Why is taxation not theft and why is the state legitimate?

[smndtupidisaftr]

Then neither is any other encyclical.

What is binding is dogma and matters of faith. Specific policy proposals are interpretation.

I take it, then, that every philosopher and saint prior to Proudhon was mistaken? Why does the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church declare that the state has role to regulate private property?

Read the Old Catholic Encyclopedia for an orthodox perspective on anarchism. newadvent.org/cathen/01452a.htm

What happens when the state is using our taxes for evil, like welfare, abortion, wars of aggression? That’s about 90% of the US budget right there. You take away those things and I’ll be much less vocal against taxation if spending was only for defending our property.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

I’m definitely against the welfare-warfare state but providing for the common good is not theft. (I firmly believe that basic social security in the form of a minimum income as discussed by Friedman and Hayek would be the best policy prescription, myself.)

Anyway, here’s the Gaudium et spes (I had a brain fart and wrote Lumen gentium) quote.

Since property and other forms of private ownership of external goods contribute to the expression of the personality, and since, moreover, they furnish one an occasion to exercise his function in society and in the economy, it is very important that the access of both individuals and communities to some ownership of external goods be fostered

Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom. Lastly, since it adds incentives for carrying on one’s function and charge, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberties.(13)

The forms of such ownership or property are varied today and are becoming increasingly diversified. They all remain, however, a cause of security not to be underestimated, in spite of social funds, rights, and services provided by society. This is true not only of material property but also of immaterial things such as professional capacities.

The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. Goods can be transferred to the public domain only by the competent authority, according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation. Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good.(14)

By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods.(15) If this social quality is overlooked, property often becomes an occasion of passionate desires for wealth and serious disturbances, so that a pretext is given to the attackers for calling the right itself into question.

In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields. Not infrequently those who are hired to work for the landowners or who till a portion of the land as tenants receive a wage or income unworthy of a human being, lack decent housing and are exploited by middlemen. Deprived of all security, they live under such personal servitude that almost every opportunity of acting on their own initiative and responsibility is denied to them and all advancement in human culture and all sharing in social and political life is forbidden to them. According to the different cases, therefore, reforms are necessary: that income may grow, working conditions should be improved, security in employment increased, and an incentive to working on one’s own initiative given. Indeed, insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful; in this case, the necessary things and means, especially educational aids and the right facilities for cooperative organization, must be supplied. Whenever, nevertheless, the common good requires expropriation, compensation must be reckoned in equity after all the circumstances have been weighed.

How unlibertarian.

What is binding is dogma and matters of faith. Specific policy proposals are interpretation.

Yes, Paul VI declares that foreign aid is a moral obligation of rich countries. Has the way we’ve been doing it been a complete mess? Definitely. Perhaps directly aiding instead of handing money off to warlords would be a better way to do it. Either way, this moral obligation is present in Populorum progressio. Moral directives are not “prudential judgement”, policy prescriptions are. You cannot dissent from an encyclical unless you can provide an argument from within the Catholic tradition to support your argument. There is nothing in the Catholic tradition to support these ideas.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’m definitely against the welfare-warfare state but providing for the common good is not theft. (I firmly believe that basic social security in the form of a minimum income as discussed by Friedman and Hayek would be the best policy prescription, myself.)

Hayek never argued for a guaranteed minimum income. This causes the same problems as welfare. Why should people work harder when by doing nothing they don’t face the disutility of labor and get paid for it, when working only gets them meager increases in income?

Anyway, here’s the Gaudium et spes (I had a brain fart and wrote Lumen gentium) quote.

How unlibertarian.

It sounds nice, but it ignores the practical problems of efficient distribution, namely the economic calculation problem.

Yes, Paul VI declares that foreign aid is a moral obligation of rich countries. Has the way we’ve been doing it been a complete mess? Definitely. Perhaps directly aiding instead of handing money off to warlords would be a better way to do it. Either way, this moral obligation is present in Populorum progressio. Moral directives are not “prudential judgement”, policy prescriptions are. You cannot dissent from an encyclical unless you can provide an argument from within the Catholic tradition to support your argument. There is nothing in the Catholic tradition to support these ideas.

Are these demands on states or individuals? Because if individuals do that it’s great. Individuals have more of an incentive to make sure that their money is going toward intended goals. States, on the other hand, are not sending off their own money and care less, and they also only care about looking good and don’t care at all about the effects. Milton Friedman talked about how when you’re spending money for other people, you’re much less concerned about the utility than would the individual actual spending it himself.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Hayek never argued for a guaranteed minimum income. This causes the same problems as welfare.

Hayek did support the idea in theory, but he didn’t say it should be implemented right now because of the risk of a wave of immigrants overwhelming the system.

Why should people work harder when by doing nothing they don’t face the disutility of labor and get paid for it, when working only gets them meager increases in income

Because living on poverty-line income without any other assistance sucks. Minimum income should be enough to keep a person out of destitution but that’s about it. There should be a system implemented to prevent fraudulent use of minimum income, no, I am not going to invent one right now.

It sounds nice, but it ignores the practical problems of efficient distribution, namely the economic calculation problem.

So you’d rather that a handful of rich families own all land and property and deprive it from everyone else, something that has actually occurred in history (Central America)? Of course distribution of property by the state can be very problematic but this is the moral directive of an ecumenical council that cannot be written off simply by quoting Misesian economic theory. The moral directive exists, it must be followed, and the most utilitarian method must be used.

Are these demands on states or individuals? Because if individuals do that it’s great. Individuals have more of an incentive to make sure that their money is going toward intended goals. States, on the other hand, are not sending off their own money and care less, and they also only care about looking good and don’t care at all about the effects. Milton Friedman talked about how when you’re spending money for other people, you’re much less concerned about the utility than would the individual actual spending it himself.

Everyone, especially the rich and the state.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation: 1) mutual solidarity; the aid that the richer nations must give to developing nations; 2) social justice; the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations; 3) universal charity; the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and where the progress of some is not bought at the expense of others.

But neither all this nor the private and public funds that have been invested, nor the gifts and loans that have been made, can suffice. It is not just a matter of eliminating hunger, nor even of reducing poverty. The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man.[52] This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man. Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute? Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country, if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development of the young nations?

Government leaders, your task is to draw your communities into closer ties of solidarity with all men, and to convince them that they must accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures in order to promote the development of nations and the preservation of peace. Delegates to international organizations, it is largely your task to see to it that senseless arms races and dangerous power plays give way to mutual collaboration between nations, a collaboration that is friendly, peace oriented, and divested of self-interest, a collaboration that contributes greatly to the common development of mankind and allows the individual to find fulfillment.

Is the Holy Father a robber baron or are libertarians wrong?

Don’t throw the discussion off by pointing out the inefficiency of what Ron Paul calls “taking from poor people in one country and giving it to rich people in another country.” The moral directive of nations providing foreign aid still exists, the utility of certain policies must be questioned. Giving money to warlords does not work. (Anyway, the American system of “foreign aid” which is just giving Israel an allowance to buy guns really should be abolished.)

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Hayek did support the idea in theory, but he didn’t say it should be implemented right now because of the risk of a wave of immigrants overwhelming the system.

I need a quote to believe that. I know Hayek wasn’t as consistent as von Mises and Rothbard, but a guaranteed minimum income seems like a stretch for him.

Because living on poverty-line income without any other assistance sucks. Minimum income should be enough to keep a person out of destitution but that’s about it. There should be a system implemented to prevent fraudulent use of minimum income, no, I am not going to invent one right now.

Why have the state do it? Individuals give even though they are taxed a ton right now to help the poor. Why can’t we tax less so people can give more and so we can give more efficiently to those who really need the help like widows and orphans?

So you’d rather that a handful of rich families own all land and property and deprive it from everyone else, something that has actually occurred in history (Central America)? Of course distribution of property by the state can be very problematic but this is the moral directive of an ecumenical council that cannot be written off simply by quoting Misesian economic theory. The moral directive exists, it must be followed, and the most utilitarian method must be used.

Monopolies and large companies are also subject to the same problem of the economic calculation problem. Usually economies of scale mean that the larger you are the more efficient you are. However, at a certain point, it’s tough to know how much you should divert production to say mining for iron as opposed to using your iron to make wheels, to make steel, etc.

If you have the state own the means of production, then your economy will fail like any socialist country. If you distribute the means of production, then your economy is less productive than it would be by far because the means of production would not be in the hands of those who know how to use it best for consumer needs.

Everyone, especially the rich and the state.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

But the state must steal from its population to do so, which is wrong to me.

Is the Holy Father a robber baron or are libertarians wrong?

Neither.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

I need a quote to believe that. I know Hayek wasn’t as consistent as von Mises and Rothbard, but a guaranteed minimum income seems like a stretch for him.

“I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” - Friedrich Hayek, Hayek on Hayek

Maybe it’s good that he wasn’t consistent throughout his entire career, because that would be a sign of intellectual freedom and immunity to ideology. Rothbard, on the other hand, was an absolutely rigid and ideological thinker who did not change once he made the leap into anarchism

Why have the state do it? Individuals give even though they are taxed a ton right now to help the poor. Why can’t we tax less so people can give more and so we can give more efficiently to those who really need the help like widows and orphans?

Because the Church said so. Of course direct charity is morally superior, of course redistribution is not charity, but it is justice and a moral mandate that we cannot ignore.

Monopolies and large companies are also subject to the same problem of the economic calculation problem. Usually economies of scale mean that the larger you are the more efficient you are. However, at a certain point, it’s tough to know how much you should divert production to say mining for iron as opposed to using your iron to make wheels, to make steel, etc.

I know.

If you have the state own the means of production, then your economy will fail like any socialist country. If you distribute the means of production, then your economy is less productive than it would be by far because the means of production would not be in the hands of those who know how to use it best for consumer needs.

I know.

But the state must steal from its population to do so, which is wrong to me.

To you? So you’re a relativist? It’s certainly not wrong to any Pope, and they are the ones formed by milennia of Catholic thought and protected by the Holy Spirit. Would the Holy Spirit permit a Pope to promote sin in an encyclical?

Neither.

Enjoy the cognitive dissonance.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

“I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” - Friedrich Hayek, Hayek on Hayek

Maybe it’s good that he wasn’t consistent throughout his entire career, because that would be a sign of intellectual freedom and immunity to ideology. Rothbard, on the other hand, was an absolutely rigid and ideological thinker who did not change once he made the leap into anarchism

It’s a sign, but it doesn’t mean he’s right, and it doesn’t mean that Rothbard is wrong.

Because the Church said so. Of course direct charity is morally superior, of course redistribution is not charity, but it is justice and a moral mandate that we cannot ignore.

Even when welfare is, at least in my opinion, one of the most, if not the most important factor in the disintegration of the family?

To you? So you’re a relativist? It’s certainly not wrong to any Pope, and they are the ones formed by milennia of Catholic thought and protected by the Holy Spirit. Would the Holy Spirit permit a Pope to promote sin in an encyclical?

The only time that popes are infallible are when speaking on issues of moral theology, right? When making ex cathedra statements?

Enjoy the cognitive dissonance.

The problem is that not all effects of the program was thought out; libertarians have examined the issue and found state action having socially destructive effects.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Even when welfare is, at least in my opinion, one of the most, if not the most important factor in the disintegration of the family?

Nobody is calling for a welfare state and the welfare state is looked down upon in Centesimus annus.

The only time that popes are infallible are when speaking on issues of moral theology, right? When making ex cathedra statements?

Now you’re just proving that you have no understanding of papal authority, papal infalliblity, and the nature of the magisterium. I’m not explaining this, you do your own homework.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Nobody is calling for a welfare state and the welfare state is looked down upon in Centesimus annus.

Then that’s about half of the federal budget that we must be against, along with foreign aid which is just welfare on an international level.

Now you’re just proving that you have no understanding of papal authority, papal infalliblity, and the nature of the magisterium. I’m not explaining this, you do your own homework.

Pope Leo XIII: “If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.”

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Then that’s about half of the federal budget that we must be against, along with foreign aid which is just welfare on an international level.

Yes, I agree, get rid of it, conservatively and gradually. Foreign aid needs to be reformed as well. But social security =/= welfare.

Pope Leo XIII: “If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.”

This does not change any of the moral mandates given by the Popes. Pope Leo XIII wrote an entire encyclical on civil government. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html

Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, yet never has he been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men necessity itself compels that some should hold pre-eminence; lest society, deprived of a prince or head, by which it is ruled, should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Yes, I agree, get rid of it, conservatively and gradually. Foreign aid needs to be reformed as well. But social security =/= welfare.

It is theft, at least. Social security gets negative returns and in effect imposes a savings rate upon me that I may need to lower depending upon emergencies. Furthermore, it has been abused and treated like an income tax and invests in things that I would not have invested in. It needs to be obliterated.

This does not change any of the moral mandates given by the Popes. Pope Leo XIII wrote an entire encyclical on civil government. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html

If we must not support foreign aid, welfare, etc., then what exactly are we supposed to defend. Enforcement of property rights? Well you don’t need a state for that.

 

[Linux]

Well said, VeritasLuxMea. This issue is so little considered or understood. And very difficult to get enough distance from the world to see it.

Two hundred years ago, most Americans–including Catholics–had little sense of how evil slavery really was. There is something that blinds us from the evil we’ve tolerated for millennia. So it is with long-accustomed evils that we still approve today.

No matter how saintly a government behaves in other matters, none (save one: the Vatican) forsake the use of force as a means of accomplishing the “good.” So the “good” government—which never initiates violence except to finance its good-deed-doing—finds itself making the moral choice condemned by St. Paul in Romans 3:8: that of doing evil that good may come of it.

Blessed Pope John Paul II set out the criteria for making right moral decisions. While it is important to consider good intentions and good results, neither of those criteria justify an evil action:

Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused.

~John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) 78​

If government aggression is evil, might it be a necessary evil? If good intentions or results do not justify wrongful actions, then there can be no necessary evil. Even the good ends of government cannot justify it. Never mind the massive evils–even mass murders–that governments routinely engage in.

Context is being ignored here, which is not surprising since that is the only way these types of fallacies can survive.

No one has an unconditional right to property; and God has given everybody the right to property. So depending on context, taking something from someone to feed others is not necessarily theft if a Governing-Body can see that somebodies possession of something is to the detriment of society and the moral fabric of the common good. Capitalistic individualism is not in line with Catholic social teaching. You are in fact a part of a community of individuals, hence the concept of the common good. Thus when a member of your community has no property, no means of production, and no food, because everybody else has ownership of those things, then this goes against the common good; and allowing that person to starve to death or not giving that person the means of production is murder and theft. Thus the government has a right to intervene and regulate the common market and the distribution of property so that everybody has the opportunity to have the means of production or food; hence one of the reasons for taxation.

Similarly, if I am homeless and have no means to obtain food or shelter it is not wrong for me to walk in to a shopping mall and take food.

This is not difficult to understand.

It is really shameful to find this selfish, greedy, and ignorant attitude among Catholics. The worst thing about this is that they have distorted divine scripture to support injustice. That is the worst kind of theft.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Context is being ignored here, which is not surprising since that is the only way these types of fallacies can survive.

No one has an unconditional right to property; and God has given everybody the right to property. So depending on context, taking something from someone to feed others is not necessarily theft if a Governing-Body can see that somebodies possession of something is to the detriment of society and the moral fabric of the common good.

Who decides that? How convenient that it is a group of men.

Capitalistic individualism is not in line with Catholic social teaching. You are in fact a part of a community of individuals,

Which is why free markets are about peace and exchange.

hence the concept of the common good. Thus when a member of your community has no property, no means of production, and no food, because everybody else has ownership of those things, then this goes against the common good; and allowing that person to starve to death or not giving that person the means of production is murder and theft. Thus the government has a right to intervene and regulate the common market and the distribution of property so that everybody has the opportunity to have the means of production or food; hence one of the reasons for taxation.

Similarly, if I am homeless and have no means to obtain food or shelter it is not wrong for me to walk in to a shopping mall and take food.

It is wrong! You have no right to what isn’t yours! And people are willing to give.

This is not difficult to understand.

It is really shameful to find this selfish, greedy, and ignorant attitude among Catholics. The worst thing about this is that they have distorted divine scripture to support injustice. That is the worst kind of theft.

So those who disagree with theft are the ones doing the theft?! When you claim someone else is doing what you actually advocate, that’s when you know your argument is indisputably convoluted.

 

[Linux]

Who decides that? How convenient that it is a group of men.

Which is why free markets are about peace and exchange.

It is wrong! You have no right to what isn’t yours! And people are willing to give.

So those who disagree with theft are the ones doing the theft?! When you claim someone else is doing what you actually advocate, that’s when you know your argument is indisputably convoluted.

You completely ignored my argument to excuse your selfishness. My argument is indisputable. Its between you and God now. I have no interest in debating you.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

You completely ignored my argument to excuse your selfishness. My argument is indisputable. Its between you and God now. I have no interest in debating you.

What’s ignoring the argument is ignoring my argument and calling me selfish. You might want to consider how closed off you are to opposing viewpoints.

 

[Linux]

What’s ignoring the argument is ignoring my argument and calling me selfish. You might want to consider how closed off you are to opposing viewpoints.

I saw no argument. All I saw was just another person that cannot or won’t accept reality and would prefer to assert his authority instead.

 

[andrewstx]

Context is being ignored here, which is not surprising since that is the only way these types of fallacies can survive.

No one has an unconditional right to property; and God has given everybody the right to property. So depending on context, taking something from someone to feed others is not necessarily theft if a Governing-Body can see that somebodies possession of something is to the detriment of society and the moral fabric of the common good. Capitalistic individualism is not in line with Catholic social teaching. You are in fact a part of a community of individuals, hence the concept of the common good. Thus when a member of your community has no property, no means of production, and no food, because everybody else has ownership of those things, then this goes against the common good; and allowing that person to starve to death or not giving that person the means of production is murder and theft. Thus the government has a right to intervene and regulate the common market and the distribution of property so that everybody has the opportunity to have the means of production or food; hence one of the reasons for taxation.

Similarly, if I am homeless and have no means to obtain food or shelter it is not wrong for me to walk in to a shopping mall and take food.

This is not difficult to understand.

It is really shameful to find this selfish, greedy, and ignorant attitude among Catholics. The worst thing about this is that they have distorted divine scripture to support injustice. That is the worst kind of theft.

Amen

 

[Sky_River]

This has been bothering me lately. Why is taxation not theft and what gives the state its legitimacy? I’m interested in both Catholic and rationalistic explanations.

Because our governments do other good and&/or nice stuff. Kinda of like if somebody does you U a favor, you U shown them some respect!!!

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Which is why free markets are about peace and exchange.

Human behavior is not intrinsically economic, are you a Marxist?

 

[sw85]

Those papal statements are not binding in their policy recommendations.

Jesus Christ Himself commanded that we render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. St. Paul the Apostle confirmed the duty to obey legitimate authority. The fullness of apostolic tradition has supported the duty to pay taxes since the beginning.

There is really no one social teaching that is less negotiable than this.

If you think you’re smarter than our omniscient God and the shepherds to whose care He entrusted you, then you are by definition a reprobate soul and there’s nothing to be said to you except to offer our sincerest prayers that you repent of your error before you pride destroys you.

So perhaps the decent Catholics in this thread ought to bow out of this utterly unprofitable discussion.