Suppose you and nine other people are all standing around, and you all agree to appoint a man to go around and collect your money to put to good use. When that man comes and takes your money, does he have the right to do so? Of course he does. After all, you appointed him to do so.
Now suppose you and nine other people are all standing around, and only the other nine agree to appoint a man to go around and collect everyone’s money to put to good use. When that man comes and takes your money, does he have the right to do so? No, you would call such a person a thief. And why would you call him a thief? Because it is not his money, just as much as it is not money you ever agreed to give to him. That man is a thief.
So if this is what we think of people who take other people’s money, why are things suddenly different if that money collector bears the name “Uncle Sam” or “tax collector”? The members of the US Congress and other governments are just men or just human beings as is anyone else: they too can be thieves.
This is the rudimentary analysis of things. The conclusion of the thought experiment must be tempered by or matched with the words of the apostle Paul in Romans, chapter thirteen. So there will always be times in which one has the moral obligation to pay taxes, and even now you should pay your taxes.
However, it remains that Paul never said that governments hold the absolute right to do good however they desire, for common sense or good sense suggest otherwise. Start with an extreme example to put things into proper perspective. There is no government that has the right to kill three children to save one. Likewise, if a government’s attempt at some good act is second-rate compared with a good act of the same kind which is prevented by government intervention in the matter, then its right to do so is suspect.
So, these are things to remember when one flirts with libertarianism and anarchism and grows tired of statists and authoritarianism.
Now suppose you and nine other people are all standing around, and only the other nine agree to appoint a man to go around and collect everyone’s money to put to good use. When that man comes and takes your money, does he have the right to do so? No, you would call such a person a thief. And why would you call him a thief? Because it is not his money, just as much as it is not money you ever agreed to give to him. That man is a thief.
So if this is what we think of people who take other people’s money, why are things suddenly different if that money collector bears the name “Uncle Sam” or “tax collector”? The members of the US Congress and other governments are just men or just human beings as is anyone else: they too can be thieves.
This is the rudimentary analysis of things. The conclusion of the thought experiment must be tempered by or matched with the words of the apostle Paul in Romans, chapter thirteen. So there will always be times in which one has the moral obligation to pay taxes, and even now you should pay your taxes.
However, it remains that Paul never said that governments hold the absolute right to do good however they desire, for common sense or good sense suggest otherwise. Start with an extreme example to put things into proper perspective. There is no government that has the right to kill three children to save one. Likewise, if a government’s attempt at some good act is second-rate compared with a good act of the same kind which is prevented by government intervention in the matter, then its right to do so is suspect.
So, these are things to remember when one flirts with libertarianism and anarchism and grows tired of statists and authoritarianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment