd have something to talk about.

Your claim that any state that redistributes wealth (providing assistance to the poor) will be judged by God for overstepping their carefully defined boundaries is, quite frankly, crazy. You are missing an entire thread of the OT legislation, which is that God is the God who has compassion on the poor and the widow, and who insists that God's people treat the poor with justice.

Finally, 10% is just a number. Maybe you should reflect on standard of living and actual economic conditions. I keep coming back to this, but if you were posting on taxation and the economy with any historical nuance, you would begin by recognizing that we are possibly the wealthiest society that has ever existed. There's a lot to be thankful for.

Tim Enloe

Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:04 pm

Mr. DeJong,

So is your biblical argument against what I was saying on the other post that via these massive "refunds" the State is taking care of the poor? It seems to me that when it's all considered in context, the State is actually helping to create poor people by such tactics as these. Perhaps that impression is just the difference between a more-or-less capitalistic theory and a more-or-less socialistic one, both held by well-meaning Christians who thus have much larger hermeneutical disagreements about Scripture?

David DeJong

Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:35 pm

I'm not necessarily saying that the State is doing a good job taking care of the poor, nor am I claiming that it is the State's job to do so. I'm just saying that the claim that the State may only do what is explicitly biblically required is false. Will God judge Congressmen for having interstates built?

If, in a democratic society, a gov't wins election on the basis of promises to "take care of the poor," then one might reasonably expect this gov't to attempt to do exactly that.

Tim Enloe

Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:04 pm

Mr. DeJong, I don't think you answered my question. I doubt, somehow, that the income tax system was designed with so noble a motive as taking care of the poor. From what little I know of the matter, a major impulse of the thing was to punish wealthy people whom, reformers believed, were not only TOO rich, wielding "too much" economic power, but had gained their riches most likely by unethical means. Great. Let's punish the unethical rich people by taking their money away and giving it to the (presumably) more ethical poor people - and 80 or so years down the line, let's just ignore the possibility that the Government itself has become rampantly unethical in this very activity.

I take your point that the idea that the state can only do "what is explicitly biblically required" is false, but I'm not sure Pastor Wilson ever said that. Obviously I don't speak for him, but I think his concern in this post is with what the Bible does say about ethics in terms of stealing, and what it does say about the purpose of the government as God's agent on earth.

Perhaps you'd like to argue in that light that by this scheme of taxation the Government is fulfilling its biblical mandate to punish evildoers, but then you'd have to make the case that wealthy people are almost necessarily, if not necessarily, evil doers BECAUSE they are wealthy. That seems to have been the belief of some of the prime supporters of the present tax system at the time.

Ken Pierce

Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:01 am

Wherever the line between taxation and theft, it is assuredly theft for the government to take money from one person to give to another. About this there can be no debate.

And, what is often overlooked is that it is as unjust to the recipient as it is to the one who was plundered. Dependency is inherently dehumanizing, robbing the recipient of the full dignity and responsibility of the imago dei.

Bill Banting

Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:25 am

Ken,

Is there any form of taxation that doesn't qualify as "taking from one person to give to another"?

Seems to me the argument is not about if, but rather when, how, and to what extent it's acceptable for the government to do this.

IMO -- and I've yet to see convincing arguments to the contrary on this blog -- there is no uncontroversial answer. Biblical or otherwise.

David DeJong

Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:49 pm

Tim:

You said I didn't answer your question. You asked two questions:

1. "So is your biblical argument against what I was saying on the other post that via these massive 'refunds' the State is taking care of the poor?"

My answer was 'No'.

2. "Perhaps that impression is just the difference between a more-or-less capitalistic theory and a more-or-less socialistic one, both held by well-meaning Christians who thus have much larger hermeneutical disagreements about Scripture?"

I don't think this is a hermeneutical issue; I think there are just some exegetical disagreements. I'm not sure what specific hermeneutical disagreement you would have in mind.

I also think its too simplistic to just say that my position is more socialist and yours is more capitalist. That's not the issue. The real locus of disagreement is what you can make scriptural pronouncements about. Can you say "thus saith the Lord" about specific levels of taxation?

You're right that Pastor Wilson was more nuanced than I suggested when I asked if God would judge Congressmen for building roads. He acknowledged that the line was difficult. However, ultimately, in point 8, he said the gov't needs to be judged according to what God has said a gov't is to do.
At that point he said the role of the gov't "most emphatically was not to level the economic playing field." Taken in conjunction with point 7; pastor Wilson seems to imply that the gov't will be judged for attempting to do so.

This seems poorly argued to me. If we suggest that gov'ts will be judged for anything they do that is not explicitly defined in Scripture, what would stop one from saying a gov't will be judged for building roads? It's an issue of consistency.

Furthermore, it's not necessarily wrong for a gov't to engage in activity beyond their explicit mandate. That activity needs to be morally evaluated in its own right as well.

As for your most recent post about the origin of income tax: well, it's interesting but moves the discussion somewhat far afield, and beyond my expertise.

Xon Hostetter

Sunday, April 11, 2010 4:15 pm

Mr. Banting, you may have never paid a health insurance premium, but your health care certainly isn't free. I'm sure you're aware of the discussions over the quality and availability of Canadian health care when compared to the U.S. What's your take on that comparison?

Also, did Wilson ever say that we the government's mandate is derived from explicit statements of Scripture? I'm sure he allows for the good ol' Reformed notion of "good and necessary consequence." The Scriptures provide principles and examples that we have to sort out and apply using our noggins, etc. I don't think he's saying that a gov't official should have to give a prooftext from the Bible that expressly authorizes what he is doing. But he should be able to make a reasonable argument from things the Bible does say that what he is doing is legitimate. No?

Bill Banting

Monday, April 12, 2010 10:04 am

Mr. Hostetter,

I realize that I pay for my health care in the form of taxes rather than premiums to private insurers. I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a better arrangement, merely that it is not inherently an unbiblical or immoral one.

Personally, I am quite happy with our system, as are a large majority of people up here (82%, by one quickly-googled poll: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090710/health_care_090710/20090710?hub=Health)

The idea that our system is actually a tyranny, and that we should instead trust our health insurance needs to private corporations is ... well, news to us.

Anti-Federalist

Sunday, April 11, 2010 4:18 pm

David DeJong,

Just curious, do you oppose a communistic form of government, and if you do, what biblical argument do you use to justify your opposition?

Joel Pastor

Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:59 pm

I suppose that Mr DeJong can answer his own questions, but I'd like to propose there's nothing prima facie sinful or unjust about communism, at least considered per se. There are obviously issues with confiscating everyone's land after a military coup, shooting thousands of kulaks, et cetera; we might likewise argue against it on the commonsense grounds that it seems to go rather badly whenever it is tried. But whether a particular (secular) society is democratic, autocratic, or anything in between does not seem to be a question the Biblical writers found terrifically interesting.

Nebbuchadnezzar was a bloody rapacious tyrant, and he still got to be the head of gold.

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 5:24 am

Joel,

I think that democracy does fit with the biblical trajectory, but I would agree that one can't claim that other forms of government (e.g. monarchy) are unbiblical.

Communism, however, is the political instantiation of an anti-God ideology, so I'd have to differ with you there (see my response to anti-federalist).

Anti-Federalist

Monday, April 12, 2010 12:44 pm

The question should be asked though, why is the government building the roads? There are plenty of privately owned and built toll roads that work fine. Many railroads were built without any government help as well.

Also, when the interstate system was designed and built it was for the purpose of national security. To either move in or out mass military or move people out in mass. It turned out to be a great economic investment, but the original idea was security.

I know can sounds simplistic, but if there is no strict limit to government, then nearly any government program is legit.

However, it may not be Constitutional, and I do think God does expect the leaders in America to uphold the Constitution. They take an oath to God to do so. Does He not care about that?

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 5:20 am

Hello Anti-Federalist,

You'll have to forgive my amusement at your question. It fits the American stereotype so well to raise the specter of communism when the issue of discussion is levels of taxation in a capitalist society!

But I'll treat it as a serious question. I would say that communism is fundamentally unbiblical, for the following reasons:

1) Communist societies deify the state. There could be no discussion over levels of taxation in a communist society, because everything you earn and everything you already own belongs 100% to the State.

2) Communism undercuts the cultural mandate (Gen 1:28-30). It robs man of incentive to further subdue the earth. It acts as a restraint on innovation and creativity. There is no such thing as private enterprise in a communist society. In short, communism lacks a doctrine of creation.

3) Communism's doctrine of "sin" is pernicious and false. For communism, "sin" is economic disparity. It doesn't realize that, robbed of incentive, people will be lazy. The fundamental misunderstanding of the human nature within communism is what led to the spectacular demise of the USSR. China has only remained "communist" by transforming its economy into a capitalist model.

4) Communism has a pernicious doctrine of redemption. Communism's eschatology is focused on an anarchic utopia. For Christians, hierarchy is part of the fabric of creation, because we begin by acknowledging the lordship of God the Creator and the rule of Jesus Christ.

I find it interesting, anti-federalist, that you chose to raise the question of communism with me in particular. I'm the one in these discussions who has been emphasizing how different the USA is from Communist dictatorships such as North Korea. When I point out that we ought to be thankful, not only for fundamental freedoms (to worship God) but also for our economic prosperity, I usually receive in response a grudging affirmation of what I've said, with a bracketed "yet." Something like: "Yes, we haven't lost freedom of religion. (Yet.)" (See Tim's comments on the previous thread.) Maybe you should ask one of these prophets of doom what the difference is between the USA and communist states like North Korea.

For my part, I think these types of responses only indicate the problem I was pointing to, namely, a lack of perspective. Go to China, and say to the Christians there: "We don't have freedom either! Our gov't keeps raising taxes!" I think the brothers and sisters there will in response continue to pray that we Christians in North America be less focused on that which moth and rust destroys, and thieves (even governmental ones) break in and steal.

Joe Rigney

Monday, April 12, 2010 6:29 am

This was helpful. It appears to me that the differences here are owing at least partially to a desire to guard certain truths. So David DeJong is waving the banner of gratitude lest our criticism become overblown (e.g. reserve the word "tyranny" for violent, repressive places like North Korea). Others are trying to maintain that tyranny comes in many forms (directly violent vs. humanitarian), that societies are on trajectories, and that ours in the West is moving away from godliness in just about every way possible.

Obviously these two ideas aren't incompatible. I'm profoundly grateful to live in America, land of the free and the home of the brave that it is, especially when I read about what life was/is like in USSR/Russia (I just read Peter Hitchens new book). However, it's precisely that comparison that reminds me that liberty in all its forms is worth preserving, and that things can change rather quickly for the worse once the ball is rolling at a sufficient speed.

So count me as one who thanks the Lord that I was born in this fine country of ours and is therefore eager to ensure that my grandkids have even more to be grateful for.

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 6:51 am

Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way attempting to make an argument for socialism. I have been thinking about all of this over the weekend, trying to examine my own assumptions on these matters, and the following is a “devil’s advocate” sort of reply to Pastor Wilson’s argument. I’m not sure if all the premises are accurate, but if they are, the conclusion seems unavoidable.

1. Money is a placeholder for things of value, a legalized medium of exchange that represents the things of value. We need money precisely because it is generally inconvenient and impractical to carry around the things of value and try to make exchanges with them.

2. There is something that is rightly called “money” and many things that are wrongly called “money” but are in actuality “money-substitutes.” Real “money” has inherent value – e.g., gold and silver. “Money-substitutes” have only ascribed value – e.g., Greenbacks (which are not any longer backed up by gold or silver), checks, the complex combinations of ethereal 1s and 0s which are accessed by debit cards, etc.

3. What we call “money” in this country is really just a “money-substitute.” It is inherently worthless, having only ascribed value. The State says it is worth something, and we believe the State. We accept the State’s word about the Greenbacks, checks, and 1s and 0s, and so whether we are customers or merchants we all go about our daily business acting as if our money-substitutes actually are money.

4. But this means that we have a covenantal Arrangement with the State. “We the people” have agreed with the State that dollar bills, checks, and 1s and 0s are “money” and that we will exchange things which are of inherent value – such as the work done by the sweat of our brows – for these money-substitutes. The moment we make the exchange (willingly), we are stuck with the money-substitute, a thing of merely ascribed value. The thing of inherent value is no longer ours; we have traded it away according to the terms of an agreement that we have made with the State.

5. The money-substitutes for which we have exchanged the things of inherent value have stamped all over them the image of Caesar. According to Christ, the things which have Caesar’s image on them belong to Caesar, and we are to give him what is his.

6. Consequently, that which is taken from us by the tax system, being neither “money” nor “our property,” cannot be stolen from us by Caesar, especially as long as we are willingly participating in the covenantal arrangement involving exchanging things of inherent value for things of ascribed value.

7. Further consequently, if Caesar decides to redistribute the money-substitutes that bear his image and which are his property, he is doing what he wills with what is his own. It is Caesar’s property, not ours, that is being redistributed, and the owner of the property has the right to do with it as he pleases.

8. Questions of the justice of his doings can still arise, because Caesar is not the final source of right and wrong, and just because something he does is legal does not mean it is right. Nevertheless, he has the right to do with his own what he wills, and unless or until “We the people” entirely withdraw from the covenantal arrangement with him, our ability to complain is limited by our willing participation in the system.

This still leaves open questions such as whether any given person should take a tax credit (as Pastor Wilson observed elsewhere, there is a difference between direct subsidies and tax credits), thereby in some sense or another admitting to being dependent on the State, but if the argument is correct, it at least establishes that the redistribution of money-substitutes taken in via the tax system is not “stealing.”

If this argument is wrong at any point, I would most grateful to anyone who can point out the error(s).

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 7:06 am

Mr. De Jong,

To your above reply to me, I think by "hermeneutical" I meant "exegetical," so we're on the same page there.

I take your point about the consistency problems that can arise from saying "that gov'ts will be judged for anything they do that is not explicitly defined in Scripture." Myself, I don't agree that governments can only do what is "explicitly" stated in Scripture; as Xon H. mentioned above, the Reformed have a doctrine of "good and necessary consequence," and I'm pretty sure that Pastor Wilson agrees with that.

Joel Pastor is also right that Scripture doesn't seem terribly interested in prescribing an outward form of government. Monarchy is "the way things are" in the Old Testament, and Empire is the way they are in the New Testament, but I see no explicit instructions anywhere in Scripture that there is one form of government that is normative for all peoples, everywhere, at all times. Whether your idea that democracy "fits with the biblical trajectory" depends on how one defines "democracy." If we're talking "democracy" in the sense of the commonplace misnaming of the original American "constitutional republic" system, that's one thing. If we're talking Ancient Athens-style "democracy," that's another thing entirely.

I appreciate your argument against communism. Very insightful.

Joe Rigney

Monday, April 12, 2010 8:53 am

I'll push back on one aspect: No. 2. I'm not sure that there's a fundamental difference between "money" (like gold and silver) and "money-substitutes (dollar bills). In both cases, we are ascribing value to something. Gold or silver has no more value than what we give it as a medium of exchange. The difference between gold and dollar bills is that dollar bills are easier to mass produce, thus inflating the money supply. It's possible to inflate a gold-backed money supply (if you discover the land of Ophir and flood the system with newly found gold).

Do you think the argument still holds if the distinction between money and money-substitute collapses?

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 9:02 am

Mr. Rigney,

That's interesting. I had thought that gold and silver were recognized as intrinsically valuable because of their relative scarcity and beauty relative to, say, lead and dirt - or more appropriately, to paper that used to represent gold and silver but now, in essence, is just as mundane as anything else that is run off a printing press. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption? Would you be saying, then, that ALL "value" is only ascribed value?

I'm going to have to think about this some more, but my immediate thought is that the argument would still hold even if the distinction between "money" and "money-substitutes" collapses, because the medium of exchange (whether money or money substitute) still has Caesar's image stamped all over it, and we are still agreeing with Caesar that we will trade our work for that medium of exchange. The medium of exchange still belongs to him, and he can do with his own things what he wishes.

I guess this would not be an issue if the Government was not printing money - which several Founding Fathers argued it should not be able to do.

Anti-Federalist

Monday, April 12, 2010 9:05 am

David,

The point of the question was not to accuse you of being a communist, but to have you explain your opposition to communism so I could better understand your previous comments and your basic understanding of the legitimate role government. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would be opposed to communism and was simply wanting to hear your reasoning for it. Your immediate condescension to be amused at the "American stereotype" is telling though.

With that said, I think your critique of Communism is decent.

My main disagreement with you is that you seem to say American Christians have no right to oppose the unconstitutional laws of the federal government, the high level of taxation, the purposes for which those taxes are used and the growing role government continues to take in our lives simply because Christians in other nations are in far worse condition.

You seem to be saying that Christians in America should only care about having the right to go to church and the rest of it is out of our jurisdiction to speak about because God wants us to care about "heavenly things". I may be wrong in that characterization of you so please clarify if I am.

I think we could both agree that if the #1 priority of a Christian in America is politics, then that person is wrong. However, I will also say that a biblical worldview requires an understanding of all of life, including civil government, and Christians can and ought to speak out against government actions that are unbiblical. For instance, Wilson's biblical reasons for a defined jurisdiction of government in Rom 13 are sound. Therefore, as the US government continues to disobey Rom 13, Christians ought to speak out and oppose it. This is not Wilson's sole focus in his ministry, but simply a part of the whole. I wish that many more pastors would include that part in their ministry and not simply say, "it could be worse, and we can still go to church, so lets just keep quite".

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 10:33 am

Anti-Federalist wrote:

Your immediate condescension to be amused at the "American stereotype" is telling though.

My apologies if I came across as condescending. Certainly wasn't intended. It just struck me as funny that the great arch-nemesis of communism was brought into the conversation.

Anti-Federalist wrote:

My main disagreement with you is that you seem to say American Christians have no right to oppose the unconstitutional laws of the federal government, the high level of taxation, the purposes for which those taxes are used and the growing role government continues to take in our lives simply because Christians in other nations are in far worse condition.

I am saying none of these things. I would advise you to re-read what I am specifically claiming. I think American Christians can (lawfully) oppose high levels of taxation, government largesse, etc.

What I have been questioning is whether it is biblically warranted to call high levels of taxation, and taxation that is redistributed in the form of welfare, "theft". That is the key point that Wilson has failed to establish.

I would also question whether it is in keeping with biblical principles to refer to the government whom Christians are to honor as an "abusive boyfriend" and to use the language of "tyranny." Simply because I am attempting to tone down the rhetoric here doesn't mean I am opposed to Christians legitimately and lawfully opposing over-taxation.

The problem is, when a pastor claims biblical authority for his political goals, he implicitly is arguing that all Christians are disobedient to Scripture if they disagree with his politics. It claims divine authority for matters on which Christians can sincerely differ. On the whole, I happen to agree (mostly) with Wilson's politics. I support smaller government and lower taxes. I would urge you to note what my specific points of disagreement with Wilson have been.

Blessings.

Joe Rigney - re:

Monday, April 12, 2010 9:51 am

Tim Enloe wrote:

Mr. Rigney,

Would you be saying, then, that ALL "value" is only ascribed value?

The "ALL" in that sentence makes me nervous (I don't want to overstate). But if we limit ourselves to discussions of money, then yes, I think I'd say all mediums of exchange are valuable only because we ascribe value to them as representatives of actual goods.

That doesn't mean there's no difference between gold and paper money; it just means the difference isn't in the ascription of value.

The reason gold and silver make good money is that they are moderately scarce, accessible, durable, divisible, and easily identifiable, and, unless you're King Midas, difficult to inflate. I think the moderate scarcity is what leads people to think that it has inherent value, because it retains value much longer and is more stable (that, and it's shiny).

I don't think it makes any difference in terms of your hypothetical argument for socialism.

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 11:08 am

Ok, Joe (is that alright? I tend toward formalism, but it gets tiresome after a while) - I suppose all this brings up philosophical issues.

The reason I introduced the distinction between "inherent" and "ascribed" value is because, as I sit here cogitating, trying to put all this together, I recalled an argument made by certain Medieval thinkers about whether the sacraments conveyed real things to the recipients or only symbolized real things. One way that they explored this issue was in terms of the economic example of the king who, as covenant head of his people, declared actually worthless lead coins to be really worth something. His people, following their head, accepted the declaration because wrapped up in it was the very trustworthiness of the king. To deny the king's declaration about the lead coin would have been to deny the legitimacy of the king himself.

If one takes the position that there is intrinsic value to things one is a philosophical Realist, and all sorts of exegetical things can happen when one reads the Scriptures and applies them to life. If, however, one takes the position that there is no intrinsic value, but that all value is ascribed, one enters the world of radical Nominalism, and all sorts of contrary exegetical things can happen when one reads the Scriptures and applies them to life.

The relevance of all this to my argument is that if the Greenbacks (which are supposed to represent gold and silver, but no longer do) are inherently just as valuable as the gold and silver (ironically, because they are ascribed that same value), then something real is being taken from people when taxes are collected. But if the Greenbacks are not inherently as valuable as the gold and silver (because in this case, the ascription of the Government that they have that value is actually false), then nothing real is being taken from people when taxes are collected. It's really worthless paper that only functions as if it's money because people agree to accept it as if it was money.

Nevertheless, none of this touches the other point that the money has Caesar's image on it, and therefore belongs to him. If we could get Caesar out of the money-printing business, a lot of these troubles would probably evaporate.

By the way, I'm not actually trying to make a hypothetical argument for socialism. I was afraid it would look that way, which is why I said I'm not trying to do so. All I'm trying to do is determine whether the redistribution of tax monies by the Government is "theft."

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 11:21 am

Interesting discussion. I don't have much to add, but I do agree with Joe in wondering whether you've pressed the distinction between "ascribed value" and "real value" too far. Even though a 20$ bill has only "ascribed value," I wouldn't just burn one. The $20 bill has efficacy; it is a "promissory note."

There is an analogy with the sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are God's "promissory notes"; they have divine currency. Just as we acknowledge in our lives the efficacy of the greenback, so we should acknowledge the efficacy of the sacraments (this is obviously related to other discussions raging lately in the Reformed world, as certain TRs all but deny sacramental efficacy).

All of which is to say, the distinction between "real" and "ascribed" value should not be used to denigrate that which has "only" ascribed value: there is a promise behind it (and, there used to be real gold backing up that promise).

Your point about the "image of Caesar" is well taken. This passage is key in discussions of legitimate taxation, and figuring out what Jesus meant by connecting the "image" to the coin, and what implications that has, is crucial. If Wilson continues blogging in this vein, I hope he will address this.

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 11:29 am

Maybe I am pressing the distinction too far - that's one thing I want to try to find out in this discussion.

As you acknowledge, there is a "promise" behind the Greenbacks. That raises the question, though, what the promise is worth. When covetous men, who regularly lie through their teeth to maintain their power, not to mention doing all manner of other unethical things that demonstrate a clear character warping, issue promises to their subjects, what duty do the subjects have to their lying, unethical rulers?

The Medievals argued about this for centuries, and never came up with one universally accepted answer. Some gravitated to the "Oh well, it's the Government. What can you do?" position. These were the ones who came to be called "papists" in the realm of theology and "tyrants" in the realm of secular politics. Others gravitated to the "They broke the arrangment, so now we owe them no fealty."

Seems to me like we're all still having this old Medieval discussion, right here and right now.

Anti-Federalist

Monday, April 12, 2010 12:28 pm

I admit I had the below statement in mind more than your earlier posts when I wrote that.

Quote:

Go to China, and say to the Christians there: "We don't have freedom either! Our gov't keeps raising taxes!" I think the brothers and sisters there will in response continue to pray that we Christians in North America be less focused on that which moth and rust destroys, and thieves (even governmental ones) break in and steal.

I appreciate the clarification though.

Quote:

What I have been questioning is whether it is biblically warranted to call high levels of taxation, and taxation that is redistributed in the form of welfare, "theft". That is the key point that Wilson has failed to establish.

I think it is the redistributed welfare form of taxation that is the main question here. For instance, during WW2 when there were incredibly high levels of income tax most people did not complain because most of the money was going to fight a war for defense. Fighting a defensive war fits the biblical mandate for government. However, nanny state programs that require massive taxation do not fit the biblical mandate for government.

If government is taxing people to fund programs that it has no biblical mandate to create, then how is that not theft? I'm not voluntarily giving my money to fund these programs. The Government is taking my money because they have the power to put me in jail if I don't pay. So they are coercing me against my will to take my money to spend on programs that they have no right to create. That sounds like theft to me.

If I can't afford to send my child to college, can my friends and I come to your house and rob you to get money for college? No. I have no authority to do that and it would be theft if I did. Why is it not theft when the government does it? Did God give them the jurisdiction to take money for whatever purpose they want?

The only way I can see this not being theft is if we say that there is no jurisdiction to government, therefore they can tax whatever they want, however much they want and for whatever purpose they want. How do you see it?

Quote:

I would also question whether it is in keeping with biblical principles to refer to the government whom Christians are to honor as an "abusive boyfriend"

That's a legit question, but I think Wilson was using it in an analogous way, not in an outright reference to.

Quote:

The problem is, when a pastor claims biblical authority for his political goals, he implicitly is arguing that all Christians are disobedient to Scripture if they disagree with his politics.

That is a good point too and I agree with it in cases of someone like John Hagee saying everyone who doesn't support attacking Iran in defense of Israel is in defiance of the Bible. However, even in this case it comes down to jurisdiction. Did God give government the power of the sword to defend its own people, or to defend any people? If Iran is no direct threat to us (which is up for debate), then we have no right to attack them, regardless of the direct threat to Israel. You however, on your own will can send Israel money and go fight for them, but the government has no right to coerce me to do it because it is not in defense of the nation. If it were, then they do have the right to tax me.

I think the role of government is clear in the Bible regarding the jurisdiction of government and when government takes my money to fund illegitimate programs it is theft. I'd have to be convinced that God did not limit government to change my mind on that.

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 1:39 pm

We keep hearing a lot about the "biblical mandate" of the Government, but it seems Mr. DeJong was right when he pointed out above that there has to be more to that mandate than just a literalistic spin on "punishing evildoers" - unless we want to conclude that it is biblically wrong for the Government to build roads, deliver the mail, put out fires, answer 911 calls, and so on.

Can we not legitimately generalize from Romans 13's "punish the evildoers" to get "uphold justice"? If we can, the maneuvering room given to the Government is much larger, and the number of practical problems that arise becomes greater than any simplistic, naively literal appeal to "What the Bible says" could ever answer. Scripture itself allows generalizations from its ethical statements - that's how Paul gets from "do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the corn" to "pay your ministers what they are worthy of."

And again, to the last couple of comments, the question remains on the table whether the money being taken via taxation is my money. Last time I checked, it wasn't my image on it. But that brings things back around to my initial questions about whether our "legal medium of exchange" really is money, and to what extent my right to complain about what is being done with that medium of exchange by the Government is limited by the fact that I willingly agree with Caesar to accept the medium of exchange that bears his image on it.

I wish more people would jump in on this. I'm not looking for a debate; I'm looking for understanding, and "in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom."

Anti-Federalist

Monday, April 12, 2010 2:32 pm

Quote:

there has to be more to that mandate than just a literalistic spin on "punishing evildoers" - unless we want to conclude that it is biblically wrong for the Government to build roads, deliver the mail, put out fires, answer 911 calls, and so on.

Answering 911 calls would fall into the category of punishing evil doers if the call was to the police about a crime.

If the call was about a fire or a bad car wreck then I admit its more tricky. It does make you appreciate the old volunteer fire dept a little more though. Yet, a volunteer fire dept would not work to well in NYC.

However, I don't think it would be impossible for a private company to run a fire dept. Everyone who wanted coverage would pay a monthly bill to the company and they would respond if there was ever a fire to anyone of the customers. Like Brinks Home Security, but with fire trucks. If someone did not have fire protection through the company, then they risk their house being burnt down.

Quote:

And again, to the last couple of comments, the question remains on the table whether the money being taken via taxation is my money.

I don't understand that argument. The US has no Caesar. The images on our paper money are of dead presidents. The paper is accepted as money because its illegal not to. Another case of government coercion.

Tim Enloe

Monday, April 12, 2010 3:15 pm

Anti-Federalist,

I like your localization of emergency services examples. Might be some additional ways to de-empower the Federal behemoth, if one could find communities to go along with it. It WOULD be more of a hassle, after all, than just letting "the Government" take care of it.

I'm not sure why you don't follow the "Caesar" argument. In Jesus' day, the coin literally had the image of the reigning Caesar on it. In ours, the coin literally has the image of a dead president, who metaphorically stands for "the Government," on it. These items belong to the Government, on Jesus' reasoning, not to us. Perhaps this is why many of your namesakes did not want the Federal Government to be able to print money?

Your coercion point is quite true; we don't have any choice about the medium of exchange, unless we can find grocery stores, gas stations, clothing outlets, booksellers, and so on, that will make "in kind" arrangements with us, and unless we can wean ourselves off a lot of the luxuries that we presently think we "need," we truly do not have any choice. That we are coerced to use (probably worthless) paper (and sometimes magically created 1s and 0s standing in for the paper, which itself used to, but not any longer, stands in for gold and silver) likely does affect my argument way up above somehow. Time for me to go back to thinking! Thanks for the grist for the mill.

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 3:10 pm

Anti-Federalist wrote:

If government is taxing people to fund programs that it has no biblical mandate to create, then how is that not theft? I'm not voluntarily giving my money to fund these programs. The Government is taking my money because they have the power to put me in jail if I don't pay. So they are coercing me against my will to take my money to spend on programs that they have no right to create. That sounds like theft to me.

If I can't afford to send my child to college, can my friends and I come to your house and rob you to get money for college? No. I have no authority to do that and it would be theft if I did. Why is it not theft when the government does it? Did God give them the jurisdiction to take money for whatever purpose they want?

The only way I can see this not being theft is if we say that there is no jurisdiction to government, therefore they can tax whatever they want, however much they want and for whatever purpose they want. How do you see it?

Scholarly estimates of the tax burden on the average Galilean farmer of the first century range from 25% at the conservative end to 40% at the high end of the spectrum. Jesus spoke many of his parables in precisely the context of an agricultural society where tax-payers were hated for taking exorbitant sums and the average farmer was left with just enough to get by for the year. [See parables of seeds, parables of tenants, parables about talents: these reflect conditions in which wealth was concentrated with an elite minority of landowners, while the majority of people were tenant farmers.]

What did the Roman Empire do with their tax revenue? Let's see: they built temples, fora, and amphitheaters (including the famous Coliseum); they maintained a large army with legions scattered throughout the provinces; they gave periodic disbursements to citizens and plebs at Rome. Augustus would throw games and parties for the commoners (to keep them happy), all on the imperial dime, which of course meant from revenue generated by the provinces.

There is just no question that the Roman Empire was using tax revenue for a great many purposes that can hardly be justified. Nevertheless, Jesus says "render to Caesar." Paul, writing to Christians in Rome, says "pay your taxes." Peter, who is probably in Rome himself and writing to Christians in Roman provinces, says "pay your taxes."

Maybe it's theft. But our Lord Jesus and the apostle's Paul and Peter didn't see fit to call it so, nor did they encourage Christians to rebel against the oppressive taxing authority.

In the good ole' US of A, the government gets its authority to tax directly from the citizens. Which is why I expect the best tax "revolt" will come in November. As it is, this government has been lawfully elected. When they tax, it's not theft. That doesn't mean they can tax for whatever they want, when they want. As I said above, if Obama is purchasing personal estates in California, I'll call that theft. But it certainly isn't theft just because it doesn't directly relate to the mandate of Rom 13:4, which is the minimal requirement of what gov't is to do, and does not exhaust what they may be permitted to do. As I said above, other governmental activities need to be morally evaluated in their own right, not against the biblical minimum. To say it another way: bearing the sword is what gov't absolutely must do. However, it does not necessarily restrict what they may do. If Paul wanted Christians at Rome not to accept imperial disbursements (because the gov't is not to redistribute wealth), he certainly could have said so.

I hope that's clear.

Xon Hostetter

Monday, April 12, 2010 6:10 pm

Mr. DeJong,

Your argument here conflates two issues. Jesus tells us to walk the extra mile when a soldier forces us to walk one. This does not mean that Jesus is implicitly improving of soldiers coming up to subjects and bossing them around.

Similarly, the Bible tells us to pay our taxes, to submit to the governing authorities, etc. Yes, and just so. But that does not mean that what they are doing is legitimate. It may very well still be theft, and God tells us to submit to it anyway. "Pay your taxes" is not the same as "Your taxes are not theft."

Furthermore, Wilson's argument originally was about lesser magistrates defending the people against high taxation. It's not about individual people revolting on their own authority against taxes. If the governor of South Carolina, for instance, told the feds to go jump in a lake b/c they have no constitutional authority to do what htey are doint, by his lights, and if he then told his people to withhold their taxes to the feds until the feds get the message (this is a pretty extreme example, but pick whatever softer version we like), then this is all a legitimate PART of our present system of government. The people of South Carolina are under their governor lawfully, and our federalist system of government is one in which the states and the feds interact in, ahem, interesting ways. It's not different in principle, though, than Luther staying in Saxony under Frederick's protection while Charles V and Pope Leo fumed. "Oh, Martin, on what authority do you resist your lawful authorities? No matter what your own local prince says, you should go offer Charles your head in person."

??

David DeJong

Monday, April 12, 2010 6:44 pm

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I was just saying that I would like to see some treatment by Pastor Wilson of the emphasis in the biblical passages on taxation. The fact is that our Lord and the apostles had plenty of opportunity to address illegitimate taxation and call it theft. The fact is, they didn't. Doesn't mean it wasn't theft. But it does provoke reflection on what our attitude/emphasis should be in discussing appropriate levels of taxation.

Rick Ahlgrim

Monday, April 12, 2010 4:27 pm

I've followed this conversation from the end of Pastor Wilson's blog entry. Establishing a biblically appropriate level of taxation seems an exercise probably interesting in an abstract sort of way. And it's true that Jesus and the apostles never seemed too worked up over the tax rate.

But Pastor Wilson's remarks concerning the biblical guidance that leaders not be men given to covetousness is more important than the treatment it received. Politicians have certainly discovered that the power and wealth they desire for themselves can be obtained by convincing the poorer majority that they can vote raises for themselves routed through the government, but paid for disproportionately by the minority. The fact that nearly half of the U.S. population pays no income tax is a tribute to the left's intention to lock in a grateful (if dependent) electoral majority funded by the outvoted.

And as the leaders of the left make their redistributionist pitch to the people it seems unlikely to me that any clear eye will miss the bald appeal to envy. The arguments are nothing more than "those people have more than you have and that's not fair, so I'll go get some of theirs and give it to you". It's difficult to find the virtue - let alone biblical justification - in working up the people's passion to break the tenth commandment.

The fact that other places or times suffer(ed) from adults behaving worse than ours... seems not much of an argument.

It doesn't take a Dickensian villain to see that the looming swell of redistributist sentiment plays to the worst in what man can be, not the best. The purveyors of this crass and demeaning envy don't deserve a pass. What they do is not cute. Or amusing. What they do is bad for people and it will not be good for the society they create.

Xon Hostetter

Monday, April 12, 2010 5:58 pm

Woah, we're off the reservation on the value issue, guys. :-)

ALL economic value is ascribed (subjective). Absolutely. We value things in exchange because we think they will enable us to fulfill our own valued ends, whatever those are. If nobody cared about living in a house, houses would have no economic value.

But there is still a fundaental difference between gold or silver (or any commodity) as currency and fiat currency. People do, in fact, value gold and silver apart from their use as money. Who here bought their wife a gold wedding band or engagement ring with no thought of melting it down for exchange value at some later time? Right, me too.

Money originally developed as a commodity that was so widely valued by so many people that every person felt confident that they could use it in exchange, even if they personally had no interest in it.

Fiat money is not like this at all. Fiat money is exchangeable for goods and services only because the force of law requires it to be ("legal tender" means precisely this).

It isn't that gold or silver are "inherently" valuable in some objective sense. If people didn't care about gold or silver, then they wouldn't be valuable. But, as a historical fact, people DO care about gold and silver, which combined with other factors has made the good candidates to become money.

Nobody has ever valued green pieces of paper on a scale sufficient to make them usable as money. That's the difference.

Tim, for your earlier argument you asked us to poke holes in, I think this is the problem. We do not have a "covenant" to accept Federal Reserve Notes as money. We are forced by law to do so. If it was a merely "covenantal" arrangement, then we should be able to negotiate with our employers to be paid in some other form of money, and decide for ourselves what money we will accept in exchange. But this is not allowed by the state. Only the state's official paper money can be used as money, and it MUST be accepted as money.

It is unimpressive that Caesar has forced everyone to use only coins that he mints, and that he has put his face on all said coins.

Tim Enloe

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:57 am

Thanks, Xon. That's very helpful. Though I do note you seem to be advocating what I called the "radical Nominalist" paradigm saying so confidently that "ALL economic value is ascribed (subjective). Absolutely." - especially when you then go on to deny, absolutely, that anything has an "objective" value. It's fine to hold that position, assuming its defensible, but other people both past and present do not, and the point still stands that where one stands on this philosophical issue is going to have a lot of bearing on what arguments one finds persuasive. If the Realist position is correct, and gold and silver do have inherent value, your point about fiat money is actually made a lot stronger. Also, it would be possible to hold that gold and silver have inherent value (objective) while still allowing for fluctuations in how that value is reckoned on markets (subjective).

As to your rebuttal of the "covenant" point, I see your angle and appreciate it. Perhaps it would be better to say that we TACITLY act as if there is a covenantal arrangement involving these green pieces of paper, because quite simply, "We the people" outnumber "They the representatives," and if we really, really wanted to, we could ensure (even by non-violent means) that a different mode of currency be used. "We the people," however, TACITLY admit the validity of the Government's "legal tender," if merely because as a collective we do not rise up and say, "No, we don't want a part of this."

Does that make sense?

Tim Enloe

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:08 am

By the way, none of this is "academic" for me. I've never thought about these issues until now because until now I've never been faced with the situation I am in. That is, a situation where, because of being a full time student and a part time worker with a wife and three children, my tax liability for this past year was literally zero, but when I filled out the tax forms the way I was told to, the Government said, "Oh, you're a radically poor person. Let us give you some whopping big 'tax credits' for those kids, even though you paid nothing in taxes all year."

It's was more than a bit disturbing from the moment I finished the form, but when I read Pastor Wilson's earlier post about "refusing the benefits," I was forced to start thinking about whether I'm going to be implicated, even tacitly, in the theft of other people's property - not to mention that the whole thing feels a lot like a handout - which I, not having a socialist bone in my body, don't want.

Xon Hostetter

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:16 am

Tim, I hear you on the "nonacademic" part of things. I've been defined as radically poor for years. I'm on the "libertarian left" on this issue, though (yes, there is such a thing, though I think it's more like a treehouse with three people in it). God provides for people through tyrants sometimes. The hindrance of the free market actually hampers the poor disproportionately to others, so the notion that the spirit of "non-hypocrisy" requires them to shun whatever benefits the government kicks their way is not really fair. But anyway...

As to value being subjective, I am not a philosophical nominalist, actually. But ECONOMIC value is subjective. There can be objective values (such as life is better than death, etc.) grounded in the will of God without that telling us what the exchange value of something should be.

Tim Enloe

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:16 pm

Xon, sounds like we agree on the exchange value point, at least.

Seems like there are no easy answers to any of this.

People differ as to whether Greenbacks (and their representatives, checks, 1s and 0s in banks) are really money, and that's a key point as to whether taking / redistributing them is "theft."

People also disagree about whether the Greenbacks "belong" to Caesar because they have his image on them, and so are able to be disposed of by Caesar as he wishes.

People also disagree as to the limits of the Federal Government's responsibilities and jurisdictions. That's nothing new in American thought, and it appears to be about as intractable for us as it was for the Founding Fathers.

Probably the only thing we all agree on is that the present tax system is a royal stinking mess that creates a lot of serious practical ethical difficulties and, so something really needs to be done about it.

At least interaction such as has happened here helps everyone exercise their wisdom faculty, and for that I'm grateful to all who responded to my "devil's advocate" argument way up above.