The Catechism's Definition of Theft

[Bookcat]

The CCC is yes a very good definition. And one will find in the Catechism also that just taxes are not theft. To believe they are per se would not be a correct approach.

Even Paul in Sacred Scripture states we are to pay taxes to those to whom they are due.

One can find more in the Compendium of Social Doctrine.

 

[seekerofanswers]

There are certain jobs that must come from the government because they require the authority of the government. Namely, soldiers and police. Those really cannot be private companies because then they would have no real authority.

Wars are fought between governments, not people, so an absence of governments means there is no need for soldiers. Privatizing police forces would make them more efficient, as private defense companies would compete with each other. No authority is required, because in the absence of government, the vast majority of people would subscribe to the non-aggression principle: that aggression is inherently illegitimate.

Is it unjust to use tax money to pay the salaries of those individuals?

Yes, theft is immoral.

Or firefighters? Judges?

Firefighting should absolutely be privatized. It would save lives. Firefighting companies would compete, increasing their speed and quality. The same is true for other emergency services; if they were privatized, companies would compete, increasing their speed, thus saving lives. Judges would be unnecessary, as the non-aggression principle is simple: aggression is inherently illegitimate. For the rare case where there is come discrepancy, courts would be established voluntarily by local communities.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Have you read the guidelines about using the Ask An Apologist forum? (Assuming you did, but it never hurts to be sure.)

I did but I may have missed something. In any case, thanks for checking!

 

[seekerofanswers]

Even Paul in Sacred Scripture states we are to pay taxes to those to whom they are due.

I believe you are referring to Romans 13:1-7. When Paul writes,“Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God”, he tells us that when one of the “higher authorities” does something that God condemns, they are no longer legitimate authorities. We know this because he tells us, “there is no authority except from God”. If this is true, and an “authority” does something immoral, it is not a legitimate authority. When Paul writes, “This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” he tells us to pay taxes to legitimate authorities, those that are ministers of God. If an authority is demanding something of you, however, it is violating the Commandments and can be dismissed as a legitimate authority. For this reason, Romans 13:1-7 actually validates the idea that the only legitimate authority is a voluntarily recognized one.

When Jesus tells us to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, he is calling us to reject fiat currency, and is therefore rejecting the coercive authority. There are other examples of this:

“But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men.”” - Acts 5:29

“For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” - Ephesians 6:12

“Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”” - Mark 10:42-45

“Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power.” - 1 Corinthians 15:24

"But Gideon answered them, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you. The LORD must rule over you.” - Judges 8:23

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Wars are fought between governments, not people, so an absence of governments means there is no need for soldiers. Privatizing police forces would make them more efficient, as private defense companies would compete with each other. No authority is required, because in the absence of government, the vast majority of people would subscribe to the non-aggression principle: that aggression is inherently illegitimate.

Yes, theft is immoral.

Firefighting should absolutely be privatized. It would save lives. Firefighting companies would compete, increasing their speed and quality. The same is true for other emergency services; if they were privatized, companies would compete, increasing their speed, thus saving lives. Judges would be unnecessary, as the non-aggression principle is simple: aggression is inherently illegitimate. For the rare case where there is come discrepancy, courts would be established voluntarily by local communities.

I’m wondering how much experience you have living in the real world because your ideas are extremely unrealistic. The anti-police wacko liberals here in Portland think we should just have “community” interventions for “aggressive” people too. You are proposing anarchy, which will never ever work. I would go as far as to say that is an legitimately crazy idea.

Ambulance companies are privatized in the area I live in and they are always the LAST ones to arrive at a scene, AFTER the police and firefighters, who are public employees. As someone who actually works in emergency services, I can say without a doubt you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[seekerofanswers]

You are proposing anarchy

No, I am strongly opposed to anarchy. Anarchy is chaos. Anarchism is the absence of a coercive state.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

No, I am strongly opposed to anarchy. Anarchy is chaos. Anarchism is the absence of a coercive state.

What you are proposing is a complete absence of government, where the “people” run “communities” without any type of governing body or official laws. Do you truly believe that would not quickly devolve into anarchy?

 

[seekerofanswers]

What you are proposing is a complete absence of government, where the “people” run “communities” without any type of governing body or official laws. Do you truly believe that would not quickly devolve into anarchy?

You have to take into account that I am not advocating for an immediate end to the government as it exists today. The government has to be slowly reduced to a state where it solely serves the purpose of defending life and property. Once this happens, most people will voluntarily support the government, as most people subscribe to the ideas of non-aggression in their own lives. The “official law” would be the opposition to all forms of initiatory coercion. There are some anarchists who truly believe that there should be no protection of life or property, but those people are not true anarchists because they believe in using force to collectivize property. In free-market anarchism, the term “anarchism” simply refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion, where “coercion” is defined as physical force or threat of such against persons or property.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

You have to take into account that I am not advocating for an immediate end to the government as it exists today. The government has to be slowly reduced to a state where it solely serves the purpose of defending life and property. Once this happens, most people will voluntarily support the government, as most people subscribe to the ideas of non-aggression in their own lives. The “official law” would be the opposition to all forms of initiatory coercion. There are some anarchists who truly believe that there should be no protection of life or property, but those people are not true anarchists because they believe in using force to collectivize property. In free-market anarchism, the term “anarchism” simply refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion, where “coercion” is defined as physical force or threat of such against persons or property.

I’m a little confused. You say here that the government should serve the purpose of defending life and property…that is exactly the purpose of the police. Yet you believe the police should be run by privatized companies and not the government. How exactly is the government going to defend life and property without police?

 

[seekerofanswers]

I’m a little confused. You say here that the government should serve the purpose of defending life and property…that is exactly the purpose of the police. Yet you believe the police should be run by privatized companies and not the government. How exactly is the government going to defend life and property without police?

Let’s see, how can I explain this better? What I’m saying is that I believe most people subscribe to the principle of non-aggression in their own lives. If the government is to exist, it should defend life and property. As it is today, the purpose of the police is not solely the defense of life and property. If government doesn’t exist, I believe that voluntarily funded defense services would defend life and property anyways, because that is what a vast majority of people would want in a defense service. So it’s not that the government would have to defend life and property without a police force, but rather, the private defense forces would defend life and property without a government.