Socialism

[Reep]

Again, this assumes radical individualism and does not seem compatible with classical Christian social thought, as far as I can see.

It isn’t one person reaching into someone else’s pocket.
Edwin

I’m not really a “Don’t tread on me” individualist. It’s more of a “Don’t tread on your neighbor” thing.

Are we so accustomed to having legislators do our stealing (and giving) for us that we reject the possibility in the future of finding a better and non-aggressive way of doing what needs doing?

I am not so quick to attribute Jesus’s “render unto Caesar” statement as a proof text that one should pay taxes. Do you suppose that it is a settled question what is or is not Caesar’s? For my two cents, I’d says everything is the Lord’s. Perhaps Caesar is owed nothing. Perhaps even what he has was taken from others by force.

There is something else about the “render unto Caesar” incident, as Luke tells us, “They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.”

Instead of tricking Jesus, It seems Jesus’s answer allowed him to slip away (temporarily) from his enemies. The answer would have satisfied the the Romans (and state-loving apologists everywhere). Nonetheless, contemporary Jews–who hated the Romans and their tax collectors–would have understood that Jesus was denying that Caesar was owed anything. This can be seen three chapters later when the Jews finally explained it to the Romans to get Jesus crucified: “He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar.”

I’d say there is a great deal of ambiguity here.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I don’t know how you would run a country without taxation. Without taxes the public sector would disappear overnight, no government, federal, state or local, no law system, no public health, utilities, infrastructure, military, and on and on. But you might notice that in most if not all of those a lot of money and power is at stake, but for supporting the weakest in society there is no profit margin nor any power to be gained.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Well there’s no Government like, No Government.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[epan]

We are so blessed to be at a time where we can look up encyclicals and writings of the popes and bishops and saints. This doesnt mean that there is nothing else to learn but taking these writings we can gain great strengh in faith.

Pope Leo XIII on Socialism
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

Leo XIII is rather florid and gushing in that polemic, but he doesn’t really say much of substance. It would have been useful if there were some references in the text itself to support his opinions. He also seems to confuse Communism, Socialism, and Nihilism. Or, at least he puts them all in the same class together, which would indicate a lack of understanding.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

True.

I am in complete concert with the ideals agreed upon by those who wrote the Constitution that established my government. I have no desire to see change whatsoever.

I see. You consider your fellow peoples to be the founding fathers rather than anybody alive today. The government today is maintained by the people of today. They are your fellow peoples. So when I said you can only decide what your government should be in concert with your fellow peoples, I meant them, not the founding fathers. If the people of today want to change something that the founding fathers approved of, like slavery, they can do it.

Charity is reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft. When done by a government that has no authority to “spread the wealth” it can surely be termed theft also.

This argument does not discriminate between taxation for public welfare and taxation for the military or any other common good. If it is theft to take my money to fund the Headstart Program, then it is theft to take my money to pave roads in parts of the state that I will never visit, or to take my money and fund a military adventure of which I do not approve. Why is that not also theft? If you really mean to show that taxation for the purpose of welfare is theft, then you need to show why taxation for other things that I don’t want to voluntarily support is not also theft. In other words, what is it about welfare for the needy different from taxation for every other purpose?

A new question?? “Is taxation legal?”

You are right. I mixed up several posts in this thread. Let’s stick with the question of whether taxation is theft - and in particular, is all taxation theft or just some taxation.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I see. You consider your fellow peoples to be the founding fathers rather than anybody alive today. The government today is maintained by the people of today. They are your fellow peoples. So when I said you can only decide what your government should be in concert with your fellow peoples, I meant them, not the founding fathers. If the people of today want to change something that the founding fathers approved of, like slavery, they can do it.

Right again Leaf.

There are legal mechanisms in place allowing changes to our government.
Historically, when abused, those “changes” have proven detrimental.

I align myself with the founding fathers because I agree with them. I, like the vast majority of modern Americans are not interested in a fundamental change. The values and principles that this government was founded upon are unshakable.

This argument does not discriminate between taxation for public welfare and taxation for the military or any other common good. If it is theft to take my money to fund the Headstart Program, then it is theft to take my money to pave roads in parts of the state that I will never visit, or to take my money and fund a military adventure of which I do not approve. Why is that not also theft? If you really mean to show that taxation for the purpose of welfare is theft, then you need to show why taxation for other things that I don’t want to voluntarily support is not also theft. In other words, what is it about welfare for the needy different from taxation for every other purpose?

Interesting point!

Here’s how I see it.

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense.
There is no requirement for educational programs or roads.

Here’s an example:

The Constitution of the Great State of California grants the “right to an education” to all residents. So the tax payers fund government education. I don’t agree with that, but it’s the law. So I gnash my teeth and write a check.

There is no Constitutional justification for a Federal Department of Education. For the government to take my taxes for a non authorized program…theft.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense.
There is no requirement for educational programs or roads.

Here’s an example:

The Constitution of the Great State of California grants the “right to an education” to all residents. So the tax payers fund government education. I don’t agree with that, but it’s the law. So I gnash my teeth and write a check.

There is no Constitutional justification for a Federal Department of Education. For the government to take my taxes for a non authorized program…theft.

I am still not clear about which taxes you consider theft and which you don’t. Your first comment seems to imply you think taxing for roads is theft. And it is unclear whether you think local school tax is theft or not. Your last comment seems to imply that taxes for any purpose not specifically mentioned in a State or the Federal Constitution are not authorized. The State and Federal governments have laws to authorize things too. Not everything has to be mentioned in a constitution. Unless the laws are actually in conflict with a constitution, they are also a legitimate way of authorizing something.

True or False: Taxes are theft whenever they are used for something I don’t like.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I am still not clear about which taxes you consider theft and which you don’t. Your first comment seems to imply you think taxing for roads is theft. And it is unclear whether you think local school tax is theft or not. Your last comment seems to imply that taxes for any purpose not specifically mentioned in a State or the Federal Constitution are not authorized. The State and Federal governments have laws to authorize things too. Not everything has to be mentioned in a constitution. Unless the laws are actually in conflict with a constitution, they are also a legitimate way of authorizing something.

Gee, I tried to be very clear and concise…I even re-edited my post a couple of times.

OK: Taxes for roads, bridges and highways COULD be legal (not theft) since they serve the general public…and are used exclusively for roads, bridges and highways. Sadly, we know that is not the case. Some people may never drive down Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills and some may never visit Nebraska. Additionally, the Federal Highway Trust fund is regularly raided for a multitude of pork projects that have no bearing on transportation at all.

Therefore, without Constitutional authorization, I would have to declare Federal taxes for roads to be theft.

As far as LOCAL taxes for schools…That would be fine for the local community as long as those who do not want their children schooled by a local government are allowed to deduct that tax. Other wise the local government is taking from some parents and giving to others. Theft.

As to my implication… that taxes for any purpose not specifically mentioned in a State or the Federal Constitution are not authorized…That is exactly what I mean.

The Constitution is very clear about what is not covered being left up to the states. If a state wants to provide subsidized abortions on demand…it can. A moral person’s only recourse would be to move…it is still a free country.

True or False: Taxes are theft whenever they are used for something I don’t like.

Oh goodie…a T/F question. I love T/F questions because you cannot expound on the answer.

Answer: FALSE!

Now allow me to pose a question to you. You can expound on this.

I keep what I earn…you keep what you earn.
If you disagree with that…please tell me how much of what I earn is yours and why?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK: Taxes for roads, bridges and highways COULD be legal (not theft) since they serve the general public

They serve the public unequally. Why should people who live in dense cities be forced to pay for paving rural highways that they have no intention of using? Is this not theft? Money is taken from one group of people for the benefit of another group of people. And why do you confine your criticism to just Federal taxes for roads? Why isn’t state tax for roads on your radar too? The people in a single state can be very diverse in what they need and want.

Therefore, without Constitutional authorization, I would have to declare Federal taxes for roads to be theft.

This is a different criteria than the first one you mentioned. You somewhat supported state taxes for roads on the grounds that it serves the general public. The implication is that taxes that serve the general public is not theft while taxes that do not serve the general public is theft. But when it comes to analyzing federal taxes for roads, the issue of serving the general public is not even mentioned. Instead you rest your case on whether or not the tax is authorized by the Constitution. It looks to me like you are picking whatever criteria happens to best agree with your personal approval of the tax. A criterion for deciding if a tax is theft should be an unchanging criterion. So which is it? Can you state the criteria without relying on any examples?

As far as LOCAL taxes for schools…That would be fine for the local community as long as those who do not want their children schooled by a local government are allowed to deduct that tax.

How about people who do not have any children? Should they also be allowed to deduct the tax? And should people with more children pay more tax? Otherwise the local government is taking from some people and giving to others. Theft, according to you?

As to my implication… that taxes for any purpose not specifically mentioned in a State or the Federal Constitution are not authorized…That is exactly what I mean.

If nothing is authorized without being specifically mentioned in a State or Federal Constitution, what is the purpose of having a legislature? You don’t recognize anything authorized by legislature, right? I have asked you several times if you think a legislature (state or federal) has the authority to authorize a tax.

The Constitution is very clear about what is not covered being left up to the states.

Even if we take this to be strictly true, that does not answer the question of whether state taxes not authorized by a state constitution are theft.

Now allow me to pose a question to you. You can expound on this.

I keep what I earn…you keep what you earn.

This is fine if you and I never share anything - like a road, or a park, or a military. But if we do share something, we both have an overlapping duty to share in the support of that something.

 

[Hobbes42]

So much Locke and Rand being spewed in this thread it’s sickening…

 

[JB_Dugan]

They serve the public unequally. Why should people who live in dense cities be forced to pay for paving rural highways that they have no intention of using? Is this not theft? Money is taken from one group of people for the benefit of another group of people. And why do you confine your criticism to just Federal taxes for roads? Why isn’t state tax for roads on your radar too? The people in a single state can be very diverse in what they need and want.

This is a different criteria than the first one you mentioned. You somewhat supported state taxes for roads on the grounds that it serves the general public. The implication is that taxes that serve the general public is not theft while taxes that do not serve the general public is theft. But when it comes to analyzing federal taxes for roads, the issue of serving the general public is not even mentioned. Instead you rest your case on whether or not the tax is authorized by the Constitution. It looks to me like you are picking whatever criteria happens to best agree with your personal approval of the tax. A criterion for deciding if a tax is theft should be an unchanging criterion. So which is it? Can you state the criteria without relying on any examples?

Both you and Edwin have indicated that I was using “circular reasoning”.

What I am seeing here is a problem with “reading comprehension”.

If you go back over my post you will see that I **do ** say that …people who live in dense cities and are forced to pay for paving rural highways that they have no intention of using Is theft. It does fall under the heading of money taken from one group of people for the benefit of another group of people.

I criticize Federal spending on roads because the federal government has no authority to spend tax money on roads.

People have more control over state and local governments. Politicians tend to be more careful with local funds as opposed to hugh federal grants that seem to be spent on everything other than highway projects.

But, again, if the taxes (local or federal) are not used for programs that serve the general public EQUALLY and/or programs that are not a function of government…that is theft.

How about people who do not have any children? Should they also be allowed to deduct the tax? And should people with more children pay more tax? Otherwise the local government is taking from some people and giving to others. Theft, according to you?

Yes, Leaf that would obviously be theft.

A childless millionaire living in a $5 million mansion could provide 5 kids with a solid Catholic education on what he could deduct from the portion of his taxes that goes to government schools. I hope I don’t have go into the educational benefits of private vs. government education…

If nothing is authorized without being specifically mentioned in a State or Federal Constitution, what is the purpose of having a legislature? You don’t recognize anything authorized by legislature, right? I have asked you several times if you think a legislature (state or federal) has the authority to authorize a tax.

The purpose of a legislature is to protect individual rights and provide such public services as authorized by the Constitution.

You ask if I think a legislature (state or federal) has the authority to authorize a tax.

Like I said before, when I quoted the Constitution granting congress the power to levy taxes (remember?)…yes, when the tax serves the general public EQUALLY and is within the limitations of the legislature as stated in the Constitution.

Even if we take this to be strictly true, that does not answer the question of whether state taxes not authorized by a state constitution are theft.

A tax not authorized by a state constitution is not legal. Therefore…theft.

This is fine if you and I never share anything - like a road, or a park, or a military. But if we do share something, we both have an overlapping duty to share in the support of that something.

That’s not a very good answer. You chose to neglect a very important part.

…how much of what I earn is yours and why?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you go back over my post you will see that I **do ** say that …people who live in dense cities and are forced to pay for paving rural highways that they have no intention of using Is theft. It does fall under the heading of money taken from one group of people for the benefit of another group of people.

Well, I have to hand it to you. You are at least keeping consistent.

.But, again, if the taxes (local or federal) are not used for programs that serve the general public EQUALLY …that is theft.

And what if there is a disagreement over whether something is serving the general public equally? You may think that the war in Iraq was a necessary defensive action, and therefore serving the general public. But what if someone believes that such an adventure only served the interests of big oil comparies? I’m not asking you to agree with that position. I am only asking if, for such a person, he could view his taxes that go to support that military effort as another form of theft? You have been so consistent so far. Don’t let me down now.

A childless millionaire living in a $5 million mansion could provide 5 kids with a solid Catholic education on what he could deduct from the portion of his taxes that goes to government schools.

I’m not asking you about what he could do. I am asking about what is theft. Is it theft to tax the childless millionaire for public school?

And while we are talking about schools, why is it fair to tax the parents for a service that only their children benefit from? Suppose a parent is a very bad parent and does not want his child to have any education - public or private? Is it not theft to take taxes from that parent and give it to the kids?

What you have not considered is that education is in fact a common good. Your life would not be nearly so good as it is if it were not for the numerous people in your life who are educated. This includes everyone from your doctor, your auto mechanic, the managers at Walmart, the firemen, the public librarian, the police, and yes, even the politicians! It is too late to pay for their education because they were already educated before you came along. But they were, in turn, educated by the efforts (and taxes) of people who came before you and who did not necessarily receive the benefits of educating those people. Do you feel like it was theft from the previous generation that caused you to be surrounded by so many talented people? If so then when are you going to make restitution?.

You chose to neglect a very important part.

…how much of what I earn is yours and why?

none of it.

 

[JB_Dugan]

none of it.

Bingo!!!

You are not entitled to anything I earn, and I am not entitled to your earnings.

This is the basis of the individual right to private property.

Since I cannot morally and legally take what is yours…how on Earth can I establish a government that has the authority and power to take what is yours by force???

If I take your property by force…I am a thief.

THEREFORE:

When a government takes private property (earnings) by force…it is theft.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I went over a pothole the other day. The bill was over $400. The road would have been resurfaced but because of the recession the council was short of funds. The road deteriorated in just a few months, and it is a minor road. Taxes pay for these things. If there was no tax in a few years the only way to transport yourself would be on horseback or by helicopter. Roads are important but people are more important than roads.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Bingo!!!

You are not entitled to anything I earn, and I am not entitled to your earnings…

I am still waiting for your answers to my other points.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I went over a pothole the other day. The bill was over $400. The road would have been resurfaced but because of the recession the council was short of funds. The road deteriorated in just a few months, and it is a minor road. Taxes pay for these things. If there was no tax in a few years the only way to transport yourself would be on horseback or by helicopter. Roads are important but people are more important than roads.

An excellent example of the importance of the common good for people!

 

[JB_Dugan]

I went over a pothole the other day. The bill was over $400. The road would have been resurfaced but because of the recession the council was short of funds. The road deteriorated in just a few months, and it is a minor road. Taxes pay for these things. If there was no tax in a few years the only way to transport yourself would be on horseback or by helicopter. Roads are important but people are more important than roads.

A perfect example of the mis-direction of public funds.

Your local council should only be responsible for police, fire, sewer, roads, and perhaps water and sanitation. My guess is that are several welfare and social programs that are being fully funded while essential services are cut.

If tax revenues are down for whatever reason, services must be reduced. An honest local government will cut everything else before reducing essential services.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My guess is that …

Yes, guessing is much more fun than knowing.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Yes, guessing is much more fun than knowing.

Specially when the guess is right.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I am still waiting for your answers to my other points.

Leaf, old sport, the questions are going around in circles…(circular questioning ? )

I really thought that post summed up that discussion.