Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?

[pnewton]

Therefore, Government taxation can defined as Theft by Coercion**;** TAXATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

One of the Ten Commandments is about Theft, and that is basically what Government taxation is.

We are not free to interpret the Bible in any way to fit our ideology. The Catholic Church (and Jesus personally) has stated that taxation is acceptable and not theft. Jesus ordered paying taxes, the Catechism upholds this.

Look at a dollar bill. Does it not say, “The United States of America,” even as Roman coins had the face of Caesar? This talk of taxation being theft defies the instruction of Jesus

 

[Della]

After reading all the posts in this Nanny State forum thread as of Feb.15, 2012 it becomes clear that the basics are being overlooked**:**

1. “Contributions”, and “Charitable”, and “Investments” are VOLUNTARY.
   Whereas, Taxation IS NOT the same as VOLUNTARILY Contributing, Charitable, Investing.
   
   If you CHOOSE to not Contribute, nor be Charitable, nor Invest - for ANY reasons whatsoever (such as sudden financial hardship, health costs, financially greatly helping your family, etc., and yes even with being financially greedy) - then, what will happen to you?
   NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, as far as any Government ENFORCEMENT actions are concerned.
2. However, if you choose TO NOT pay your taxes, then the Government WILL take action, via threat of Enforcement by confiscating your property, your savings, and imposing prison sentencing via the government courts systems.

Therefore, Government taxation can defined as Theft by Coercion**;** TAXATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

One of the Ten Commandments is about Theft, and that is basically what Government taxation is.

Clearly then, Contributing goods and money, being Charitable, and Investing are voluntary**;** taxation IS NOT.

Taxation would only be theft if the people had not elected representatives that enacted taxation laws. Taxes are meant to benefit the whole, therefore they should go to those things individuals cannot provide for themselves, such as highways, municipal buildings, defense, etc. They should not be turned into a form of forced consent against individual conscience, such as funding Planned Parenthood, forced health care/insurance of any kind, mandating what will be taught in public schools, etc. In our eagerness to take back our freedoms let’s not get overly idealistic–pushing agendas is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[David_Castlen]

After reading all the posts in this Nanny State forum thread as of Feb.15, 2012 it becomes clear that the basics are being overlooked**:**

1. “Contributions”, and “Charitable”, and “Investments” are VOLUNTARY.
   Whereas, Taxation IS NOT the same as VOLUNTARILY Contributing, Charitable, Investing.
   
   If you CHOOSE to not Contribute, nor be Charitable, nor Invest - for ANY reasons whatsoever (such as sudden financial hardship, health costs, financially greatly helping your family, etc., and yes even with being financially greedy) - then, what will happen to you?
   NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, as far as any Government ENFORCEMENT actions are concerned.
2. However, if you choose TO NOT pay your taxes, then the Government WILL take action, via threat of Enforcement by confiscating your property, your savings, and imposing prison sentencing via the government courts systems.

Therefore, Government taxation can defined as Theft by Coercion**;** TAXATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

One of the Ten Commandments is about Theft, and that is basically what Government taxation is.

Clearly then, Contributing goods and money, being Charitable, and Investing are voluntary**;** taxation IS NOT.

 

[David_Castlen]

But in the US we have representative government. The laws represent the will of the people. Therefore, a law which collects a tax to be used for charity is enacted through the free will of the people.

Are you sure it is representative?
Now, do the laws represent the will of the people? How can you demostrate that?
First: your arguement is ambiguous
Second: your premises are far from true
Third. your argument is not valid

 

[seekerz]

It can be dangerous for us to speak for Jesus regarding politics as it can be self serving and out of context.

I agree. There seems to be a presupposition that everything in life has to be either right or wrong: something Jesus would be for, versus something He would be against. There is such a thing as legitimate choice between morally neutral options and I do believe that in large part applies to systems of government as long as they are not overtly oppressive. In democratic societies, the amount of leeway allowed a government is theoretically controlled by the electorate, though we know that money and influence are big factors. IMO, any system will have its imperfections and as long as the society is allowed to apply checks and balances, it’s up to the people to decide how they prefer to be governed.

 

[seekerz]

We are not free to interpret the Bible in any way to fit our ideology. The Catholic Church (and Jesus personally) has stated that taxation is acceptable and not theft. Jesus ordered paying taxes, the Catechism upholds this.

Look at a dollar bill. Does it not say, “The United States of America,” even as Roman coins had the face of Caesar? This talk of taxation being theft defies the instruction of Jesus

I’m with you. This comparison of taxation to theft seems to be getting more common and simply makes its proponents look ridiculous. Without taxation a government would be unable to function and the result would be anarchy. A culture of tax evasion has exacerbated the debt crisis in Europe (articles.cnn.com/2011-11-02/opinion/opinion_europe-shadow-economies_1_tax-evasion-tax-collection-tax-rates?_s=PM:OPINION). I think only people used to the comfort, security and services of the developed world would see taxation as intrinsically bad. There have to be limits of course, and I can see the argument for keeping taxation at a certain level, but to equate it to theft is just ridiculous.

 

[TraditonRules]

But in the US we have representative government. The laws represent the will of the people. Therefore, a law which collects a tax to be used for charity is enacted through the free will of the people.

To your point slavery was once legal yet immoral as now with taxing the rich it can be legal yet it is immoral.

Never covet they neighbors wealth…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

To your point slavery was once legal yet immoral as now with taxing the rich it can be legal yet it is immoral.

Never covet they neighbors wealth…

That is irrelevant.

The point is that in a republic, laws ought to reflect the will of the people. Having a law allowing slavery did not make slavery moral. Likewise, enshrining charity through law does not make charity immoral.

 

[iloveangels]

That is irrelevant.

The point is that in a republic, laws ought to reflect the will of the people. Having a law allowing slavery did not make slavery moral. Likewise, enshrining charity through law does not make charity immoral.

In our country, we have a political system that has a huge payoff for short term approval from the people. And our system appeals to the widest number of people possible, so the results often target things that are mundane and not very refined. These HHS mandate issues are underpants issues and immediate gratification issues, which fall right into that category.

People often vote for underpants issues and personal wallet issues, until the lack of other concerns gets so serious that they start impacting peoples’ underpants and wallets…ie. our trade imbalance is the result of our lousy management and education in this country, things that aren’t primarily underpants issues or generally speaking personal wallet issues. We still haven’t figured out how to manage those better because we can’t get our minds off our pants long enough, as a nation.

We have decided in this country to do our charitable social activity, not primarily through religious & social organizations, but rather through the largesse of the federal government. And therefore it has devolved, as night follows day, into an underpants and wallets issue. This is the price for having the federal government do this in the kind of a society that we have.

Remember, average is average. A pure democracy enshrines the average motivation as the supreme motivation. Cart before the horse, but there you have it. [BTW, this country was not meant by the founders to be a pure democracy, but rather a republic. We have devolved into a pure democracy bit by bit over the last 100 years or so. Without principles everyone can agree on, this is what inevitably happens, and we gave those up a while ago.]

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Are you sure it is representative?
Now, do the laws represent the will of the people? How can you demostrate that?
First: your arguement is ambiguous
Second: your premises are far from true
Third. your argument is not valid

In this republic, the people voluntarily give the government certain roles and responsibilities, and a government has no responsibilities not given this way. The government is able to act as a charitable organization. If the people voluntarily chose to give the government this role (e.g. by enacting laws to that effect,) then have those people not acted charitably? It is true that the laws may compel people to be charitable who may not wish to be, but does that represent a violation of a basic right? Also, it is not true that the government has decided what charities people may give to; presumably tax deductions for non-governmental charities would remain in place. Therefore, someone who had a different set of charitable goals than the government could simply give money to charities of his choosing in the amount he would ordinarily have to give to the government.

I contend that giving money to the government so that it may carry out charitable works is equivalent to giving money to a church so that it may carry out charitable works. Certainly donations to a religious organization seem to be more voluntary, but most religions come with the caveat that if you are not sufficiently charitable, you will not receive that church’s particular eternal reward.

If the government is not responsive to the will of the people, then to whose will is it responsive?

 

[iloveangels]

In this republic, the people voluntarily give the government certain roles and responsibilities, and a government has no responsibilities not given this way. The government is able to act as a charitable organization. If the people voluntarily chose to give the government this role (e.g. by enacting laws to that effect,) then have those people not acted charitably? It is true that the laws may compel people to be charitable who may not wish to be, but does that represent a violation of a basic right? Also, it is not true that the government has decided what charities people may give to; presumably tax deductions for non-governmental charities would remain in place. Therefore, someone who had a different set of charitable goals than the government could simply give money to charities of his choosing in the amount he would ordinarily have to give to the government.

I contend that giving money to the government so that it may carry out charitable works is equivalent to giving money to a church so that it may carry out charitable works. Certainly donations to a religious organization seem to be more voluntary, but most religions come with the caveat that if you are not sufficiently charitable, you will not receive that church’s particular eternal reward.

If the government is not responsive to the will of the people, then to whose will is it responsive?

Government is not a religion. Western government by its nature is limited to what it can claim and what it can do. That’s why we have a Constitution and a BILL OF RIGHTS. This was understood very clearly by the founders of this country–because of their experiences with the crown of England.

A religious government without limits is a theocracy. No matter what religion it enshrines.

A government without citizen recourse to rights independent of the government is at the very least an absolute monarchy, and maybe a totalitarian state.

 

[David_Castlen]

That is irrelevant.

The point is that in a republic, laws ought to reflect the will of the people. Having a law allowing slavery did not make slavery moral. Likewise, enshrining charity through law does not make charity immoral.

Enshrining charity does not make charity immoral -
Changing the name of stealing from stealing to charity does not make stealing moral

 

[David_Castlen]

In this republic, the people voluntarily give the government certain roles and responsibilities, and a government has no responsibilities not given this way. The government is able to act as a charitable organization. If the people voluntarily chose to give the government this role (e.g. by enacting laws to that effect,) then have those people not acted charitably? It is true that the laws may compel people to be charitable who may not wish to be, but does that represent a violation of a basic right? Also, it is not true that the government has decided what charities people may give to; presumably tax deductions for non-governmental charities would remain in place. Therefore, someone who had a different set of charitable goals than the government could simply give money to charities of his choosing in the amount he would ordinarily have to give to the government.

I contend that giving money to the government so that it may carry out charitable works is equivalent to giving money to a church so that it may carry out charitable works. Certainly donations to a religious organization seem to be more voluntary, but most religions come with the caveat that if you are not sufficiently charitable, you will not receive that church’s particular eternal reward.

If the government is not responsive to the will of the people, then to whose will is it responsive?

Centrist,
I am sorry that I have been contenious with you. It appears you have put a lot of thought into this. Perhaps we should begin with a simple but extremely important step. Let us agree on what charity is. And before going any further in our discussion let us establish that. What is your definition of Charity? Where it comes from? What it consist of? What it produces? and Finally What makes Charity different from the other virtues? If we can establish that I am sure with your open attitude we can come to an agreement. Again, I am sorry for my acerbic reply in my latter post. Looking forward to your reply, The True Centrist.

 

[Abu]

TheTrueCentrist #60
enshrining charity through law does not make charity immoral.

No, but it takes away from the subsidiarity and solidarity which is the warp and woof of human nature, and weakens human initiative and enterprise.

#62: The government is able to act as a charitable organization. If the people voluntarily chose to give the government this role (e.g. by enacting laws to that effect,) then have those people not acted charitably?
I contend that giving money to the government so that it may carry out charitable works is equivalent to giving money to a church so that it may carry out charitable works.

No, because of the denigration of subsidiarity and solidarity.

The role of “Nanny State” or Welfare State is condemned for these reasons:
Condemned because as Bl JPII emphasises in *Centesimus Annus *#48: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” [My emphasis].

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised “are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.”

Bl JPII is clear: “In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”

 

[pnewton]

Enshrining charity does not make charity immoral -
Changing the name of stealing from stealing to charity does not make stealing moral

From the Catechism:

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.Can we either dispense with calling taxation theft or at least admit it is not Catholic teaching?

 

[TraditonRules]

That is irrelevant.

The point is that in a republic, laws ought to reflect the will of the people. Having a law allowing slavery did not make slavery moral. Likewise, enshrining charity through law does not make charity immoral.

Indeed slavery was immoral as well is excess taxation, through laws and politician people insanely try to make excess taxes legal just like slavery

Never covet thy neighbors wealth.

 

[TraditonRules]

In this republic, the people voluntarily give the government certain roles and responsibilities, and a government has no responsibilities not given this way. The government is able to act as a charitable organization. If the people voluntarily chose to give the government this role (e.g. by enacting laws to that effect,) then have those people not acted charitably? It is true that the laws may compel people to be charitable who may not wish to be, but does that represent a violation of a basic right? Also, it is not true that the government has decided what charities people may give to; presumably tax deductions for non-governmental charities would remain in place. Therefore, someone who had a different set of charitable goals than the government could simply give money to charities of his choosing in the amount he would ordinarily have to give to the government.

I contend that giving money to the government so that it may carry out charitable works is equivalent to giving money to a church so that it may carry out charitable works. Certainly donations to a religious organization seem to be more voluntary, but most religions come with the caveat that if you are not sufficiently charitable, you will not receive that church’s particular eternal reward.

If the government is not responsive to the will of the people, then to whose will is it responsive?

You are confusing taking and giving. Just like a priest discussed for a homily a few weeks ago.

Giving is good & biblical while taking is about robin hood.

 

[Imperial_Guard]

I think one aspect of this question comes down to the two understandings of Social Justice. I, for one, had never heard the term “Social Justice” until I went to college (where I heard it ALL THE TIME). Back where I’m from, we just talked of “charity” and “helping people.” Further, it seemed very clear that any conversation about Social Justice usualy turned into an argument ending in “Therefore, the government needs to…” Recently, I discovered the concept that there are simply two definitions and I was uncomfortable because I assumed that there was only one (that Social Justice was what the governement needs to provide). I hold firm to the definition that calls us each to individually help others, rather than check a box on the ballot and pretend that the world is getting better.

 

[mitex]

Jesus has to be a free-market libertarian social conservative anarchist!

Really read the Sermon on the Mount and some of USCCB’s social justice documents and you’ll find your answers.

 

[mitex]

No, but it takes away from the subsidiarity and solidarity which is the warp and woof of human nature, and weakens human initiative and enterprise.
No, because of the denigration of subsidiarity and solidarity.

The role of “Nanny State” or Welfare State is condemned for these reasons:
Condemned because as Bl JPII emphasises in *Centesimus Annus *#48: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” [My emphasis].

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised “are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.”

Bl JPII is clear: “In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”

Who made you a theologian?