Comments (121)

• fundamentalist

  I can’t disagree with Mark on the practices of states being immoral for the most part, but that is a different question from asking is the institution itself immoral. It’s only immoral if property is an absolute, as Rothbard and Hoppe make it in their ethical system. In the original natural law theory (Grotius to Hume) property was close to an absolute, but allowed very limited violations of it, one being for the purpose of supporting the state. That doesn’t mean that everything the state does is moral, only that the state has the right to take property in the form of taxes for very limited purposes.

  Whether you think a state is necessary or not depends upon your view of human nature. The old natural law writers were pessimistic. Anarchists are very optimistic. I think history is on the side of pessimism. But even if you think the state is not necessary, that does not make it immoral. Only the Rothbard-Hoppe ethic in which property is absolute does it become immoral.

  But the main argument for the state is a practical one, not an abstract logical or moral argument. If, as Mises says, the state is necessary and good because of the order it brings to society, then it is a moral institution. Again, that does not mean that everything the state does is legitimately within its proper sphere. Mises recognized the need for the state but devoted his life to reducing its boundaries.

  For Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority on morality, and both the Old and New Testaments affirm the morality of the state and taxation without endorsing every act of the state. As for the problem of the state using tax money for immoral purposes, such as abortion, I think the church and the Bible are clear that the citizen is responsible for paying taxes and the rulers are responsible for how they use the money. In other words, God doesn’t judge tax payers for what the state does with the money. He judges the rulers who make those decisions.
  

  Published: September 2, 2008 8:57 AM

• Wade A. Mitchell

  Outstanding review! For years, I have been trying to formulate in my mind why the "Church" allows and even encourages people to submit to an immoral authority such as government.

  While the Bible is the ultimate authority on morality, the Bible is only the Bible because the Church says "this is the Bible." There exist many other books of genuine antiquity that could have been included but were not.

  Anyway, thanks for the review!

  Published: September 2, 2008 9:38 AM

• rtr

  It's also likely a corrupt Church has sought to abuse the meaning of "Render Unto Caesar", for the Church has too become its own State.

  More likely a crowd in Jesus' time would have interpreted such words as "chop the Emperor's head off with his own sword".

  Published: September 2, 2008 10:14 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Mark R. Corvelli

  Read my second essay in
  here (( for a better under-
  standing of the RCC )):

  An Unholy Alliance and Its Coming Armageddon
  http://foundersamerica68.blogspot.com/

  #######
  #######

  Published: September 2, 2008 10:28 AM

• Tim Kern

  "The so-called 'American experiment' was born precisely in this recognition that men have a right to determine their own destiny and strive to serve God as their consciences deem appropriate." OK, but the purpose of the American Revolution (with due deference to the original work!) was to cast off such tyrannical government, and institute a new government in its place, one that would protect the rights to life, liberty, and property. Force is necessary in such a construct, and that is why the founders limited government to a very small arena.

  Not everyone's ideals will line up with everyone else's, even under what we generally understand as "natural law." To the smallest extent possible, some form of institutional force (government) is necessary, to protect the citizens from aggression and plunder; and when that government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

  Those who do not wish to participate in the support of the government have no right to expect any protection from it. The problem is one of scale, not of philosophy.

  Published: September 2, 2008 10:36 AM

• Mark Busch

  Mark:
  As much as I would like to secede from the union but stay in the country, I don't see how that could possibly work. I can see that I would not be allowed to accept any federal government support like medicare or social security. But would I be able to work for a defense contractor? Would I be protected if the United States was attacked by another country?

  I think the writers of the constitution found a pretty good balance of limited government with sufficient protection from invaders. Unfortunately, the constitution has been trampled, as many writers have discussed. Lincoln's civil war was perhaps the beginning of the end, as Lincoln violated the South's right to secede. Do children still say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school? "One Nation, Indivisible". That's not how it was meant to be.

  I like the idea of an individual being able to separate from the state, but I just don't see how it would work.

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:07 AM

• Matt

  What Belongs to Caesar?

  We must remember that what Caesar had was mostly gotten by the sword. This is true today in the context of taxation. More importantly though is the oft used word "God" . Caesar was in his time considered by many a "God". The early church used many of the Roman symbols and ideas to establish itself as a going institution much of that is still in effect. It is only relatively recently that the Church and other religious institutions have been subjugated and limited by Secular Governments.
  The Moslem world for example is still run as the Christian world was only a few hundred years ago.

  The western world has been transformed by its Secularization but has kept for the most part the Moral Principles such as Self Sacrifice to which the majority of the public believes and practices. Imbedded in the present Morals and carried over from the past is the use of force.
  What in essence we have is a new religion called 'Democracy' in which the State is "God" all the same evils will be and are practiced. What has been trampled and abused is Individual Rights and our Constitution has been mangled beyond belief.
  We can thank that to the public's love and misunderstanding of 'Democracy' . .

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:14 AM

• Mark Crovelli

  Mr. Busch,

  I'm afraid that I fail to understand why you think limited government would be preferrable to anarchy, (anarcho-capitalism, that is). Do you think that a moral justification for the state exists? If not, I think that you ought to be candid enough to simply say that the state is morally unjustifiable, but that you think it is necessary. And, if you were to say that, anarchists like myself would simply respond that the state is not in fact necessary to provide economic goods, like defense. All goods that are presently provided by the state can and would be provided on the free market by competing entrpreneurs.

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:16 AM

• Mark Busch

  Mark:
  I am not able to imagine what anarcho-capitalism would be. My guess is that, in the best case scenario, it would end up something like the original constitution. But in reality I fear it would be more like Blackwater. History has shown (I think) that wherever there is power there is corruption. Those in power must be constantly watched. Unfortunately, this country has been brought up believing that we (the United States) are the good guys. As Edward R. Murrow said, "A country of sheep begets a government of wolves." And that is what has happened.

  Do I think a moral justification for the state exists? That's hard for me to answer since I don't like thinking in terms of right and wrong or black and white. I can say that the people originally chose the government. But I think the government has subsequently grown fond of power and abused that power. So at this point in time I think our government is too big, has too much power, steals from the people (income taxes and inflation), and performs acts against my values -- like killing innocent civilians in Iraq and torturing people around the world.

  Thanks for the response and I appreciate the intelligent discussion.

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:46 AM

• Mark Busch

  Mark:
  I am not able to imagine what anarcho-capitalism would be. My guess is that, in the best case scenario, it would end up something like the original constitution. But in reality I fear it would be more like Blackwater. History has shown (I think) that wherever there is power there is corruption. Those in power must be constantly watched. Unfortunately, this country has been brought up believing that we (the United States) are the good guys. As Edward R. Murrow said, "A country of sheep begets a government of wolves." And that is what has happened.

  Do I think a moral justification for the state exists? That's hard for me to answer since I don't like thinking in terms of right and wrong or black and white. I believe that the people originally chose the government. But I think the government has subsequently grown fond of power and abused that power. So at this point in time I think our government is too big, has too much power, steals from the people (income taxes and inflation), and performs acts against my values -- like killing innocent civilians in Iraq and torturing people around the world.

  Thanks for the response and intelligent discussion.

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:56 AM

• Mark Crovelli

  Mr. Busch,
  It was extremely difficult for people to conceive of a world without slavery, too. Nevertheless, it turned out to be true that man can live in a society devoid of slavery. So, too, can man live in a society devoid of institutionalized theft, i.e., "taxation".
  Moreover, the argument that "power corrupts" does not justify the state one iota, because the state has, by very definition, a monopoly on force and institutionalized power. We anarchists merely want to break up this monoply and substitute in its place a system of purely voluntary exchange.
  Finally, I think you are horribly mistaken if you think that all people "agreed" to the government here when it was initially established. Quite the contrary, many people had no idea that the Constitutional Convention was even taking place, and many people--especially Southerners-- opposed the adoption of the Constitution.

  Published: September 2, 2008 12:02 PM

• Curt Howland

  Mr. Busch, if you cannot imagine what it might be like, have you considered reading (or listening to) many of the excellent articles on anarchy that mises.org has to offer?

  I can heartily suggest Roderick Long's "answers to 10 objections to anarchy", http://mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3

  Also, "Wouldn't The Warlords Take Over?" http://mises.org/daily/1855 which seems to me to be a perfect discussion of your worries about Blackwater being a model of the new boss, same as the old boss.

  Published: September 2, 2008 12:06 PM

• David Spellman

  According to the Declaration of Independence, if the government is not serving your best interests, you are entitled to overthrow it. Given the costs of overthrowing any government, it is apparent why most people prefer paying their taxes and taking their chances with the depredations and destructions heaped on them.

  Nevertheless, history is also replete with cases where governments were violently overthrown and the rulers liquidated when oppression became so severe that opposing became more palatable to remaining in subjugation. I have confidence that America will suffer the same fate since we see the sign posts on the same road that all nations have traveled.

  Empires rise and fall, but human nature never changes. Every generation starts fresh and repeats the same mistakes because people cannot believe that they are like their ancestors. And so all the world cycles through the phases of civilization and destruction. Alas, we are caught in the decline.

  Published: September 2, 2008 12:29 PM

• George P

  There are so many wrong headed ideas here one hardly knows where to begin. Take the little gem below:

  "For in democratic states, just as in every other state, the subject is never given an option to submit to the authority of his self-appointed leaders, or the option to keep out of the exploitative relationship altogether."

  No human being gets to choose the circumstances into which he/she is born. We don't choose our parents, our language, our religion or our culture. We don't get to choose our economic resources or the talents that God has decided to give us. To whine about these things is to argue with God. This complaint sounds oddly similar to the socialist complaint that some are born with more wealth and this fundamental inequality requires more government not less. So same sort of complaint different answer. In addition, people can choose to adopt new religions, new languges and even migrate to new countries if they are not happy with the one they were born in. In fact my parents did just that when they came to America. What Mark is complaining about is that the country he was born in will not change to suit him or no other suits him or will have him. Well, Mark, welcome to the real world where we have to choose from imperfect options. You are right America is not perfect and if I had my way it would be different, but it is better than any alternative I know about. So the fact that I am still here is a choice, one that is implicit but no less real than the one my parents made when they came here. Trust me, when I say this, that if some new republic arises with a federal govenment closer to that in 1776 than the one in 2008 I would be the first to leave, and I suspect I would have a lot of company.

  Published: September 2, 2008 1:25 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  I think that many people oppose anarchy because they adhere to the mistaken belief in "economic power." The fear that the protection agencies will merge into a giant monopoly which can then obtain a coerced price, is the same fear that causes people to ask for government regulation of business contracts. Regulation is needed it is said to prevent exchanges which give the power to one particular side. Both concepts flow from a poor understanding of human action.

  I have often thought about the statement render unto Caesar, and have come to a conclusion similar to Matt. If all that Caesar has is obtained by theft, what can we morally render unto him? To return ill gotten proceeds to a thief is to become accessory to the theft. To submit to the highwayman, while saving your own life, you embolden and nourish the highwayman (I don't mean to blame the victim here, I just point out the results of his choices). It would appear that unless one can justify the double standard by which the state lives, the only moral course of action would be to refuse cooperation with the state. If we follow the Catholic demand for the respect for life and the dignity of said life, it is not possible to create a matching ethic which allows the enslavement (to no matter how small a degree) of one set of humans by another. To uphold this principle of the Church, logic dictates that one must begin to think along the lines of Rothbard and Hoppe.

  The corollary of the statement that one must render to God that which is His is also incompatible with the state. Participation in the state leads to immoral action in the participant being an accessory to robbery and murder, and often leads to idolatrous worship of the state, or again at the very least, supporting the indoctrination of the young into idolatrous thought (I am pretty sure Jesus warned against corrupting the children). How can one be rendering a good an pious life to God if at the same time he is participating in the heathen orgy of the state complete with its human sacrifices to Moloch.

  Published: September 2, 2008 1:37 PM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: "If all that Caesar has is obtained by theft, what can we morally render unto him?"

  Taxation is immoral only in the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If that ethic is wrong, then taxation isn't immoral. There is a parallel to religion: pork is morally wrong for Jews and Muslims to eat, but not for Christians.

  Published: September 2, 2008 4:15 PM

• Walt D.

  fundamentalist
  
  I seem to recall that there is reference in the bible as to what amount is appropriate for a tax or a tithe. Can you enlighten up?

  Published: September 2, 2008 5:22 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  fundamentalist,
  I could accept the mainstream line of thinking if it were meticulously crafted from a logical basis, in fact, I attempted to imply this when I rhetorically asked for a justif[ication of] the double standard by which the state lives. If you can provide an explanation which does not violate the universality requirement of a consistent ethic, I will stand corrected. Until then, I will maintain that theft is what it is, regardless of the popularity of the perpetrator.

  Published: September 2, 2008 5:43 PM

• Clayton Bauman

  The 7th commandment prohibits adultery... I think he meant the 8th commandment. :-)

  Published: September 2, 2008 5:59 PM

• Walt D.

  Clayton wrote:
  
  The 7th commandment prohibits adultery... I think he meant the 8th commandment. :-)
  
  It depends on what version of the bible you use - King James or Catholic

  Published: September 2, 2008 6:10 PM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: "I could accept the mainstream line of thinking if it were meticulously crafted from a logical basis..."

  I don't want to defend mainstream anything. The most consistent and logical ethics I have found outside of the Bible is the old natural law theorists from Grotius to Hume. I won't do justice to them in such a short summary, but essentially they argued that a state of some kind was necessary for police work, and it was moral because the order it created allowed mankind to flourish, especially in commerce. Mankind is by nature a social being and social life requires police work. Property was sacred, but not absolute, so people could be forced to pay for necessary police work and national defense.

  Natural law worked very well from the Dutch Republic in the late 16th century until the US in the late 19th century. It wasn't perfect, but I doubt that an anarchist society could have done better.

  Published: September 2, 2008 7:45 PM

• Peter

  It’s only immoral if property is an absolute, as Rothbard and Hoppe make it in their ethical system. In the original natural law theory (Grotius to Hume) property was close to an absolute, but allowed very limited violations of it, one being for the purpose of supporting the state.

  Theft is only wrong is property is absolute, as Rothbard and Hoppe make in in their ethical system. In the original natural law theory (Grotius to Hume) property was close to an absolute, but allowed very limited violations of it, one being for the purpose of supporting the thief.

  Published: September 2, 2008 8:58 PM

• Chad

  I do not think that the minarchists and the anarchists who frequent this web site are ever going to see eye-to-eye on this issue (i.e., the rightful claims of "Caesar") because they so strongly disgree on whether any form of government (presumably with some power of taxation) could be considered a legitimate, moral institution in a society.

  Perhaps, there needs to be a new field added to the comment tool that allows one to specify if they are an anarchist, minarchist, socialist, etc. so that those who choose to debate the merits of articles (or the perceived lack thereof) will immediately know each other's frame of reference and not keep talking past each other.

  While we are at it, we might need a field for specifying if one is a theist, deist, agnostic, atheist, etc. because religious worldviews seem to be coming into play a lot in recent article-related debates, too.
  

  Published: September 2, 2008 9:04 PM

• nick gray

  People often take things out of context. "Rend unto Caesar" was said to a bellicose people looking for an excuse to wage war. Jesus was telling them to calm down, that this wasn't the right time for independence. Later on, they rebelled, and their nation was wiped out, so he was right.
  As for obeying magistrates, as Paul advises, this was at a time when Christians were small in number.
  As for democracy, a verse in Micah promises that the returning Israelites will appoint princes over themselves, so Calvin took this as an endorsement of democracy. And the whole idea of a Covenant is to have penalties when broken. From a Sacred Covenant to a secular contract isn't a big step. So, if one party breaks a contract (and has there ever been such a perfect politician who has never broken or twisted a promise?), the other party can insist on a new contract. Even Jesus said that people should pay every piece of whatever debt they incurred when they broke the law, so no biblical hurdles to democracy, or secession.

  Published: September 2, 2008 10:13 PM

• M.D. O'Donnell

  I doubt the Jews were as bellicose as you may believe, Mr. Gray. At the time of Jesus' speech, the Jews had been politically invaded and emasculated by their Roman oppressors, and only 30 years after Jesus' death, the last Jewish revolt led to the destruction of the Jewish temple and the forced exile of Jews from Judea (66 a.d.). Perhaps during Moses' time, the Jewish people were looking for enemies to fight, but Jesus' followers were more akin to the modern-day fighters in Sadr City, Iraq--desperately seeking a way out of an unending occupation by a far superior military force.

  As for "render unto Caesar," remember too at this time that war profiteering was at an all-time low--Augustus was spending loads to Herod Antipas and various other puppet rulers in order to maintain his Pax Augusta. Thus, money was becoming devalued by inflation and the gold content of officially stamped coins was constantly fluctuating. Thus, by holding up a sample of unsound money (the Caesar denarius), it is not unreasonable to imagine Jesus as the first promoter of a return to sound money policy by a universal rejection of fiat currency! :)

  M

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:32 PM

• M.D. O'Donnell

  I doubt the Jews were as bellicose as you may believe, Mr. Gray. At the time of Jesus' speech, the Jews had been politically invaded and emasculated by their Roman oppressors, and only 30 years after Jesus' death, the last Jewish revolt led to the destruction of the Jewish temple and the forced exile of Jews from Judea (66 a.d.). Perhaps during Moses' time, the Jewish people were looking for enemies to fight, but Jesus' followers were more akin to the modern-day fighters in Sadr City, Iraq--desperately seeking a way out of an unending occupation by a far superior military force.

  As for "render unto Caesar," remember too at this time that war profiteering was at an all-time low--Augustus was spending loads to Herod Antipas and various other puppet rulers in order to maintain his Pax Augusta. Thus, money was becoming devalued by inflation and the gold content of officially stamped coins was constantly fluctuating. Thus, by holding up a sample of unsound money (the Caesar denarius), it is not unreasonable to imagine Jesus as the first promoter of a return to sound money policy by a universal rejection of fiat currency! :)

  M

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:34 PM

• Carl Street

  As far as the heretical “Christian” hokum that God supports government authority, I can only suggest you re-read the FIRST commandment; and consider it WITHOUT the self-serving interpretation of institutional authorities be they religious or temporal and draw your conclusions within the context of the times wherein it was given.

  ..."Thou shalt have NO gods before me" is clear and unequivocal -- in the days of its issuance; rulers were treated as "gods".

  Thus, a PROPER understanding of this prime directive is that GOD is opposed to temporal rulers. AND this is further reinforced by the Book of Samuel (1-8) wherein God’s negative opinion and references to earthly authority could NOT be more damning – for extra credit see also Daniel.

  REAL, not pseudo Christians, are bound by the gospel of the Sermon on the Mount and ultimately the Gospel of Matthew which also states clearly that NO temporal power can relieve us of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings.

  "Whatever you did to the least of MY brethren; ye have done it to ME" -- quoting Christ at the last judgment.

  That pretty much scotches the "I was only following orders" Nuremburg defense.

  Frankly, as a REAL Christian, I am fed to the teeth with the “hipochristians” who drone endlessly on about “evil Jews”; “evil Islamics”; etc. as they expend 70% of the earth’s resources on military hardware and the results of its use while millions starve, go unclothed, unsheltered. If there is a hell, IMHOP, many, if not most, who claim “Christianity” as their banner can and should be first in line for its warm eternal hospitality.
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 1:26 AM

• nick gray

  As to 'eternal' hell, the greek language of the day of Jesus had a term 'aion', which simply means 'very long-lasting'- it has the same root as 'eon', which means 'age'. Aion and aionion are the words used in the Greek language New Testament. The sages of Hebrewism, the Rabbis, never subscribed to the view of an eternal hell, but believed that people would only suffer for a limited time, variable in each case- then they could come to the feast in heaven! (Look up any reference on the Talmud for jewish views.)

  Published: September 3, 2008 2:39 AM

• ktibuk

  One problem with having an imaginary friend living in the sky is that you waste your intellectual energy on things that are irrelevant.

  If Christianity was designed or made up as a religion supporting anarchy it wouldn't exist today. If the Jesus guy preached anarchy on the side, nobody would remember his name.

  Just ask the ghost of the great Constantine, that took a Jewish sect and made it an official state religion.
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 3:19 AM

• BWM

  I'm not exactly sure how anyone can believe that humans can exist and never violate the rights of others. It has to be done. As long as we have people doing bad things (anywhere from murder to violating a contract), we have to have people right those wrongs. But, by definition, that requires force. We have to TAKE his stuff to pay his debts, we have to FORCE our way into his house to search it for stolen goods or kidnapped individuals, we might even have to KILL a particularly dangerous individual. All of these are acts of aggression, no matter who inflicts them. The real question is, then, what's a better system; a relatively universal system with written laws and punishments, professionals in each field of the system, and a guarantee to at least attempt to protect all people and their rights, or, basically, gangs, where small groups of people band together and practice justice vigilante style? Even if it was a mockery of justice, wasn't the OJ trial a better model for humanity than the Hatfield v McCoy feud that resulted in many deaths over stupid mistakes?

  Arguing whether the state is completely justifiable is a waste; what matters is what system is MOST justifiable, what system has the LEAST abuse and the MOST protection of our rights. A very limited, liberal republic is the best system, using those standards.

  Published: September 3, 2008 3:54 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  There are good taxes and
  bad taxes, the former being
  those funds collected through
  democratic petitions to fix
  and/or maintain a communi-
  ty's commonly needed/used
  infrastructure (to include
  government agencies and
  roads and...) while the latter
  is non-democratic: activist
  judges and legislatures
  collecting taxes for enslav-
  ing the productive to sup-
  port the needs of the
  unproductive.

  
  To argue that all taxes are

  bad is to argue that there

  are no needs in common

  within a community re-

  quiring COERCED collec-

  tion of money to fund

  them.

  #######
  #######

  Published: September 3, 2008 5:58 AM

• Michael Kenny

  If there is one thing a conservative or traditional Catholic does not do, it is to attack the Church or the hierarchy in a public forum! Thus, right fro the very start, we can conclude that Mr Crovelli (a “former parishioner”) is neither a “conservative” nor a “traditional” Catholic, but a radical dissident, in rebellion against the magisterium of the Church, which he seeks to hijack and misuse to promote an ideology which is anything but Catholic! At that point, Catholics just tune out. But, for the non-Catholics among you ...

  The proposition that “taxation was morally synonymous with robbery, (since taxation necessarily involves taking men's justly earned property by force and without their consent)” is so utterly absurd in terms of Catholic morality that I don’t wonder that the Archbishop had difficulty answering it! He probably assumed that Mr Crovelli was some sort of prankster who was trying to set him up, as Mr Corvelli is indeed doing in this review!

  If I have correctly understood what was taught to me in Catholic school (a place Mr Corvelli shows no sign of ever having been!), the state does not rule over us. Man, like all social animals in God’s creation, organises a social order in human groupings. By choosing to live in a particular group and enjoy the protection of the group, we agree to submit to its rules, one of which is, of necessity, a financial contribution to organising collective activities. Thus, there can be a debate as to the level of taxation, or the distribution of the burden, or as to what activities need to be organised collectively and by whom, but the idea that taxation is inherently equal to robbery flies in the face of the most elementary principles of Catholic morality. Human social organisation is part of God’s plan and submission to it is therefore, by definition, part of the natural moral law. I’m sure Archbishop Chaput could have expressed that better!

  As for “those who, like Archbishop Chaput, are committed to the idea that every single person on the face of the Earth is endowed by God or nature with undeniable and equal dignity”, which means all of the world’s one billion Catholics, Mr Crovelli’s problem is that he seems to think that those who rule over us are “entitled to more dignity than others”. Nonsense! Public office is a burden, not a privilege and those who exercise it are not “entitled to more dignity than others”, they merely have more onerous duties towards their fellow man that the rest of us. Those who strut up and down and claim more dignity than their fellows are to be rightly criticised for so doing but they are in no way “entitled” to such a status!

  There is thus, as far as I can see, no contradiction in anything the Archbishop says, it’s just that Mr Crovelli seems to be utterly lacking in an understanding of Catholic morality!

  Published: September 3, 2008 10:31 AM

• Will

  No one is forced to pay taxes, we simply take the path of least resistance. I worked underground for 20+ years so i would not have to pay into the system. It is not easy in this day and age to do this. Now I'm old and have children and work a regular 40+ a week and pay my taxes, and hate myself for it.

  Published: September 3, 2008 10:49 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Michael Kenny,
  I am sorry, but there is no such thing as infallibility for arch-bishops when they speak about economic matters (or Popes either). I think you need to calm down and read the article again. You will find that it is the ruling class who subjugate us who have assumed for themselves, not at Mr Crovelli’s request, the separate and higher level of dignity. Any who live as a parasite on the productive through the use of coercion has assumed a higher dignity than their victims. I assume that you understand the concept of chattel slavery, how do you not see the direct connection with taxation? It is merely a difference of degree, and not of kind. Both victims are coerced to labor for another, both received some token payment, but it is the coercion which defines the relationship and makes it immoral. God does not coerce us (He grants us all free will), why do we assume that we should coerce each other?

  By the way, what Catholic school did you got to where you got indoctrinated into the state instead of into the Mysteries of the Church? I would like to know so that I can warn any family and friends who might live nearby.

  Published: September 3, 2008 11:29 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Michael Kinney

  You opine:

  "If there is one thing a conservative
  or traditional Catholic does not do,
  it is to attack the Church or the
  hierarchy in a public forum!"

  So, you'd not publicly chastise the
  Holy See for criminally protecting
  PEDOPHILE priests?

  You'd remain silent about the life-
  destroying practice of both body-
  molesting and mind-molesting
  priests?

  Surely, dear Michael, you'd make
  an exception to your the-RCC-can
  do-no-wrong rule.

  Right?

  - a born and raised Roman Catholic
  (( private school, daily mass, and an
  un-ending succession of confes-
  sions--for this and that infraction ))

  #######
  #######

  Published: September 3, 2008 11:34 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  BWM,
  your argument for the most justifiable system boils down to utilitarianism, i.e. tyranny of the majority. As Rothbard points out in several places, utilitarianism can not create a universally applicable ethic. Assume there is a community with a small population of red-heads. Now suppose that the majority of the community were biased against red-heads to the point where their elimination would increase the psychic satisfaction of the community of the whole. One who subscribes to a utilitarian based ethic would have to permit the murder of the red-heads for the sake of the community. I doubt that this is what you would like to see, but your argument's foundation permits this outcome. Once you permit the use of force on those who have not aggressed previously, you can not hope to maintain a universally applicable ethical system.

  Published: September 3, 2008 11:53 AM

• fundamentalist

  Michael Kenny: "The proposition that “taxation was morally synonymous with robbery, ...is so utterly absurd in terms of Catholic morality that I don’t wonder that the Archbishop had difficulty answering it!"

  Yes, that wasn't very fair of the author. He should have warned the Archbishop that he subscribed to a morality that was different from that of the church. Essentially, he asked the Archbishop why he didn't abandon Christian ethics and become an anarchist. It would be like asking him why he didn't become a Muslim.

  Published: September 3, 2008 12:05 PM

• Annwas

  It is important to remember what is was that Jesus was doing (and not doing) in the famous 'Render unto Caesar' passage. One must always place Jesus in a Second Temple Jewish context. His vocation was one of calling Israel back to there original work of being a light to the world - that of calling all peoples to the worship of the one true God. He was not giving a dissertation on the correctness of taxation, or the rightness of statism. What he was saying is, "It is not for you to be revolutionaries, to be the sorts of rebels who overthrow the Romans by force. Neither is it your place to capitulate and become like them. You are to be a peaceful people. You are a priestly people - act like it - disciple the Romans, help them to be God Fearers. Don't hate them because they are not Jews, love them and flood them with kindness." It is the same message to us. I will do whatever I can to change the practice of the polity, but I will do so lawfully, and peacefully if possible. I will give the Fed their worthless paper script, and bare the burden of being a captured nation of war. Yet I know that the very seeds of their destruction are inherent in this monster they have bred (Psalms 2 and 73). I will work to help my civitas survive as a community when Christ kills this beast. I hope that liberty minded people know that they are the hands and feet that will drive the stake into it's heart.

  As to nations being obliged to obey God's law, the conquest of Canaan reveals the truth. In Deuteronomy, Yahweh tells the people that he is sending them into Canaan to execute the death sentence on many of the tribes specifically because they refused to obey the very law the Hebrews just received from Sinai. This tells us 3 things: first, the Ten Commandments were not new at the time, their issuance was not so much revelation as it was reformation; second, it tells us that all nations are obliged to respect the life, liberty,reputation, and property of the individual and that the government is not to be a god walking on earth (as we have today in every polity); last of all, it says that the people get the government and culture they want, and that if they refuse to take pains to reform it, they will all, down to the child born yesterday, suffer the horrible consequences of their crapulence and negligence.

  What we have today is what we wanted. We have known it was a tyranny for decades, yet as long as we could live the good life, we just grumbled and complained and capitulated. Now that it looks like a trouble is coming in the form of financial collapse, we are full of all sorts of repentance. I am very happy about that.

  Published: September 3, 2008 1:09 PM

• Tom Bernhardt

  Mark, great article.

  I would add that the moral dimension resides completely within the domain of voluntary behavior. That which is not voluntary – a product of one’s volition – rests outside of the moral realm. When the state, for example, expropriates wealth from someone for even a good cause (e.g., feeding the poor), it effectively robs that person of ability to make a moral choice to do good. It gets even worse when the state engages in evil, such as war. Here the person not only is robbed of the choice of doing good, but the results of his efforts have been forcibly perverted to evil ends. Coercion removes the moral dimension and thus dehumanizes people into being merely objects of those that rule.

  The state, as a wholly coercive institution, thus cannot do genuine good. All of the state’s actions rely on theft, not only of material goods but especially the dehumanizing theft of individual moral choice. While I can imagine a legitimate debate about how vigorously one should oppose the state (the subject of the “render unto Caesar” biblical quotation), I see support for the state as incompatible with Christianity.
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 3:05 PM

• Ian

  I also find the state and its thievery reprehensible. The part I find most disturbing is that my tax is used in ways totally against my belief system. Because of this I have championed my idea to my friends and I am sure it will never go beyond them and maybe you people on here. But if I have to have my money stolen from me then I want to have a say in how it is used.

  A true choice in taxation would be if the citizens were allowed to choose where their taxes went. When it was April 15th or whatever arbitrary day the state wants to choose and you file your return you are also given a spreadsheet. On this spreadsheet are all government programs and the previous years allotment or budget for said program.

  When you filed your return you identified what percentage of your taxes would go to each program from 0% to 100%. In this way every program the state wants to implement would have to justify its existence with results or risk being unfunded by the citizens.

  If you are a war monger you can donate heavily to the war machine. If you love nice interstates you can give your money to making them that way. If the programs were unsuccessful then they would no longer be funded as I said earlier. Congress has proven its inability to treat the confiscated money of the citizens in a responsible manner. Let the citizen decide for himself.

  I guarantee the government would find itself one heck of a lot smaller as people did not fund the ridiculous programs the "state" forcibly funds and wastes money year after year. If we must suffer with this government lets have some real choice.

  Published: September 3, 2008 6:35 PM

• Ian

  I also find the state and its thievery reprehensible. The part I find most disturbing is that my tax is used in ways totally against my belief system. Because of this I have championed my idea to my friends and I am sure it will never go beyond them and maybe you people on here. But if I have to have my money stolen from me then I want to have a say in how it is used.

  A true choice in taxation would be if the citizens were allowed to choose where their taxes went. When it was April 15th or whatever arbitrary day the state wants to choose and you file your return you are also given a spreadsheet. On this spreadsheet are all government programs and the previous years allotment or budget for said program.

  When you filed your return you identified what percentage of your taxes would go to each program from 0% to 100%. In this way every program the state wants to implement would have to justify its existence with results or risk being unfunded by the citizens.

  If you are a war monger you can donate heavily to the war machine. If you love nice interstates you can give your money to making them that way. If the programs were unsuccessful then they would no longer be funded as I said earlier. Congress has proven its inability to treat the confiscated money of the citizens in a responsible manner. Let the citizen decide for himself.

  I guarantee the government would find itself one heck of a lot smaller as people did not fund the ridiculous programs the "state" forcibly funds and wastes money year after year. If we must suffer with this government lets have some real choice.

  Published: September 3, 2008 6:37 PM

• Carl Street

  In fact, societies are run much as you or I might run our gardens -- we water and fertilize those plants we favor and deprive those we choose to call weeds of sustenance.

  Thus there is NO great conspiracy to be found -- just like in our gardens there is every stripe of plant, insect and animal life; we, at our option, nurture those we choose to favor; and deprive and assault those we do not. This does NOT require any communication, committees, political parties, etc.

  Thus the ruling powers (NOT the visible politicians who are merely "show business") periodically provide economic and political sustenance to those persons and groups they favor until they become too influential and a potential threat; whereupon, the process is reversed.

  Thus political and social history is an odyssey of periodic fluctuations based upon this manipulation. For example, in order to undermine the threat of White middle-class Americans for a time Blacks were elevated; when Blacks became a political threat; Latin Americans were promoted; now that Latinos are feeling their oats; Jews are being promoted; when Jews become a threat; Muslims will be promoted, etc., etc.

  The game is divide and conquer -- making sure that each area of the political and economic spectrum is fed the propaganda that their ascendance or demise is somehow the fault of others of a different religion, skin color, nationality, etc.

  Like magicians, these distracters keep the vast majority of the human race occupied in "heat sink" operations by draining any efforts that might be used to throw off their shackles into chasing endless mirages of political parties, personalities, and various groups and ad hoc movements.

  Perhaps one day the human race will actually achieve the emotional and intellectual maturity to stop believing that their future depends on distant people they do not know; and from whom they would not even purchase a used car or want to marry their daughter. One can only hope...
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 7:38 PM

• Carl Street

  I am TRULY amazed to find that in this day and age there are still those who actually believe that taxes are used to fund government programs.

  In fact, governments create whatever money they want and need by simply running the printing presses. IF we all stopped paying taxes tomorrow government programs would continue unabated.

  Taxes are actually a means of social control -- used to reward the favored and attack and impoverish those persons and ideas the ruling powers feel are in opposition to their goals.

  In fact, societies are run much as you or I might run our gardens -- we water and fertilize those plants we favor and deprive those we choose to call weeds of sustenance.

  Thus there is NO great conspiracy to be found -- just like in our gardens there is every stripe of plant, insect and animal life; we, at our option, nurture those we choose to favor; and deprive and assault those we do not. This does NOT require any communication, committees, political parties, etc.

  Thus the ruling powers (NOT the visible politicians who are merely "show business") periodically provide economic and political sustenance to those persons and groups they favor until they become too influential and a potential threat; whereupon, the process is reversed.

  Thus political and social history is an odyssey of periodic fluctuations based upon this manipulation. For example, in order to undermine the threat of White middle-class Americans for a time Blacks were elevated; when Blacks became a political threat; Latin Americans were promoted; now that Latinos are feeling their oats; Jews are being promoted; when Jews become a threat; Muslims will be promoted, etc., etc.

  The game is divide and conquer -- making sure that each area of the political and economic spectrum is fed the propaganda that their ascendance or demise is somehow the fault of others of a different religion, skin color, nationality, etc.

  Like magicians, these distracters keep the vast majority of the human race occupied in "heat sink" operations by draining any efforts that might be used to throw off their shackles into chasing endless mirages of political parties, personalities, and various groups and ad hoc movements.

  Perhaps one day the human race will actually achieve the emotional and intellectual maturity to stop believing that their future depends on distant people they do not know; and from whom they would not even purchase a used car or want to marry their daughter. One can only hope...
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 7:39 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  "I said that it appeared to me that taxation was morally synonymous with robbery, (since taxation necessarily involves taking men's justly earned property by force and without their consent), and thus ought to be condemned by Christians as a violation of the 7th commandment." Mark R. Crovelli

  In your link (7th commandment), i found this: "2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

  2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

  2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

  2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.188 "

  Published: September 3, 2008 8:08 PM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: Annwas

  Brilliantly put!

  #######
  #######

  Published: September 3, 2008 8:44 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  Those are obviously the words of an individual who does not have a very good economic basis. We know through both deduction and observation that the greatest benefit to humanity in terms of the use of scarce resources is achieved through the free market and voluntary exchange. Through acting in the free market, each individual contributes to society as he attempts to obtain his most desired ends. Not out of altruism, but through self interest. Political authority can not know and can not hope to obtain the goal of "regulat[ing] the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good." Political authority can only be used to privilege the select at the expense of the many. As Mises and Hayek have shown again and again, socialism makes the greater good smaller than the system of voluntary cooperation. I also think I detect some Georgist influence in the first paragraph quoted.

  Remember, Church leaders are not infallible when it comes to their own opinion. Clearly they have failed to realize that you can not forcibly make a man charitable, or moral for that matter. It is a mistake for the Church to mire itself in political affairs, even to the point of legitimizing the state. The state can only injure the Church in such a relationship.

  Published: September 3, 2008 10:22 PM

• Carl Street

  Amen, Stanley Pinchak, Amen.

  Recent history (1930's Germany) clearly shows how the Church -- or rather, certain members of the Church hierarchy -- allowed the early economic benefits of Nazism to sway their judgment and made deals with the devil with the usual predictable results.

  Twas ever thus -- such Church leaders fail to recognize that this is a common demonic ploy as the temptations of Christ Himself demonstrated: "having taken Him to high place and showing him all the kingdoms of the earth, 'All this I will give thee; if thou wilt just bow down and adore me'. Such Church leaders would do well to emulate Christ and say 'Be gone Satan'.

  However, many such leaders have allowed the religion of "social justice" which seems to offer paradise on earth to blind themselves to the realities of this life. Repeatedly, Christ has warned us that our obligations to one another are INDIVIDUAL obligations and NOT institutional. Those who quote "render unto Caesar" are guilty of taking Christ out of the MUCH MORE important context that His kingdom "is NOT of this world" -- emphasis mine -- and that "the poor will always be with you".

  Thus we are each obligated to do what we can INDIVDUALLY to assist our fellows; but we are equally obligated to forego using force to further seemingly 'good ends'. Christ was NOT Robin Hood and would have opposed such 'noble deeds'. Theft, even theft that serves 'social justice' and benefits not the thief even to the point of anonymity is still stealing.

  We are, each of us, admonished to use our earthly gifts, goods and talents to assist our fellows; but we are PROHIBITED from stealing from others regardless of our motivations and purposes. Such is vanity; wherein those who practice such activities arrogate themselves to the role of assuming GOD made a mistake in the distribution of goods that only they and their fellow practitioners can correct. Such arrogant foolishness will be amply rewarded with a warm eternity.

  Truly, the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops ... St John Chrysostom and I daresay Archbishop Chaput would do well to remember that to avoid imperiling his immortal soul – gospel warnings regarding misleading the flock leave little doubt as to his future unless he recants his heresy.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 6:38 AM

• Danny

  A wonderful review and commentary. What the very "learned" miss is easily understood by my seven-year-old son. We discuss the fact that we are created by God (if you don't believe in God's creation of man, at minimum it is clear we were not "created" by the state). If God created us, does anyone have a right for a "claim" upon us merely due to the fact that God created us? His answer comes in about two seconds. "No."

  I will not claim a theolgical ability to answer what Christ meant when he suggested that some things belong to Caeser and some to God -- and what He meant for the distinction. I also will not comment on the possibilities of a society without any government -- I believe we would survive just fine, but there are many in this community better able to make this case than I can. What is clear to me is this: God never asked us for more than 10%. Clearly, no entity made by man should be allowed to "ask" for this much, and certainly not more. By what notion does anyone have a legitimate claim on me, my production, my life, more than the God that created me?

  That the church and members of the church willingly accept this speaks volumes of the "god" they willingly serve. That "god" is the state, it is theft, it is murder, and it is war.

  Published: September 4, 2008 7:38 AM

• Gerry Flaychy

  To Stanley Pinchak

  "Those words" are not from "an individual" but are the official economic theory of the Catholic church. They are published on the official web site of the Vatican, as you can verify by yourself.

  If you type "Scholastics" in the search engine of this very web site, Mises.org, you will find many texts related to the official economic theory of the Catholic church, and related too, to the libertarian theory of economy.

  Published: September 4, 2008 8:24 AM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: “Remember, Church leaders are not infallible when it comes to their own opinion. Clearly they have failed to realize that you can not forcibly make a man charitable, or moral for that matter.”

  The church isn’t trying to force people to be charitable or moral. Its support of government as an institution is based on the Biblical view of mankind which is very pessimistic, almost Hobbesian. Following natural law theory, it sees social order as necessary for mankind to flourish and the state necessary to preserve that order. Mises agreed.

  Stanley: “It is a mistake for the Church to mire itself in political affairs, even to the point of legitimizing the state. The state can only injure the Church in such a relationship.”

  The church exists to guide its members in godly living, which includes participation in government. It also presents the morality of God in the Bible to the world, outside of which no real morality exists. Without it, everyone is free to do as he wishes and make up his own morality.

  Carl: “Recent history (1930's Germany) clearly shows how the Church -- or rather, certain members of the Church hierarchy -- allowed the early economic benefits of Nazism to sway their judgment and made deals with the devil with the usual predictable results.”

  It wasn’t the economic benefits of Nazism that lured the Lutheran church into getting into bed with Hitler. The majority of Lutherans in Germany at that time had abandoned traditional Christianity. The no longer believed the Bible or the divinity of Christ and God had become an impotent, irrelevant force. They adopted socialism as their religion. As a result, they were natural suckers for con men like Hitler. Those Lutherans who remained true to Christianity, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, opposed the Nazis.

  Carl: “However, many such leaders have allowed the religion of "social justice" which seems to offer paradise on earth to blind themselves to the realities of this life.”

  That is the heart of the problem. Evangelicals, which used to be called fundamentalists, haven’t had this problem until recently. Mainline denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, etc.) went socialist when they abandoned traditional Christianity. However, quite a few evangelicals are drifting toward it now. Shame.

  Carl: “St John Chrysostom and I daresay Archbishop Chaput would do well to remember that to avoid imperiling his immortal soul – gospel warnings regarding misleading the flock leave little doubt as to his future unless he recants his heresy.”

  You should know that you can’t go to hell for being wrong about the state, only for being wrong about Christ. Anyway, the church’s doctrine of the state is sound Biblical exegesis. The Bible does legitamize the state’s right to collect taxes. Neither Protestant nor Catholic churches have ever deviated from that.

  Danny: “God never asked us for more than 10%. Clearly, no entity made by man should be allowed to "ask" for this much, and certainly not more.”

  Actually, God required Israelites in the Old Testament to give 30% to the temple, some of which went to help the poor. (I would be very excited if the state took just 30%!) In addition, God required that farmers not harvest all of their crops and leave some for the poor, and he required that all land revert to the original family every 50 years. Israel was supposed to be a theocracy, although they rarely followed their ruler. No nation since, and especially not the US, has been a theocracy so we shouldn’t try to immitate ancient Israel.

  The main requirement of a state in the Bible is to practice justice as understood by Biblical morality, not the interpretation today of social justice. For the most part, justice meant protecting common citizens from theft by the nobility, which Israel failed to do most of the time. As long a justice prevails, God doesn’t care what form of government people choose. They can choose a monarchy, democracy or anarchy.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 8:41 AM

• Carl Street

  I am afraid I am going to have to differ with Fundamentalist on several points:

  1. Your view of 1930's Church relationships is incorrect, or at least incomplete -- I was NOT referring to Lutherans; rather I WAS referring to Roman Catholics -- who strongly endorsed Hitler's "economic miracle" and turned a blind eye to his failings.

  Admittedly, later in the game they did an about face; but by that time the window of opportunity to avoid the Hitlerian nightmare had long since closed. News photos of the day show Catholic priests and Bishops giving the Hitler "Sieg Hiel" salute and Nazi flags occupying places of prominence in Catholic sanctuaries next to their altars.

  Historically deficient American mythology holds that Nazi Germany was "godless"; when in reality, church attendance was considered a state duty with those failing to do so coming under suspicion. In fact the slogan of the Waffen was "Gott Mitt Uns" -- Literally, "God is with us" (God is on our side) inscribed in their belt buckles, and often tattooed on their bodies. Waffen SS church attendance was MANDATORY unless battlefield conditions did not permit.

  Like the deluded Americans (pseudo patriots and military) of today, WWII era Germans actually believed they were conducting a holy war against enemies of Christ. In fact, the only REAL difference between the doctrines espoused in Nazi Germany and contemporary American is largely which Middle-Eastern religion is being vilified.

  WWII era Germany was a technologically advanced state with a far higher rate of literacy than modern USA -- these were NOT ignorant, Col. Klink Buffoons; rather, they adopted the flawed premise that since "God was on their side"; anything and everything was allowed -- pre-emptive strikes, gas chambers; torture, etc. -- sound familiar???!

  Second, you CAN and WILL go to hell for following State policies that run contrary to the teachings of Christ. NO State can absolve us of our sins against each other; nor can it grant valid permission to perform acts running contrary to HIS teachings. THAT is the very essence of what martyrdom was all about. Martyrs DIED rather than transgress; THAT is the standard the CHRIST Himself stated repeatedly in the scriptures.

  Published: September 4, 2008 1:10 PM

• fundamentalist

  Carl, I didn’t think the Catholic Church was very large in Germany at the time of Hitler. The majority was Lutheran, but you have to consider what kind of Lutheran. It was not the church of Martin Luther. What came to be called liberal theology (Christ was not God, Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, the Bible is mostly error) was born in the Lutheran seminaries of Germany in the late 19th century. By the time Hitler came along, very few Lutherans followed traditional Lutheran doctrine. They may have thought that some god was on their side, but neither their god nor their christ were the God and Christ of the Bible or traditional Lutherans.

  Carl: “Second, you CAN and WILL go to hell for following State policies that run contrary to the teachings of Christ.”

  Both Protestant and Catholic doctrine teaches that God will forgive any sin if we repent of it. No real Christian would want to transgress Christ’s teachings and would not commit theft or murder if ordered to by the state. But that is very different from calling taxation theft. That was not the teaching of Christ or the church. I was fabricated by Rothbard in the late 20th century. To claim that Christ held to Rothbard’s ethic 2,000 afterwards is a little odd.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 1:36 PM

• Carl Street

  Further differences...

  NO WHERE does scripture provide that God endorses the State. In fact the MOST definitive opinion of the State is given by God in 1 Samuel 8:

  6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

  10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

  Thus reaffirming that God considers the establishment of a state (king) to be an apostasy that violates His FIRST commandment in choosing an earthly king over God who is to be our ONLY king. In Samuel, God warns that immediate earthly punishment for such apostasy will be the actions of the State; not to mention the eternal damnation for those who promote the state as a solution in lieu of God.

  LOOK AROUND YOU -- Nuclear weapons; industrial scale killings, heinous biological chemical weapons; excessive taxation; military slavery, maiming, torture, starvation, disease, and death, etc., etc. that exceed even the vaunted plagues of Egypt. Yet, like Pharaoh, many harden their hearts and refuse to see God's displeasure being visited upon us due to our adoption of political entities.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 1:54 PM

• fundamentalist

  Carl: “NO WHERE does scripture provide that God endorses the State.”

  What do you think the nation of Israel was before it begged for a king? If collected several “tithes” from the people, adding up to about 30%, for support of the high priest and sanctuary. The high priest was the executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. Later, due to failures of the high priest, judges ruled. The state of Israel went from less authoritarian to more authoritarian under a king, but it was a state. In spite of Israel’s demand for a king, God blessed Israel under David and Solomon more than at any other time in its history. Later, God describes Nebuchanezer as his chosen instrument to punish Israel for idolatry. He ordered Israelis to obey Nebuchanezer and blesses his kingdom greatly.

  In the NT you have Jesus’s “Render unto Caesar” and Paul’s admonitions to obey the authorities, especially Romans 12 where he states that all authority is from God.

  Carl: “Yet, like Pharaoh, many harden their hearts and refuse to see God's displeasure being visited upon us due to our adoption of political entities.”

  That’s interesting theology. I always thought those things happened because of unbelief, not politics.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 3:58 PM

• darjen

  Where in Romans 12 does it say that all of the state's authority is from God? I'm reading it right now and I don't see it anywhere.

  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+12

  Also, why do you insist that the "Render unto caesar" statement means that "taxation by force is just"? I just don't see how you can read that interpretation into it.

  Published: September 4, 2008 6:14 PM

• Carl Street

  Sorry Fundamentalist,

  You are 0 for 2 – Twice I gave you a chance to provide a logical response and both times you resorted to weasel words, distortions, quotes out of context, and oblique answers that avoided directly addressing my points.

  Lies are the devil’s tools and I submit it appears you have chosen your side; and I have outed you; more than that, I pity you; and I will pray for you. IMHOP Christ was speaking directly to you and your ilk when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good; and good evil”. When one is dealing with one’s Eternal Judge; “Woe” is Not a traffic ticket!

  Scriptural context is crystal clear – God does NOT wish us to be subject to authority other than His. The references to Paul’s remarks are out of context distortions often quoted by demonically motivated authority figures with their hidden agendas. IF you will read the scriptural references in their ENTIRETY and consider them within the social constructs of their day it is obvious that Paul was admonishing against violence; not submission to sinful practices.

  The Christian Church in all its forms has always been considered by all true Christians to be the Mystical Body of Christ; and, conversely, the earthly political world and all its institutions are the Mystical Body of Satan. Christ Himself warned us that “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Even you admitted that most of the activities of institutional governments have been immoral. Your error is in not making the logical conclusion to which that realization clearly leads.

  In short, participation in the political process is an affront to God and voting is a sin! My largest quarrel with the owner of this blog is his narrow interpretation and my plea is that he broaden his scope to encompass the whole picture – Not only is Taxation theft and unjust; but the entire structure of institutional government is a product of the devil.

  The Sermon on the Mount is clear and unequivocal; at the final judgment we will NOT be evaluated on how often we went to church and exhibited other social trappings of our Christianity; but, rather by how we treated our fellow human beings.

  We cannot avoid responsibility by hiding behind taxation and military activities fostered by our beliefs to perform assaults on our fellow human beings through institutional government surrogates. We, each of us, MUST do all we can to bring down the Satanic structure of institutional governments or we are just as guilty as those who are funded and socially uplifted by our actions and omissions.
  

  Published: September 4, 2008 10:30 PM

• N Gray

  But evils like the American Insurrection (Can you call it a Revolution if society is not fundamentally changed?) are based on the idea that the King broke his secular contract- both parties to the arrangement professed to be Christians. What do you think Christians should do in those circumstances, Carl?

  Published: September 4, 2008 11:15 PM

• BWM

  Stanley;
  No, I'm not. That's assuming that the world works entirely on an "all-or-nothing" basis, but it doesn't. That was really my whole point; our choices for the future aren't between 1984 and Mad Max. We don't have to look at either total anarchy where the only protection we get is by throwing our lot in with whomever is strong enough to help us, or a dystopian, all-powerful government. However, as I said, anarchy is anarchy; if you have no government, you have no means to secure YOUR rights than to violate others' rights directly. ALL governments have problems, and I don't deny that, but to eliminate all government means we end up with three options for every type of wrong committed against us; hope the criminal makes up for it himself, give up, or somehow violate his rights. And even that is fine until you realize that the only way to even ensure that he IS the criminal to begin with is to violate his rights in some way, strictly speaking; we either have a system involving warrants, rules on searches, etc, or we just break into his house one night and go through his stuff ourself.

  Again, how could anarchy physically work? As one writer has put it, anarchy is right next to totalitarianism, because he with the biggest guns and most followers quickly becomes dictator. Anytime in history where a government has literally collapsed and ALL order is lost was followerd by somebody, some group, or multiple groups consolidated power and took over. It WILL happen as long as humans are humans. Look at even the feudal era; for a while, government was very small and local, but one of the main reasons it centralized more was because outside groups (Huns, Vikings) began to attack, and the only option was to pull together. We can moan about how we wish life were perfect, but shooting for impossible perfection is like all these democrats trying to "end" hunger or change the damn weather, or republicans trying to end, what, ALL non-western beliefs everywhere.

  And to N Gray; um, yes, I can call it a "Revolution" despite not changing society since the word "revolution" is about changing government.

  Published: September 5, 2008 2:16 AM

• fundamentalist

  Carl: “In short, participation in the political process is an affront to God and voting is a sin!”

  I’m sure that theologians around the world will thank you for correcting 2,000 years of mistaken doctrine. How could they get it wrong for two millenia while reading the same Bible?

  darjen, Sorry, I got the chapter in Romans wrong. It’s chapter 13:

  “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
  

  Published: September 5, 2008 8:48 AM

• darjen

  Keeping in mind John 18:36, I would say the autorities Paul is speaking of are the church authorities.

  Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here."

  Published: September 5, 2008 10:12 AM

• rtr

  What if you were to render unto the United States Government that which is the United States Government's? What would you do?

  A dollar is just a piece of paper, no different than any other piece of paper except that it has an image imprinted upon it. Similarly, Jesus would have maintained that a metal coin with Caesar's image was just a piece of metal with an image of Caesar. In both cases, rendering unto would merely be to erase the image. Did Caesar, or did God create the metal? Did the USG, or did God, create the trees from which the paper is made?

  You certainly couldn't render something that wasn't owned by you. Giving implies ownership, and exchange transfer of ownership.

  Roman metal coins not only had an image of Caesar but also an inscription, no different than the USD's "In God We Trust", except that Caesar's coins claimed "Long Live the Son of God!" Jesus doubly insults the Emperor with his reply, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. That's why Jesus asked for a coin to be brought before he gave his answer.

  And the Pharisees and Herodians were amazed, dumbfounded, stupified, left marveling, just like the dear idiot savant Archbishop Chaput.

  There's also the story (Matthew 17:24-27) where Jesus told Peter to cast a hook without bait into the sea, catch a fish, take money out of its mouth and pay the temple tax. And that "money" would be nothing more than a piece of metal, shaped into a fish hook. A drachma was a silver coin, so it could have easily been used as a fishing lure. And thus Peter the Pirate, fisher of men, paid the tax with his silver hook for answering the tax collectors incorrectly.

  Published: September 5, 2008 10:23 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  fundamentalist,
  How many authorities have been established by God? Last I heard, the Israelite Monarchy was dead. The Jewish temple and priest class have subjugated themselves to secular leaders and can be considered as authorities only in religious matters. Same with the Church. It was established by Jesus, but never had secular authority (Popes acting in a manner contrary to Christ can not be used to refute the true scope of the Church's power). Just as Jesus denied the temptation of Satan to be ruler of all that could be seen, so too the Church must reject this. To do otherwise would be contrary to the nature of Christ. It would appear that the only authority which Paul could be speaking about would be the Church in its role as a shepherd of mens souls. Its ability to bind and unbind are to be executed in heaven, not on earth.

  BWM,
  Let me see if I can shed a little more light on anarcho-capitalism, perhaps just to pique your curiosity. Just because anarchy means that there is no monopoly on the police and court functions in society does not mean that these services will be abandoned by society. These are important goods that everyone wants, that is why we need to remove them from the sphere of the state, where it can not know how to best provide these services (everyone needs food, but look at the failure of the state to provide food). Only the market can tell which areas will need more policing and who needs more arbitration.

  As for the punishment of criminals, there is no violation of rights if the criminal is duly convicted in a reputable court and his punishment is proportional to his crime. As for gathering evidence, individuals in the protection agency or the plaintiff can place their own liberty in jeopardy in the event that the search is futile and the accused is innocent. This will ensure that only property crimes (mala in se) are prosecuted and will cut down on fishing expeditions. This concept can also be used in the detaining of a person deemed to be a threat to society (or a specific individual) in the time between the first court action and the conclusion of the trial.

  There can be no way to restrain a state which has a monopoly on justice. How can an individual who demands redress obtain it in a court where the government is both the defendant and judge. Even worse is the case of mala prohibitum laws where the individual faces the state in the role of prosecutor and judge (we can disregard the meek and compliant jury). The state can not provide universal justice. The free market can.

  As for increasing your knowledge about this subject, should it interest you, this site has many resources. Just search for anarcho-capitalism or anarchy, or protection agency. Rothbard and Hoppe have written about the ethical foundations of free society and Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Ethics of Liberty are good starting points if you prefer a systematic exposition as opposed to individual articles.

  Published: September 5, 2008 10:53 AM

• fundamentalist

  I doubt Paul imagined the deacons of the church carrying swords. The latter part of the chapter reads

  "4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing."

  Published: September 5, 2008 11:24 AM

• darjen

  Why wouldn't have church authorities carried swords? Lots of people probably carried them in that day.

  Even if he wasn't referring to church authorities... it says "The authorities that exist have been established by God." In other words, the authorities that existed at the time it was written. Seems like quite a stretch to assume that it means all past, present and future authorities were and will be ordained of God. The U.S. government obvioiusly wasn't in existence at that point.

  Also, just because he says to pay taxes if you owe them doesn't mean that all taxes everywhere should always be paid. Or even that taxes are fair or just to begin with. It still leaves the option to pay taxes, yet work to abolish them at the same time. Nowhere does it say that there will always be governments established by God no matter what.

  Published: September 5, 2008 12:23 PM

• fundamentalist

  darjen: "Nowhere does it say that there will always be governments established by God no matter what."

  The church has always taken the full body of texts on government in the Bible to indicate that God endorsed the idea of a state without endorsing everthing a head of state might do. Neither do I think the Bible requires a state. The Bible doesn't command that everyone have a state. I think their is room for anarchy in Christianity.

  But to return to the original article, the author claimed that the institution of the state is immoral and taxes are theft. The Bible clearly endorses the state and its right to tax citizens. That doesn't mean that the Bible requires states, just that they are not immoral when collecting taxes.

  It might be interesting to revisit the history of freedom. The state was close to being absolute in its power in the 1500's. Except for little Venice, even a republican form of government was out of the question. Then states began murdering Protestants. In France, Hugenots questioned the need to submit to a state that was murdering them, and came up with the idea that was heretical at the time that the king was subject to God's laws just as the citizens are and if the king violates those laws he forfeits his right to rule. I believe the original tract was Contra Tyrannicus.

  Ducth Protestants took the idea a ran with in when the King of Spain started murdering Protestants and made it clear he would kill every Protestant in the Netherlands if possible. But the Protestant clergy struggled with Romans 13 and couldn't decide if they had the right to proclaim the king an illegit ruler. The debate was long and difficult. Finally, they told the nobility that only they had the authority to declare the king to have forfeited his rights. The nobility, most of whom were Protestant, took charge and declared their rebellion. The leader, William of Orange, was Protestant and believed to be a friend of the writers of Contra Tyrannicus. Anyway, a lot of Hugenots found refuge in the Dutch Republic. That was the beginning of our modern freedoms.

  Published: September 5, 2008 12:49 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  " ... it appeared to me that taxation was morally synonymous with robbery, (since taxation necessarily involves taking men's justly earned property by force and without their consent ...)"
  Mark R. Crovelli

  First, how do we know if what we earn is just or unjust? What are the criterions?

  Second, what happens with the morality of taxation if some peoples consent to pay taxes voluntary, and pay them voluntary, so that the government does not have to use force? In this case, will taxation still be a robbery?

  Published: September 5, 2008 6:06 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  Since the Spanish Scholastics, economists have concluded that the fair price is the free market price. Thus if your income comes from voluntary exchange on the market, you will have obtained your earnings in a just manner. If you work for the state, or deal mostly with the state, this is likely not true. Your earnings in that case were the result of coercion. It gets dicey here, morally, but if you step back from the moral aspect and you look at the two modes of earning, you can see that they are distinct with one class preying on the other. John C Calhoun made these observations in the 1840s when he noticed that there are two classes once government has been instituted. The tax payer and the tax consumer. All those in the employ of the government fall into the latter class, their payment of income tax is merely legerdemain.

  The morality of voluntary taxation can be analyzed in two separate steps. If the state receives all of its funding from voluntary means, then contributing to it is not necessarily immoral. If the state receives some voluntary contributions and extracts the rest via coercion, then those who volunteer with knowledge of this fact have contributed to coercion and have acted immorally. If the government is wholly voluntarily funded, the morality depends on the actions of the state. If the state maintains a moral course of action, then those who contribute will have acted morally. However, if the state violates moral principles despite being voluntarily funded then those who have funded it will have acted immorally.

  Published: September 5, 2008 10:00 PM

• c

  So Fundamentalist -- is it YOUR contention that God created the Nazi Holocaust?

  And that those who sheltered Jews, Gypsies, and others from Nazi persecution sinned in the process??

  If ALL temporal authority stems from God and disobedience to same is a sin, then Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, etc. were saints? And those who resisted them were heathens?
  
  What a shock to American servicemen who attacked Nazi German upon being killed in action to discover they were now damned to hell for fighting Nazi tyrannny!

  And, of course, your specious reasoning ignores the OBVIOUS transgression of logic that God must be fighting Himself when the "God endowed" authorities of one nation conflict with the "God endowed" authorities of another.

  Please, spare us further tripe!

  Even YOU must be embarrassed by your position...
  

  Published: September 5, 2008 11:56 PM

• BWM

  Stanley

  "As for the punishment of criminals, there is no violation of rights if the criminal is duly convicted in a reputable court and his punishment is proportional to his crime"
  I agree with you in the sense of a fair punishment, but you just say a "reputable" court. What does that mean? What if he says it's not reputable? On what basis is this judged (and I'm not asking for a moral standard; I mean, from a practical POV, how do we know it's reputable, how do we create a standard, who does it, etc)? Most importantly, where does this court get the authority to do what people say the US court system does not have the authority to do? What laws does this court use? What if it uses different laws than that which the criminal was aware of, or if it simply disliked this guy and bends the laws anyway? Without absolutely any central authority, the laws of a court are in fact LESS binding to me than the rules of Wal-mart, because I at least shop there.

  "As for gathering evidence, individuals in the protection agency or the plaintiff can place their own liberty in jeopardy in the event that the search is futile and the accused is innocent"
  Wait; you mean that, if I was innocent, I could then turn around and have a different court prosecute the people who prosecuted me? Would the 1st court allow the second court to do that to it's employees? If it didn't, would there be a fight? Or would it just be cheaper to tell me to buzz off?

  "we can disregard the meek and compliant jury"
  We can? I think the history of the jury is replete with examples of it enraging the establishment and going against it's will.

  I have tried to read up on the subject, but I've never had much success finding the answers to my particular questions, which is one of the reasons I thought it would be easier to ask someone here directly. And I don't honestly expect anyone to answer ALL those questions there; my main concern is simply that, if the state court system is unjust because it lacks a moral foundation, how in the world can a private court some guy literally just made up and has even less of a moral foundation be MORE just? I feel that all the criticisms are being leveled only one way.

  Published: September 6, 2008 1:43 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  A court gains repute as any business does. By providing a quality product at a fair price consistently over time. A reputable court is one which follows the common principles of justice which can be derived from a universally applicable ethical basis, probably best summed up by the libertarian non-aggression axiom. I.e., no aggression against the person or property of another is permitted except in the case of defense.

  The choice of court is first determined by the victim or plaintiff or his protection agency. The appeals court choice is left the accused. The court of final arbitration is jointly chosen ahead of time either by contract between protection agencies on opposing sides or alternatively the individuals. Any decision of two courts is binding.

  Authority of the court is enforced by the protection agency of the winning side. Any protection agency which risked its business to block a court judgment would be under severe economic pressure to abstain. Its reputation would be tarnished and it may have to fear retribution from all rights respecting protection agencies.

  To ask the question is to answer it with regards to violations of property rights in the pursuit of a case. If there are violations, they would have standing in the court of the victim of said violations. It would be in the interest of the individual accused of committing these acts to appear at court, and the accused's protection agency would advise this person to abide by the ruling in order to retain his protection (most likely already spelled out in the contract), perhaps requesting an appeal if the case warrant it.

  I appreciate an informed jury as much as the next guy (who appreciates such things). I see too many mala prohibita convictions to have great hope in jury nullification. At the same time, hooray for those lucky cases.

  I barely do this justice. If there is anything right here, it is because I have blatantly plagiarized from knowledgeable folks. Curt Howland Posted a couple of links way up the thread that are pretty interesting. Stefan Molyneux got me thinking about anarcho-capitalism and justice ending my period of pessimism and doubt that had shadowed my thoughts of an anarchic society following my initial exposure in God the Democracy that Failed by Hoppe.

  Published: September 6, 2008 3:16 AM

• Chad

  c said: "If ALL temporal authority stems from God and disobedience to same is a sin, then Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, etc. were saints? And those who resisted them were heathens?"

  According to Christianity, one is under no moral obligation to obey a human authority if and only if one is commanded by that authority to do something one knows is ungodly (i.e., immoral).

  Some examples of such moral (and peaceful) civil disobedience include:

  a) Isaiah spoke out against the corruption of Israel's kings and was subsequently executed.
  b) Israelite slaves in Babylon were commanded by King Nebuchadnezzar to bow to a golden idol upon threat of execution, but they refused to do so.
  c) Praying to anything or anyone other than King Darius was made a capital crime, but Daniel (who was a government official) continued to daily pray to the God of Israel as was his habit.
  d) Some Christians in ancient Rome were commanded to worship Caesar and were horrifically executed when they peaceably refused.
  e) Many German citizens rightfully violated the orders of the Nazis by hiding and sheltering Jews who were to be wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed.

  As a simple counter example, the first high school I attended had a particular dress code. I openly defied that dress code (and got sent home a lot), because it was more important to me at the time to (supposedly) look rebellious and, therefore, "cool" than it was for me to obey the rules. In retrospect, I believe I was in the wrong for doing so.

  For the Christian, if the commands of God and the commands of human authorities are at odds with each, one is to obey the commands of God and be fully prepared to suffer the resulting penalties demanded by the authority defied. However, if the commands of human authorities do not conflict with the commands of God, then the edicts of human authorities are to be fully obeyed; even slaves who were Christians were instructed to faithfully obey their respective masters (TITUS 2:9-10).

  After much thought on the issue, I am convinced that this issue of acknowledgement of and morally conditional obedience to human authorities is an irreconcilable conflict between pure libertarian philosophy and biblical Christianity.

  Published: September 6, 2008 5:55 AM

• Chad

  "... I am taxed by the various governments that claim a right to a part of my labor and then proceed to spend that portion of my hard-won money on state-funded abortion and aggressive war (among very many other things my conscience cannot abide). Where do they get the right to take my money and spend it on practices that I abhor?" -- Mr. Crovelli

  Regarding the conduct of Christians specifically, ROMANS 13:7 clearly states, "Render to all [rulers] what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." The entire chapter is pretty unambiguous on this matter.

  Note carefully though that God is not going to hold you personally responsible for what the government does with your paid taxes. His judgment will be directed at the specific individuals in government who are actually allocating the taxes collected to every kind of misdeed (Iraq Invasion, corporate welfare, etc.). After all, the Christians in Rome were being instructed by the author of that missive (subsequently a biblical book) to pay their taxes willfully "in subjection" to the Roman Empire which was arguably a less than altruistic institution itself.

  Besides, since God literally has all the resources in the entire universe and more at His disposal, He can easily cover any money that is taxed away from you by the government, if you really need that money to live. Jesus said that no follower of his who is actively faithful -- that's the key -- has to ever be anxious about the necessities of life (MATTHEW 6:25-34), and he is a pretty trustworthy guy.

  Personally, I think that individuals should be far more concerned with the second half of the passage referenced by this article (MATTHEW 22:21), whether or not each of us is properly rendering to God those things to which He has rightful claim. In the grand scheme of things, what exactly should be rendered unto Caesar is not nearly as consequential (although I obviously do not expect non-Christians on an economics-related blog such as this one to agree with such a viewpoint).

  Published: September 6, 2008 6:34 AM

• fundamentalist

  C: “…is it YOUR contention that God created the Nazi Holocaust?”

  Of course not. Where would you get such a stupid idea? I realize that the concept is too difficult for some to grasp, but God can endorse an institution without endorsing everything a ruler might do. In addition, the Bible makes it clear that no one should obey the state when it commands people to violate God’s morality.
  

  Published: September 6, 2008 8:37 AM

• fundamentalist

  Chad: "...this issue of acknowledgement of and morally conditional obedience to human authorities is an irreconcilable conflict between pure libertarian philosophy and biblical Christianity."

  Nice posts, by the way. Well said. I wouldn't let anarchists hijack libertarianism. After all, the greatest defender of liberty of them all, Mises, wrote of the necessity and goodness of the state. Rothbard's ethic is a very late addition to libertarian thinking and it does contradict Christianity. But there is no reason to define libertarianism by it. I think we should realize that there will always be a minority in the movement who follow Rothbard's ethic and demand anarchy.

  Published: September 6, 2008 8:46 AM

• Eduardo

  Fundamentalist:"In addition, the Bible makes it clear that no one should obey the state when it commands people to violate God’s morality. "

  Bible: "Thou shalt not steal"

  Stealing is taking something away from someone without his consent.

  Following your reasoning, anybody who does not voluntarily pay taxes, should not do so, it is against God's morality.
  Furthermore, the state is condemned by God for violating one of his Commandments (on those that are unwillingly coerced).

  regards

  Published: September 6, 2008 9:42 AM

• Gerry Flaychy

  To Stanley Pinchak.

  1- One of the reason that Mark R. Crovelli, as i understand it, is saying that taxation is robbery, is because of the absence of consent from the taxpayers. Thus it appears to me that if the taxpayers consent, or some of them, or even one and only one of them, taxation is not a robbery, if i follow his reasoning. If i am wrong on his reasoning, then tell me where (or somebody else).

  2- "Since the Spanish Scholastics, economists have concluded that the fair price is the free market price. Thus if your income comes from voluntary exchange on the market, you will have obtained your earnings in a just manner." Stanley Pinchak

  Who are the economists that you are talking about?
  Is it every economist in the world since the Scholastics, including the Scholastics, or only the libertarians ones?

  3- To everybody.

  Stanley Pinchak (and others that i have seen elsewhere) seems to talk of free market and then of the market, as if they where one and only one thing, so my question is: is there a difference between «market» and «free market»?

  Or put in other words: are all the markets in this world, free, or do we have some that are free and others that are not?

  Published: September 6, 2008 10:22 AM

• Gerry Flaychy

  "Stealing is taking something away from someone without his consent." Eduardo

  Here is the official point of view of the Catholic church of Vatican on this subject:

  "2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner.

  There is no theft
  if consent can be presumed
  or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

  This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.190 "

  http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

  Obviously, the Catholic church thinks differently from many peoples on this particular subject. I think it is the same for Islam religion, but it has to be verify.

  Published: September 6, 2008 10:47 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Chad, you write, "Note carefully though that God is not going to hold you personally responsible for what the government does with your paid taxes. " That is basically the defense of I was just doing my job. Are you sure you want to defend that stance. Everyone is aware that their government taxes are not all spent on aid to widows and orphans and public works. In law you have a responsibility to perform due diligence before you act.

  Gerry Flaychy,
  the only consistently defensible definition of the just price is the free market price. Sure you can probably dig out some "economist" who believes otherwise, but if you analyze his logic, you will see it is in error. Lots of articles are written about this topic on the web site. Just search for just price.

  Taxation is only not robbery for those who volunteer, for the rest it remains coercion. As I posted earlier, those volunteering in such a system can not be acting morally because they still coerce others through the state by supporting the state.

  The market is often a term for the current conditions under which transactions occur at the present. There most likely are government interferences in these transactions. The free market is the market in which no coercion is used either between parties, or dictated by third parties. Sometimes these are used interchangeably if the market is assumed to be operating in a libertarian society.

  Does the church clarify on the immediate needs defense of stealing to allow third parties to be involved, and to take a cut of the proceeds? I would think that this defense can only be used by those in most need and by them alone.

  I meant to type Democracy: the God that Failed, by Hoppe in an earlier post.

  Published: September 6, 2008 1:48 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  fundamentalist,
  I hold Mises in the highest regard, but his defense of the state was based on utilitarianism, which he avoided in all other aspects of his economic reasoning. Utilitarianism can be used to justify horrendous actions, and can not be the basis of a universal moral ethic. It can allow for and does allow for the use of unprovoked force against minorities to obtain greater satisfaction for the majority.

  I agree that no one has the obligation to follow unjust orders from the state, but I contend that contributing to the state willingly or against one's will despite having knowledge that the proceeds will be used for coercion is not morally defensible. Pragmatism and Utilitarian justification can not negate the contribution to unjust action, if even to avoid punishment (including death). The Nuremberg Defense is no defense.

  Published: September 6, 2008 2:16 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  Thus if taxation is NOT a robbery if we consent to it, then taxation does NOT "necessarily involves taking men's justly earned property by force and without their consent", and thus taxation is NOT "morally synonymous with robbery", as Mark R. Crovelli says.

  Now, what we have to know, is if this consent must be explicit (for example, by an official declaration send to the government, or by not fulfiling our income tax declaration), or if it can be implicit (for example, by taking a trip on a public road, or by drinking water in a public park).

  On the other hand, if we consent and we don't pay some taxes, is the governemnt then justified (from a libertarian point of view) to use coercion?

  Published: September 6, 2008 5:03 PM

• fundamentalist

  Eduardo: “Furthermore, the state is condemned by God for violating one of his Commandments (on those that are unwillingly coerced).”

  So why would Jesus, and the Apostle Paul, command Christians to pay taxes? And how could Christian theologians have gotten wrong something so obvious for 2,000 years?

  You can make up your own definition of theft, as Rothbard did with his ethics, and as Marx did with his labor theory of value, and win the argument by default. It’s a trivial thing to define terms in such a way that your argument automatically wins, by definition. But if you’re going to argue theology you need to accept the Bible’s definition of theft. The same books of the Bible that prohibit theft also command payment of taxes. You can say the authors were inconsistent, if you want, but then you would not be arguing from traditional Christian theology; you would be denying it. Clearly, the Bible does not consider property an absolute right as Rothbard does. By sanctioning taxation, it gives the state the right to take property against the will of the owner. But it gives that right to the state only and to no one else.

  Stanley: “Utilitarianism can be used to justify horrendous actions, and can not be the basis of a universal moral ethic. It can allow for and does allow for the use of unprovoked force against minorities to obtain greater satisfaction for the majority.”

  Mises’s utilitarianism was different from the type you cite, which fools itself into thinking the utility of individuals can be known and measured. Mises insisted it could not. Mises’s utilitarianism was type that tried to figure out which method would achieve the desired goal. They really should have different names because they are completely different in every way. Mises was more of a pragmatist that a utilitarian. He saw order as necessary for society and the state as the only means to that good. His approach was very similar to that of natural law theorists. Natural law theory provided a universal, consistent ethic for the Western world for about 500 years (if you begin with Grotius, longer if you begin counting from Aquinas), so it’s odd to say that only Rothbard’s ethic can be universal.

  You mentioned the Scholastics earlier. As you know, the whole purpose of the Scholastics from Aquinas on down was moral theory. They devoted themselves to almost nothing else. Don’t you think it a bit odd that they never denounced the state as an immoral institution as Rothbard does? Why does Rothbard see it as immoral when no one else in 2,000 years of the Church did? He did it by redefining theft. As the quotes from the Bible demonstrate, Christianity has never considered taxation to be theft. It left an exemption for the state to take property against the will of the owner. Rothbard changed that definition by making property an absolute and adding “involuntary” to the definition of theft.

  Christian ethics come from God through the Bible and the church has been fairly consistent in its understanding of the major ethical issues such as theft for 2,000 years. Rothbard fabricated a completely new ethic from scratch based on highly abstract reasoning. He claimed to be following in the tradition of natural law, but he violated its most basic principles with his innovation on property.

  Stanley: “I contend that contributing to the state willingly or against one's will despite having knowledge that the proceeds will be used for coercion is not morally defensible.”

  Fine. I disagree. I follow the ethics laid out in the Bible. I realize it’s fashionable to make up your own ethical system these days, but I’ll stick with Bible and with natural law. I guess under your ethics your are responsible for the actions of every other person you might have even the remotest contact with.

  Stanley: “The Nuremberg Defense is no defense.”

  That’s very unfair. The Christian defense of taxation has nothing to do with people who commit crimes on orders from the state. As Chad wrote, Christians are forbidden to do exactly that. Citizens are responsible for paying taxes; rulers for what they do with those taxes. Christ and the apostles knew that the Roman Empire was brutal and ruthless, but commanded Christians to pay taxes anyway for the reasons Paul gave in Romans 13.
  

  Published: September 6, 2008 5:18 PM

• Carl Street

  The "selective, out of context" reading of Romans 13 should be proof positive that the devil can quote scripture to his own purpose.

  Even Fundamentalist, when confronted with the obvious ludicrous logic of his positions has had to concede that "immoral laws" need not be followed.

  Of course, I literally had to extract that from him via surgery... :)

  Such people are found in every society -- they simply take the path of least resistance and support whatever regime happens to be in power rationalizing all the way.

  If Hitler had prevailed in WWII they would find scriptural references to support the mass genocides and other Nazi horrors and would even now be priding themselves upon their position as supporting the "will of God".

  I have little doubt that Fundamentalist would have "Arbeit Macht Frei" emblazoned in wrought iron over his doorway and would have No problem with a bible emblazoned with a Swastika; rationalizing that it was "God's Will" that Hitler was dominant and that failure to attend Nazi brain washing camps was sinful.

  The sad truth is that during WWII most of those "captured" by the Gestapo were actually betrayed by people of this ilk. The popular mythology of Gestapo cleverness is just that; a myth. In truth, the Gestapo was overtaxed and spread way too thin to be an effective investigative/forensic force and relied mostly upon informants.

  Most of these informants justified their actions as serving "law and order" and fighting "terrorist activity". Vichy France operated almost impeccably without direct German intervention and was, despite Hollywood cinema B.S., quite active in pursuing French nationals who resisted the Nazis -- branding, arresting, prosecuting and even executing them as criminals.

  Of course, that historical truth is quite painful to the statists who would have us believe that their institution has a moral compass. The reality is, regime change generally only involves changing the names and pictures on the reward posters and some career adjustments -- other than that it is business as usual.

  Thus many so-called "patriotic wars" are not defense of the nation; but rather, just defense of the personal interests of the small group bureaucrats and politicians who will be directly affected by the regime change. For the vast bulk of humanity life remains largely unchanged. As the Old Russian proverb says, "Oppressors change; but oppression does not".

  In the final analysis the so-called “state” does not really exist; unless you believe that because people all wear the same clothes they somehow become divinely endowed with special rights over the rest of humanity that allows them to take property, maim, kill, kidnap and imprison with the blessings of God.

  Frankly, I cannot conceive of a more ridiculous premise; for, if I were to accept that obvious transgression of logic, then the “Bloods” and “Crips” street gangs represent the will of God in certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and other urban centers. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that God is a gang member; but then, apparently I lack the biblical insight of the statists who believe they KNOW the mind of God, and are even now correcting HIS errors in creating the world. What arrogance!

  Published: September 6, 2008 7:02 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  you are starting to redefine taxation. Typically taxation connotates coercion; voluntary payments for services rendered (including gifts and the psychic reward of such) are not typically counted under the banner of taxation. For more information on the consent aspect, Lysander Spooner the abolitionist and individualist of the mid 19th century has written extensively in "No Treason" and other works. Your question of consent followed by refusal to pay is rather straight forward. If there was no coercion involved in the agreement between the parties, then if the services were rendered and the payment was withheld, the party in the wrong would have standing to bring the case to court. If the contract were broken before the transfer of property or services, the clause in the contract covering such matters would hold. If there were no such clause, bringing a case to court involving the matter would appear to have no standing (I am not a legal theorist, so I could be wrong here).

  Fundamentalist,
  I would not say that you are responsible for the actions of others far removed from you, but you should perform due diligence before acting. To knowingly abet a criminal is not defensible. To bequeath a gift to to a grand child who turns into Barbarossa is defensible. The difference is the knowledge at the time of action. If a Christian knows that the state will use his tax money for immoral deeds, it is his duty to resist. If it were not so, there would be no prohibition against benefiting from criminal enterprise. What is the government but a gang of thieves writ large. There is only the enforcement of varying territorial claims distinguishing between the gang and the state. In all fundamental respects they are identical.

  Published: September 6, 2008 9:28 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  I of course meant the party who was wronged has standing in court.

  Published: September 6, 2008 9:32 PM

• BWM

  Stanley

  I don't want to be rude, but I honestly didn't see any fundamental answers there. Well, just one; the answer that the market will decide. There's a problem with that--the market only makes decisions over time, and only on an overall scale. The market does not decide each individual case here; it would only decide whether the court or protection agency survives. So, people might be locked up unjustly for many years before the market decides it's fed up. Or, they might be dead before it's revealed that, oh, as expected, the court unfairly favored the accusers in all cases because the accusers PAID THE BILL. The court doesn't have to please defendants--defendants don't pay! Or if they do, it's because the court seizes the money. The court only has to appear just enough not to utterly offend the entire public's sense of justice, but that's a far cry from actually attempting to be really just.

  And it still ignores the fact that I have NO ASSOCIATION with 99% of these courts. How can a court I have never heard of, and that has slightly different rules and operating procedures than I am aware of, because I don't even live near it, ever have the authority to coerce me to appear in court or take my goods? Where does that come from? This makes mere taxation seem like a blessing; at least one can create a tax code that we can all read and understand, so that we may be aware ahead of time what our actions might cause.

  From a moral standpoint, only a court I had previously agreed to give authority to can punish me. Likewise, only a protection agency I have given permission to arrest me if I'm accused of a crime may do so. But what's with this deal about protection agencies anyway? Sounds alot like the gangs/militias I already talked about--some group with guns to defend me because we have no order. What if I don't have one? Does that mean my accuser's agency therefore has a RIGHT to murder me? Or does it mean that I am exempt from prosecution? Or does it really just come down to, well, if I don't have one, and they have an armored vehicle and machine guns, they will simply force my compliance. The current court system (which could be improved, yes) is far better.

  And I read that article called "Why Wouldn't the Warlords Take Over" before; honestly, it actually hurt it's own cause. The answer was basically that they probably would, but if we keep trying, humans will eventually evolve out of that, which sounds about as Marxist as you can get.

  Published: September 6, 2008 10:17 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  BWM,
  the market reacts to changing conditions and wide varieties of inputs much better than any hierarchical system which invariably suffers from knowledge problems ever could. People are free to switch at any time their affiliations with protection agencies and courts of arbitration. All cases would be granted up to three separate trials as I mentioned above. The appeals trial being optional and the defendant's prerogative carried out in his own jurisdiction. Courts must maintain a reputation of producing fair and just decisions or they will be shunned.

  Court decisions will favor restitution of the victim (should they find one) as the highest end, wasteful incarceration, punishing the victim through taxes, would not be high on the list of punishments. Criminals would have to support their own incarceration should it be deemed necessary, and their parole would be dependent on obtaining a bond and insurance, with the their bondsman bearing responsibility to varying degrees to ensure their integration back into society. Criminals who could not obtain a bond and the services of a protection agency would be in a position similar to those that the greeks ostracized.

  There is no coercion on the part of the defendant to appear and testify on his own behalf, or defend himself in the initial court. It most likely would be in his interest, and he would be informed of the trial, but the decision of the court may force him to appeal to his own jurisdiction. If he does not subscribe to any courts or protection agencies, he may have to rely on the charity and good will of a nearby court to hear his appeal. It is in everyones interest to have some form of protection agency, even if extremely minimal in scope so that his access to court is contractually ensured. No crimes but property crimes exist and could maintain standing for long.

  From a moral standpoint, any two courts that find you guilty of the same property crime have the authority to pronounce a punishment. The victim or his agent may then punish you according to the extent meted out by the court (or not at all if they so choose). It is in the interest of everyone to have a protection agency, and the extent of protection and services will vary greatly depending on personal preferences and the fees associated with the service. The protection agency can provide an affiliation with courts, provide for the enforcement of judgement, provide property defense and other similar tasks. There is no right to murder you unless you have first murdered (proportional punishment and all that jazz).

  There is no difference between a warlord and a state. Both use force against the innocent. Who is to say that the warlord could not maintain a level of justice equal to our current system, while lowering taxes and rolling back other intrusions of the state. In fact popular opinion would force him to do so in order to maintain his silent majority of consent. Democracy is only able to tax as much as it does currently because of the mindset of the mass of the people that they are, or participate in the state. Thus they tolerate much greater abuses over the long run than a monarch or warlord could maintain. There is a chance for a non-monopolistic alternative to state provided courts and police. It is fatalistic to abandon hope without attempting it in practice.

  Published: September 6, 2008 11:29 PM

• BWM

  I'm sorry to say that I've gone from disagreeing with you to being...confused. I don't mean that as an insult, but you seem to have a lot of rules and laws for these courts that will exist when we no longer have rules or laws. Three trials? Bond insurance? Almost mandatory protection agencies? I understand that, for any change, we need some idea of the final results, but you state these things as certain whereas they are highly questionable.

  However, using different words, it does seem that we are describing protection agencies the same way; while they have some good qualities, like guaranteed links to a court, offering protection, probably legal help, etc, they are still the Gestapo when it gets right down to it. When a court makes a decision, it'll be the agency knocking down your door, taking your belongings, and forcing you to work to pay down a debt.

  And I disagree with you on this; there is a huge difference in the morality of the courts. Right now, before even being accused of a crime, I can go and get the complete list of all local, state, and federal laws pertaining to me. Today. I can even hire experts to help me understand it. I can get the rules regarding due process, evidence, testimony, learn exactly how subpoenas and what not work, etc. I know how my court will work, probably what court I would go to for different cases, etc. These are my courts, your courts, and the courts of all other Americans. But private courts? I find it doubtful that all courts would be identicle, not only in terms of outcomes or even process, but even in their definitions of crimes and laws (since we HAVE no standard in anarchy). I have no idea what court I might wind up in, what it's laws and rules are, and on and on. And you are telling me that the members of this court, over whom I have zero control or even association (which IS less than my courts now), can demand that I be punished for violations that might not even BE illegal where I live? Sure, we'll have general standards, like not to kill people, but when you get down into the nitty-gritty of it all, we'll have a huge mishmash of laws and regulations that no one will know but everyone will end up being punished under. Justice can't be arbitrary and uneven like that. It's not Justice. And like I said, the market will punish overly bad courts, but only after people are punished who shouldn't of been, or over-punished, and restitution will be impossible if the court goes out of business.

  Published: September 7, 2008 2:40 AM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Fundamentalist, when you write "The same books of the Bible that prohibit theft also command payment of taxes", are you construing the payments to Levites and so on in this way? Because if you are, you are making a fundamental error, though a subtle one.

  The thing is, those payments were different from taxes in the same way that rent is different from a land tax. When the birthrights/patrimonies were parcelled out among the other tribes, a charge was kept on them as a substitute for Levite birthrights/patrimonies. It was in place from before people got their own birthrights/patrimonies, just like quitrent on land that is otherwise owned by the occupier.

  Coming along afterwards and telling people they now owe this or that, that's taking without consent whether you call it tax or not. But giving people something with an attached condition that they do or pay certain things, that isn't. Even if it isn't as much as they would have preferred to get, the payments and services were bundled with it and that isn't theft. It only looks the same as tax to someone who only looks at the present obligation and leaves out its origin as a quid pro quo for the things incurring the obligation.

  Published: September 7, 2008 3:19 AM

• Gerry Flaychy

  "Gerry Flaychy, you are starting to redefine taxation." Stanley Pinchak

  I don't try to redefine taxation, i'm just analysing the reasoning of Mark R. Crovelli about taxation. His reasoning is base in part on the idea of consent. On this base he is saying that taxation is robbery, but his reasoning is self contradicting, it does not hold. So, the conclusion that i arrive to, is that he is wrong.

  He says that taxation is robbery because of the absence of consent. But it is already evident that if there is no absence of consent, there is no robbery at all ! It is a reasoning that contradict itself. No need to go further !

  Published: September 7, 2008 8:45 AM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: “If a Christian knows that the state will use his tax money for immoral deeds, it is his duty to resist.”

  I think Paul was well aware of the evil that the Roman state was doing. He was extremely well educated for his day and a Roman citizen. Yet he still insisted on Christians paying taxes.

  Stanley: “If it were not so, there would be no prohibition against benefiting from criminal enterprise.”

  I realize it’s fun to characterize the state as a criminal enterprise, but that can only be true in Rothbard’s ethic, which I don’t accept. In Christian ethics, the state is not a criminal enterprise because it has God’s sanctioning. Rulers can become criminals, but that doesn’t make the state illegit. Pastors and Priest have been criminals, but that doesn’t make the church an illegit institution. It may seem odd to you, but Christians have had little difficulty in distinguishing between the state and criminals throughout history.
  

  Published: September 7, 2008 12:44 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  fundamentalist,
  you are arguing semantics. I don't call the state a criminal enterprise on Rothbard's word alone, I simply need to observe its actions to see that it operates in a manner identical to that of a criminal enterprise. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, lets call it a duck. I can see why a fledgling religion might not want to rock the boat when it comes to the government, but I think that the Church is established enough at this point to reconsider who it sanctions as legitimate and moral. It is impossible to separate the positives of the state from the negatives, as such it is time for the Church to reconsider its stance on this subject. As far as I know, this is not a subject that is dogma nor Inspired Revelation, as such it is fair game.

  The Church teaches that we should love the sinner but detest the sin. Furthermore all christians, and Catholics in particular are admonished to avoid whatever leads to sin. The Catholic historian and scholar Lord Acton rightly observed that power corrupts, as such christians should not mire themselves in a state which will lead to their corruption. Furthermore, since christians are a majority in this region of the world, they would do well to eliminate this corrupting influence which has led so many astray. There is no need for a christian to tolerate or contribute to an institution which leads men to their imperilment when he has the ability to remove this institution without violating the property rights of others.

  I don't clearly see a way for the state to not be immoral as long as it maintains its position as monopolist through coercion. I suppose if some state were able to diminish itself to such an extent that everyone in it jurisdiction voluntarily submitted to its rule, it may operate morally. However, one dissenter, coerced to act against his will and the charade is over. The number of legitimate monopolies in the free market are exceedingly small, the only example I can think of in history that approaches this bar is Alcoa.

  Published: September 7, 2008 5:21 PM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: "I don't call the state a criminal enterprise on Rothbard's word alone, I simply need to observe its actions to see that it operates in a manner identical to that of a criminal enterprise.

  What actions are idenctical to that of a crimnal enterprise? We started by discussing taxation and whether it is moral or not. Rothbard says it is immoral because property is absolute and no one, especially not the state, has the right to take property against the will of the owner. Christianity says the state has that right. So if by criminal behavior you mean taxation, it can only be criminal behavior if you follow Rothbard's ethic.

  The state is an institution. It can't act. Only the people who fill the role of ruler in that institution can act. As I wrote, you can't condemn the institution of the church because of the actions of some of its leaders.

  Stanley: "I think that the Church is established enough at this point to reconsider who it sanctions as legitimate and moral."

  But the church has no choice but to follow the Bible, that is, if it wants to continue to be the Christian church. Paul explained his reasons for insisting that Christians pay taxes and they did not include fear of rocking the boat. You are free to try to second guess Paul's motives, but you're only limited by your imagination. Christians are limited by the fact that we believe God guided Paul in writing Romans and so Paul's writings become the word of God.

  Published: September 7, 2008 5:53 PM

• Carl Street

  Scripture teaches God is ALWAYS consistent, everlasting and UNCHANGING. Yet, “scriptural interpreters” such as Fundamentalist would deny that basic tenant.

  For, if we are to accept their flawed reasoning, then God supports regimes that are diametrically opposed to each other; thus making God at the very least duplicitous. Based on such “reasoning”, God not only supported George III in the American Revolution; he also supported the colonial government.

  Or, conversely, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and a host of others are even now confined to the tortures of hell for opposing their “God endowed” king.

  The circular argument that we are supposed to oppose “illegitimate” governments while supporting “legitimate” governments leads nowhere as the test of legitimacy is subjective and not absolute. Consequently, our salvation would hang on the untenable thread of guessing what is right and wrong; rather than an absolute standard.

  The very idea that if a bunch of people get together and all buy the same clothes and use force of arms to extract money, property, and even life itself at their whim, somehow also obtain divine endorsement deserves to be hooted at by any reasoning person.

  But, just for the sake of argument, let us approach this as if it were a thought problem in physics…

  Question: At what point does God choose to endorse an authority? Is there a fixed percentage, say 20% of the population? Is God democratic – He only endorses regimes supported by 51%+; and, if so, what happens if that regime falls in the polls? Does God make some kind of formal announcement or does our salvation hinge upon our being able to continuously discern statistical standards?

  The out of context misinterpretation of Romans 13 has been used by “Divine Right” rulers since the middle ages to justify all kinds of heinous and nefarious activities. To suggest that God would be associated with such enterprises is blasphemy. God is NOT interested in the HUMAN game of politics and HE has taken GREAT PAINS to warn us against participation in it – Even to the point of making such participation an affront to Him in the FIRST Commandment and stating that the endorsement of earthly authority is a rejection of HIM in 1 Samuel 8.

  This is the REAL God; not the “interpreted scripture” God and we can know that is true because He and His word are consistent and logically unassailable.

  Published: September 7, 2008 7:39 PM

• nick Gray

  BWM- My dictionary defines a revolution as a change of government. King George III stayed on as Monarch of Great Britain. The style of British government didn't change.
  I think a more accurate name would be The American Secessionist War, since that is what happened.

  Published: September 7, 2008 9:30 PM

• nick Gray

  BWM- My dictionary defines a revolution as a change of government. King George III stayed on as Monarch of Great Britain. The style of British government didn't change.
  I think a more accurate name would be The American Secessionist War, since that is what happened.

  Published: September 7, 2008 10:04 PM

• Carl Street

  Amen, Stanley, Amen...

  Your statement:

  "I don't clearly see a way for the state to not be immoral as long as it maintains its position as monopolist through coercion. I suppose if some state were able to diminish itself to such an extent that everyone in it jurisdiction voluntarily submitted to its rule, it may operate morally. However, one dissenter, coerced to act against his will and the charade is over."

  Is right on the money -- semantical weaseling and out of context references be damned (literally!).

  Further, in support I suggest you (and others) read Ephesians 6: 12:
  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  
  The American Heritage Dictionary defines principalities as:

  1. A territory ruled by a prince or from which a prince derives his title.
  2. The position, authority, or jurisdiction of a prince; sovereignty.

  That pretty much scotches any claim that God favors temporal rulers.

  Bottom line:

  1. First Commandment tells us to have NO other gods before God. Since the commandments are numbered in order of importance; this is God's prime directive transcending all that follows. In the context of the day, rulers were treated as gods so this is an absolute prohibition.

  2. In 1 Samuel 8 God tells Samuel that those people desiring a king are rejecting HIM and that they will pay the price for their foolishness. This is NOT open to interpretation as God's warning has been borne out repeatedly throughout history. The greatest evils in the world have been visited upon humankind by governments; not by bandits and shoplifters. You cannot say we were not warned. I defy anyone to show me the net gain of substituting the threat of nuclear war for freedom from neighborhood muggings.

  3. In Ephesians we are told that our struggle is against powers and principalities -- as defined above. Governments are inherently evil because the human race is flawed. Coercive institutions (governments) are amplifiers -- thus they amplify those flaws.

  Deranged individuals such as Hitler, Staln, Mao, Pol Pot did not kill or injure people personally. They brought their horrors to the human race via government institutions supported by those "just following orders".

  Today, bombs are dropped on nations from 10 miles high in the sky by people "just following orders" who daily kill others whom they have never met -- only in the mind of a confirmed statist could such mass murder be interpreted as "good".

  This is NOT the will of God as it runs counter to everything HE has told us.
  

  Published: September 8, 2008 1:50 AM

• Peter

  Regarding the conduct of Christians specifically, ROMANS 13:7 clearly states, "Render to all [rulers] what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

  That seems fair. Pay taxes to whomever taxes are due; indeed. To whom are taxes due? Nobody! Ergo, don't pay taxes if you're a Christian!

  Published: September 8, 2008 3:11 AM

• Peter

  "Stealing is taking something away from someone without his consent."

  Here is the official point of view of the Catholic church of Vatican on this subject:

  "2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner.

  There is no theft
  if consent can be presumed
  or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

  This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.190 "

  This seems to be saying it's OK to steal a loaf of bread when you're starving; it has no bearing on taxation that I can make out.

  Published: September 8, 2008 3:21 AM

• Peter

  And it still ignores the fact that I have NO ASSOCIATION with 99% of these courts. How can a court I have never heard of, and that has slightly different rules and operating procedures than I am aware of, because I don't even live near it, ever have the authority to coerce me to appear in court or take my goods?

  It doesn't. Why would it? Why do you think it might?

  YOUR PROTECTION AGENCY has the right to search your house, etc., because YOU GRANT IT THAT RIGHT when you contract with it for protection. Nobody can coerce you to appear in court - they can try you in absentia if you prefer. If convicted, your protection agency can cooperate in enforcing judgement against you...or not.

  Published: September 8, 2008 3:34 AM

• Gerry Flaychy

  To Peter.

  "This seems to be saying it's OK to steal a loaf of bread when you're starving; it has no bearing on taxation that I can make out." Peter

  This is only a case, an example.

  You should bring your attention to the concept of consent. The link with taxation is there.

  For a reminder:
  " ... it appeared to me that taxation was morally synonymous with robbery, (since taxation necessarily involves taking men's justly earned property by force and without their consent ...)"
  Mark R. Crovelli

  And from the official point of view of the Catholic church of Vatican:
  "Stealing is taking something away from someone without his consent."

  "2408 There is no theft if consent can be presumed
  or
  if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

  From one point of view, if there is no consent, then taxation is necessarily a robbery.
  From another point of view, even if there is no consent at all, taxation is not necessarily a robbery (but some conditions are to be fulfilled).

  Published: September 8, 2008 9:18 AM

• BWM

  Nick Gray
  "BWM- My dictionary defines a revolution as a change of government. King George III stayed on as Monarch of Great Britain. The style of British government didn't change."
  That's why it's the American Revolution (whose government changed) and not the British Revolution (whose government didn't change).

  Peter
  "It doesn't. Why would it? Why do you think it might?"
  Because that's what I take Stanley as saying. I agree with you that it wouldn't.

  YOUR PROTECTION AGENCY has the right to search your house, etc., because YOU GRANT IT THAT RIGHT when you contract with it for protection. Nobody can coerce you to appear in court - they can try you in absentia if you prefer. If convicted, your protection agency can cooperate in enforcing judgement against you...or not."
  Exactly; no justice. We have to hope that the businesses people hire decide to punish their own customers (who then stop paying them). Furthermore, I simply wouldn't have a protection agency then, as I'm sure many people would elect to do. That way, we could bring case to court against people who DO, but would be immune ourselves. BTW, how would we sue, say, a protection agency for excessive damage to our property? The market might regulate them over the long term, but the market isn't going to pay me for damages to my property or to me (insurance will likely cover alot of it, I know).

  This where I feel some libertarians confuse the self-regulation of market with perfection; the self-regulation means bad businesses will die, but there will ALWAYS be bad, lying, cheating businesses, and the victims should get more redress than "Hey, they went bankrupt, aren't you happy?"

  Published: September 8, 2008 5:06 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  "3- To everybody.
  Stanley Pinchak (and others that i have seen elsewhere) seems to talk of free market and then of the market, as if they where one and only one thing, so my question is: is there a difference between «market» and «free market»?

  Or put in other words: are all the markets in this world, free, or do we have some that are free and others that are not?" Gerry Flaychy

  According to Ludwig von Mises in «The Scope and Method of Catallactics, 3- The Pure Market» Economyhttp://mises.org/daily
  /2979#part3
  «free market» is an imaginary construction i.e. it does not exist in reality: we cannot find it anywhere.

  So when somebody say that
  "the only consistently defensible definition of the just price is the free market price.", that's mean that the just price does not exist, according to this definition and to Mises saying. If we push the reasoning further, that would mean that nothing is just in the actuel market, neither the prices nor the wages ! !

  Published: September 8, 2008 8:38 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  rectification: http://mises.org/daily/2979#part3

  Published: September 8, 2008 8:56 PM

• nick gray

  BWM-
  I still think Secession is a better term! Not only is it more accurate, since the Declaration of Independence is a formal notice of withdrawing from an association (i.e. secession), but it also helps you in any war of words- many libertarians talk of secession as a natural right. If you recast the War of Independence as an act of Secession, then you are simply following precedent if you do it yourselves, and your opponents cast themselves as traitors if they oppose secession!

  Published: September 8, 2008 10:13 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  good link. If you want to go by that definition of the free market, which I think is a good definition. Let me rephrase the the definition of the just price to take into account the fact that we don't exist in the imaginary construct of the free market.

  As the market approaches the operation of the free market, the price of any good or service approaches the just price. In other words, the less hampered the market, the more closely the market price approaches the just price. If you say that the free market will never be obtained (at least while we would argue this point) we could say that the market price approximates the just price, any differences would be due to the deviation of the market from the ideal free market.

  Published: September 8, 2008 11:40 PM

• Peter

  Exactly; no justice. We have to hope that the businesses people hire decide to punish their own customers (who then stop paying them)

  Not at all. Say you get robbed. There's no reason you should care whether the robber's protection agency (which you earlier suggested is like a "gang"; actually, it's more like an insurance company) punishes him or not - YOUR protection agency takes care of YOU (i.e., pays out insurance to cover your losses); what happens to him is between him and his company. But your company will try to recover its costs from his company (or from him directly, if you both subscribe to the same company), and various companies will have reciprocal agreements to do that (unless one company represents only or mainly criminals for some reason, it has the incentive to make such agreements to recover its costs when its customers are robbed, etc.) - therefore the robber's protection agency will "punish" him to recover its costs in paying your agency according to their agreement!

  Furthermore, I simply wouldn't have a protection agency then, as I'm sure many people would elect to do.

  If they're insane. Sane people have insurance.

  
  This where I feel some libertarians confuse the self-regulation of market with perfection; the self-regulation means bad businesses will die, but there will ALWAYS be bad, lying, cheating businesses, and the victims should get more redress than "Hey, they went bankrupt, aren't you happy?"

  That's all they get under statism. You're right, free markets won't bring perfection - but neither do unfree markets, so what kind of argument is that? There'll still be crime, but at least it won't be institutionalized and rampant on a grand scale.

  Published: September 8, 2008 11:48 PM

• nick gray

  This very blog had an item about Somalia, and how everyone there had something like a protection agency, working for centuries. It was a while back, but I think it at least shows that such things CAN work.

  Published: September 9, 2008 1:31 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  nick gray,
  Another example of a highly anarchic society was Ireland during the dark ages. Rothbard researched this society and writes about it in his For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty. What the anarcho-capitalists and libertarian purists propose has some historical precedent. There have been places where complex society has existed without a monopolized police and court function.

  Published: September 9, 2008 9:49 AM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: "There have been places where complex society has existed without a monopolized police and court function."

  Israel under the judges in the Old Testament approaches an organization similar to anarchy, too. But in Israel, families acted as the police. Judges were the leading citizens of a town. I haven't read Rothbard's book, so can you tell me if families acted as the police in the Ireland example?

  Published: September 9, 2008 10:28 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  fundamentalist,
  The clan structure, acted as the police and insurance for their members. So if you count extended family, then yes it probably has similarities with the Israelite system. In Ireland these clan based protection agencies were called tuapa (I don't know the exact spelling because I listened to the audiobook version of the aforementioned works). I am sure that i missed out on Rothbard's typical heavy use of footnotes. I will have to look at them again in dead tree or pdf format.

  Rothbard postulates that part of the British difficulty in subjugating the Irish was related to the fact that there was no hierarchic command structure to co-opt. The British would gain peace terms and surrender from one leader, but the rest of the clans would not abide by the unilateral decisions which were not in the interests of their members and not consistent with the customary laws. But, I think we are straying a little from the subject at hand at this point.

  Published: September 9, 2008 12:08 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  "As the market approaches the operation of the free market, the price of any good or service approaches the just price. In other words, the less hampered the market, the more closely the market price approaches the just price." Stanley Pinchak

  Meanwhile we are not in a free market, and thus, no price is just, wich include wages.

  Published: September 9, 2008 3:07 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  right. And we have the existence of the state to blame for that. So the smaller the state gets, the closer we get to the just price.

  Published: September 9, 2008 3:58 PM

• Gerry Flaychy

  " And we have the existence of the state to blame for that." Stanley Pinchak
  
  According to von Mises, it is not the state in itself that is to blame, not even the government.

  On the contrary, the government is view by him as a protector of the market economy, as we can see in the following statement made by him:

  "It assumes that the government, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion,

  is intent upon preserving the operation of the market system,

  abstains from hindering its functioning,

  and protects it against encroachments on the part of other people."

  http://mises.org/daily/2979#part3

  Published: September 9, 2008 6:48 PM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Gerry Flaychy,
  that is basically Mises idea of an ideal state. However, it is very difficult for a state to not hinder the market's function if its taxes and expenditures are of any significance (both distort the market). That is to say that I think Mises must assume that the state that provides for a free market is extremely minarchist and has a very small foot print on the economy as a whole. I don't want to call Mises out on this item, but I have a very difficult time seeing how the state can not distort the market unless it loses its state-ness, despite any rhetoric that it enables the conditions for the free market to exist. Its very actions and modus operandi belie its true impact on the market. The state may not use coercion or its monopolistic features which are the result of prior market distortions if it is to reintegrate itself into market operations in the hope of obtaining the free market. It could be said that as long as the state does not itself operate in a way congruent with the free market, it distorts the market, keeping if from being free.

  Published: September 9, 2008 7:27 PM

• fundamentalist

  Stanley: "I have a very difficult time seeing how the state can not distort the market..."

  If the state is truly minarchist and just provides courts, police and national defense, the distortion of the market should not be much different from that of anarchy, because in anarchy people would pay privately for the same things. With minarchism, we have to worry about a growing state. With anarchism we have to worry about descending into chaos. The US founding fathers feared chaos more than they feared the state. However, they didn't see the enormous growth of the state that has taken place in the last century. Currently, the threat of the growing state is a much more serious threat. For practical reasons, I would definitely like to try anarchism. Getting there is the big hurdle.
  

  Published: September 10, 2008 8:24 AM

• Peter

  So, fundamentalist, now that the Large Hadron Collider has started preliminary operations, any predictions on finding the Higgs in the next few years? :)

  Published: September 10, 2008 10:02 AM

• fundamentalist

  Peter: "...any predictions on finding the Higgs in the next few years?"

  Where did that come from? That discussion happened a long time ago.

  My guess is that the odds are low. They've tried for 30 years and failed. But, hey, if they do find it, I'll admit I was wrong.

  Published: September 10, 2008 1:10 PM

• rtr

  Duh. Sorry. Go ahead.

  Published: September 14, 2008 3:47 AM

• rtr

  Heh. Unbanned already. Why do you think that is?

  Published: September 14, 2008 3:57 AM

• Ryan

  A good way to close the article would have been to say that the admonition was to render unto Caesar what was his; however, the Biblical reference does not include a definition of what is Caesar's, except for that in Exodus. That is Caesar's which he has not stolen. Therefore, render unto Caesar what you please; nothing more.

  Published: September 25, 2008 1:52 PM

• Ned Netterville

  I just came upon this discussion, which seems to have pretty much petered out, but I do want to add my two cents, since it is a topic I have studied and written on extensively. When I first read Mark's article, I sent him an email of encouragement to let him know there are others who think and believe as he does.

  I have reviewed the comments rather cursorily and spotted some remarks I'd like to address. At one point FUNDAMENTALIST said, "So why would Jesus, and the Apostle Paul, command Christians to pay taxes?"

  Jesus did not command anyone to pay taxes. On the contrary, he stood four square against taxes. He told a group of people, including his disciples who were familiar with Psalm 24:1 ("The earth is the Lord's and everything in it."), to give Caesar what is Caesar's (viz., nothing!) and God what is God's (viz., everything.). He most likely would have counseled his disciples that paying taxes would only encourage the Romans to persist in violating their Father's command, "Thou shalt not steal." Under the circumstances, however, he would not allow his questioners to "trap him," which was their intent, by giving them the answer they fully expected based on his previous remarks on taxes and his derogatory comments regarding those who collected taxes. Instead, Jesus responded to their "trick" question exactly as his enemies expected he would. If they need to be interpreted, and they don't, they mean, "No, don't pay Caesar's illicit tax." But Jesus said so in a way that his disciples understood, but which completely flummoxed and silenced his cunning adversaries. However, a few days later the same adversaries, belatedly realizing what Jesus had told them, dragged him before Pilate where they reported that he was "forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar." (Luke 23:1-2)

  There is a book-length essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, available on the web. It is the first comprehensive compilation and analysis of everything Jesus ever said or did in relation to taxes and tax collectors as recorded in the canonical gospels. Anyone who believes Jesus endorsed paying taxes or the concept of human government (viz., humans ruling humans) will no doubt change their opinion when they consider all of the evidence in the essay to the contrary with an open mind. It is available free of charge at:
  http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/uploads/JesusMarch17th08-_2.pdf

  Regarding Romans 13, a number of bible scholars have argued that verses 1-7 are an interpolation, inserted at a later date after the church and church officials had become enthralled by Rome, reaping the tainted fruits of forcible taxation for itself and themselves. But even if Paul did write Romans 13:1-7, here are two important caveats for anyone thinking of paying taxes based on these seven verses, which statist-Christian leaders have been parroting for 1700 years in order to keep the tax booty flowing their way:

  1. Paul is not Jesus, does not speak for Jesus, was not, as he represented himself to be, one of Jesus' apostles, and never personally knew Jesus. Furthermore, Paul was a Roman citizen and proud of it (see, Acts of the Apostles), and a beneficiary of the many benefits Roman citizens enjoyed at the expense of non-citizens like Jesus and most of his disciples. Jesus was crucified by a Roman tax magistrate whose welfare was entirely dependent on taxes. In fact Pilate was chief tax administrator for Judea, a man who could ill afford to allow anyone opposed to Caesar's tax to continue living.

  2. Paul's endorsement of paying taxes is qualified and thereby limited to only those taxes that are "due." In Paul's time, as today, taxes are never due until they have either been lawfully assessed or voluntarily confessed as being owed. Paul, writing to disciples in Rome, may have been employing the wit and wisdom of Jesus when he said render unto Caesar. In this case Paul was advising disciples, in a letter which was subject to being read by Roman authorities, to pay only such taxes as were duly owed, which the disciples knew in their case meant none.

  Jesus was an anarchist and a foe of taxes. Was he concerned with politics? You bet he was, in the same way that an anarchist today is deemed to be political for denouncing electoral politics.

  Published: October 20, 2008 9:14 PM