Would Jesus Be Annoyed With Libertarian Memes?
Of course He would be–He’s fully human after all…
But specifically, what about the “TAXATION IS THEFT!” line of argument? Gene Callahan blogs that this isn’t scriptural, since we read in Luke 3:
10 And the crowds asked him [John the Baptist], “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics[b] is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
On this blog, someone in the comments answered Keshav (I think?) who had brought Gene’s point up, by saying that this type of thing is typical in the Bible, where God (or people speaking on His behalf) are just trying to limit sin. For example, Moses gave the Israelites the lawful way to divorce, and Jesus famously said that this was because “of the hardness of your hearts.” It certainly wasn’t that God was a fan of divorce.
But even more to the point, Paul gave instruction to the masters of bondservants/slaves that fell short of, “Free them immediately.” Here’s an example (Ephesians 6: 5-9):
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
So I don’t think it is fair to say that the New Testament condones chattel slavery. In context, I think what is happening in the above is that Paul is trying to promote justice within the confines of his understanding of the economic/legal framework.
Likewise, I think John the Baptist was moved by the Spirit to sense the presence of the Messiah–even in the womb–but I don’t think he had a vision of a private property society and rejected it. John the Baptist knew that theft was sinful, but his understanding of property rights differed from the modern Rothbardian’s. I realize that that is the very thing under discussion, but pointing that out doesn’t prove that taxation is NOT theft.
I look forward to Gene’s follow up post “Slavery: Not Unjust”
Bob, what is the relevance of the divorce point? Jesus said God viewed divorce as immoral, but provided a means for divorce because he recognized the hardness of men’s hearts. But I assume you don’t believe that John thought God viewed taxation as immoral, but allowed for it because he recognized the hardness of men’s hearts.
Interesting point. We have three things mentioned here, divorce, taxes and slavery.
Keshav says Jesus made clear that divorce was immoral, but provisions were made for it. Is there any similar clarity on God’s position on slavery and taxes?
Otherwise we have two distinct positions. Divorce – definitely bad but allowed. Taxes and slavery, definitely allowed but no position on good or bad.
Just posted but it disappeared – may have forgotten to fill in the name. Apologies if we get it twice.
Keshav raises an interesting point. We have three things here, divorce, taxes and slavery. Keshav says Jesus made clear God did not approve of divorce but provision was made for it. Is there a similar clarity on slavery or taxes?
Otherwise we have different positions
Divorce: definitely bad but allowed.
Tax and slavery: definitely allowed but no position on good or bad.
I have to agree with Gene here on the narrow point that the Bible recognizes taxation as being in a different category than theft. In that passage, the Bible is saying tax collectors should collect what they are prescribed to collect and no more. And this is because collecting more than prescribed would be thievery!
And you don’t need to reference the Bible to demonstrate that taxation is not theft. Sure, taxation is an involuntary transfer of property, but that is where the similarities end. No thief announces that he is going to rob you, implements a procedure for robbing you in an orderly manner, provides guidelines for ensuring that he robs you the exact right amount, and then robs everyone in his society by this calibrated standard.
Now, whether taxation is just is a separate question from whether it belongs in the same category as thievery. The question of the justness of taxation (in general) is not directly addressed in the Bible, but it is clear from the Bible that the specific act of collecting taxes is not a sin, whereas not stealing is one of the Ten Commandments.
“No thief announces that he is going to rob you, implements a procedure for robbing you in an orderly manner, provides guidelines for ensuring that he robs you the exact right amount, and then robs everyone in his society by this calibrated standard.
Now, whether taxation is just is a separate question from whether it belongs in the same category as thievery.”
What about the other popular comparison, to a mafia protection racket? The protection racket does announce their intention, implement a regular procedure, casts a wide net, etc.
Is that the exact same as conventional theft? No, not entirely – hence the need to invent the phrase “protection racket” to distinguish it from other types of petty theft. But it’s certainly in the same category.
As is taxation.
And I think that’s what’s really important here. Note that your nuanced objection to the comparison is not the typical counter. The typical response would be something like “Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.” Would anyone describe the mafia protection racket, or illegally pirating software, or any other variety of things that are widely agreed upon to be “not quite exactly the same but surely same category as theft” in such terms? No, not a chance.
TLDR version: “Taxation is theft” should be taken seriously, not literally.
The mafia comparison is apt. I would argue that a mafia could be fairly viewed as a corrupt form of local government. It’s very similar in the way that it extracts involuntary fees from the occupants of its territory and provides services (“protection”) that weren’t necessarily requested by those being serviced.
As you say, the fees collected by a mafia are not theft. They’re certainly extortion. And taxes also fall into the category of extortion.
If the question is, “Is extortion always wrong?”, then I don’t think the Bible provides a definitive answer. The Bible implies that it is sometimes just for rulers to collect taxes. But “thou shall not steal” is literally one of the ten commandments. If taxation literally broke one of the ten commandments, then I would expect Jesus (or John the Baptist or someone, anyone else) to say so when the topic came up.
Andrew in MD, is this theft?
yes, someone stole the subtitles.
Youtube forgot to pay their fee for “protection.”
I can’t watch the video right now. I’ll try to watch it and reply tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks.
Anyone who says taxation is not theft is just confused about the meaning of the concept of property and the act of theft.
Interesting point. The same thing comes up in regard to murder. Both murder and theft are defined as illegal acts. If the act is legal then it is not murder or theft. It is still homicide of course.
It is therefore entirely reasonable to say taxation is not theft, since it does not meet the definition that is generally accepted. Equally, properly authorised execution is not murder.
It can also be argued that spurious authorisation should not be accepted. For example, the Nazi’s were legally authorised to kill Jews by the German Govt. but it is almost universally described as murder. This is probably because it broke agreed international law from things like the Hague Conventions which renders the German law invalid.
In the absence of an overriding law invalidating the authorisation of taxation, it clearly is not theft. So does such a law exist? I don’t think so, but perhaps some disagree.
As mentioned, taxation is most similar to extortion. In the UK extortion is covered by the Theft Act of 1968, and from a “find a lawyer” website we have “[Extortion is] usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny,” so there is clearly some overlap between theft and extortion. Outside of technical discussion it is probably reasonable to describe extortion as theft, although we must recognise that there is a technical difference. However, we run up against the same problem that the threat must be illegal.
To summarise, extortion is usually considered a type of theft, theft and taxes share some qualities but taxation is not actually theft. To describe it as such is a useful rhetorical device and conveys meaning quite effectively but ultimately it is more metaphor than reality.
So, I agree with Matt M’s conclusion but not his reasoning – i.e. extortion is in the same category as theft but the difference lies in authorisation which makes taxation not extortion.
I don’t think that we should allow governments to arbitrarily change the definition of things like murder and theft. We should seek to determine reasonable and agreed upon definitions that transcend government-defined laws. This way we can fairly say that government-defined laws that fail to meet the reasonable and agreed-upon standard are unjust.
Natural law is the answer to your question. But as you say, some disagree.
I disagree. As I implied in my response to Matt M, extortion and theft are two separate categories and taxes may be fairly called extortion. Extortion is sometimes just but theft is always unjust. There are even libertarian cases where extortion is allowable, e.g., in order to return fraudulently obtained property to its rightful owner.
Also, I think that “taxation is theft” is an ineffective rhetorical device because it creates debates like these and it is unconvincing to those that are not predisposed to disliking taxes.
“I don’t think that we should allow governments to arbitrarily change the definition of things like murder and theft.”
Yes, but these definitions come from dictionaries not Governments.
Governments define terms for legal purposes, but technical terms are often used differently colloquially. So is extortion theft? Colloquially probably, but technically possibly not. I am looking at a list of technical words that have different colloquial meanings including chemical, abstract, anomaly, confidence, critical, cosmopolitan, theory. I am sure there are many legal ones too, insolvent/bankrupt, concur, damages, determine etc. The context in which the term is used is important.
Generally I think we should stick to the dictionary. However there are many dictionaries and they don’t always say the same thing. For theft some specify illegally some do not. Thus there will always be these semantic disputes. In this case it has been an interesting discussion, but if it proves a sticking point it would be better to move on and use a different term – for example is taxation just or unjust? That won’t get you nearer agreement but at least you could argue about the thing under discussion and not the meaning of words.
We will always need terms that differentiate between say legal killing and illegal killing. We need to be able to discuss if someone has done something that lays them open to prosecution and punishment. Defining murder in these terms achieves this very well. This means that what is murder in one country may not be in another, which is unsatisfactory in one way, but very useful in another way. There is always the term homicide which describes all killing of people.
” This way we can fairly say that government-defined laws that fail to meet the reasonable and agreed-upon standard are unjust.”
I agree we can say this.
“Natural law is the answer to your question. But as you say, some disagree.”
I was thinking of something like this. However, have we gone down the rabbit hole completely and are now talking about different types of law?
I agree with this. The real question is whether taxation is ever just. I think most libertarians would say no but I think the Bible implies yes. If God thinks that taxation is always unjust then He’s being awfully coy about it.
Meanings, not definitions.
If you want to try to defend the statement “taxation is not theft” on the basis of “depends how we define the words”, THEN BY THAT SAME LOGIC “taxation is theft” is also true.
But they contradict. They can’t both be true at the same time.
Hence the elevation of meaning over definition/semantics.
Mises wrote about this tendency in the socialist mindset, to resort to semantic quibbling when a position cannot be defended on rational/logical grounds.
To address your points individually:
“Interesting point. The same thing comes up in regard to murder. Both murder and theft are defined as illegal acts. If the act is legal then it is not murder or theft. It is still homicide of course.”
You can’t claim that “of course” by your own standard. Same logic applied to homocide. “DEFINITIONALLY”, the word “homocide” can be as arbitrarily defined as something other than what you presumed it to be defined as when you made that statement.
Every attempt you make that comes from a direction of “THIS IS THE DEFINITION YOU MF’ERS, DEAL WITH IT”, your own statements blow up when your statements are all pooh poohed as “depends on how you define all those words”.
“It is therefore entirely reasonable to say taxation is not theft, since it does not meet the definition that is generally accepted. Equally, properly authorised execution is not murder.”
Why do the opinions of an arbitrary minimum number percentage of people physically standing on an arbitrary piece of land matter when it comes to whether rape or murder are immoral and are rightfully to be defended against by the would be individual victims?
If 51% of Kraplakistan “voted” to say that shooting you in the head until dead is not murder, does it really change whether there was an act against you that ought not to have happened?
‘It can also be argued…”
BY WHO? GENIUSES OR MORONS?
“that spurious authorisation should not be accepted.”
Spurious? How is that “DEFINED”? kek.
“For example, the Nazi’s were legally authorised to kill Jews by the German Govt. but it is almost universally described as murder.”
IS IT OR IS IT NOT MURDER?
Objectively?
What if 51% of the Uzbekislakistan population concluded it as not murder, but 51% of Americans concluded it as murder?
Do we then say how many people in each country before there is an answer?
Truth isn’t determined by mob rule popular opinion or votes. Egads. Talk about a destruction of civilization and rise of psychopaths whose definitions are imposed on everyone from birth while controlling the entire education system such that “at least 51%”of the population believe the crap in 1984, or that dear leader got 18 hole in ones in a row.
“This is probably because it broke agreed international law from things like the Hague Conventions which renders the German law invalid.”
Whoa, left field, so now positive law and not arbitrary definitions are the standard?
“In the absence of an overriding law invalidating the authorisation of taxation, it clearly is not theft. So does such a law exist? I don’t think so, but perhaps some disagree.”
So Satanist dictator who brings about an “overriding law” now decides if shooting people in the head until dead is murder or not murder?
“As mentioned, taxation is most similar to extortion. In the UK extortion is covered by the Theft Act of 1968, and from a “find a lawyer” website we have “[Extortion is] usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny,” so there is clearly some overlap between theft and extortion. Outside of technical discussion it is probably reasonable to describe extortion as theft, although we must recognise that there is a technical difference. However, we run up against the same problem that the threat must be illegal.”
“To summarise, extortion is usually considered a type of theft, theft and taxes share some qualities but taxation is not actually theft. To describe it as such is a useful rhetorical device and conveys meaning quite effectively but ultimately it is more metaphor than reality.”
“So, I agree with Matt M’s conclusion but not his reasoning – i.e. extortion is in the same category as theft but the difference lies in authorisation which makes taxation not extortion.”
ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITIONS WHICH I REJECT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO OTHER DEFINITIONS TAXATION IS THEFT.
So what now?
NOTHING LEFT in the definition worldview other than just have everyone war of all against all, bloody mayhem and destruction, and whichever definition “wins”…that’s the best humanity can get.
Harold, please don’t take my cantankerous phrasing to be personal, or intentionally inflammatory, I only do it to STIR UP what I consider to be just bad beliefs that are not being questioned strongly enough, for the sole purpose of just wanting everyone to get to the truth a little closer, by self-development.
Oh, and even if you don’t believe me about that, well, I’ll just say you operated under definitions of all of those words that differ from mine, as everything I said “can be argued” as being defined as “Harold you’re a cool dude.”
Thanks for this comment Major_Freedom. A lot of what you write here covers what I was trying to express when I wrote:
I didn’t bother expanding on that thought because I didn’t think I would be able to write something that would get through to Harold in a reasonable amount of time. Your comment gives a much better exposition of what I would have written, especially the parts about mobs and dictators changing the legal definition of murder to suit their preferences.
“No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.”
Henry Brooks Adams
MF says “NOTHING LEFT in the definition worldview other than just have everyone war of all against all, bloody mayhem and destruction, and whichever definition “wins”…that’s the best humanity can get.”
You have made a fundamental error. You are mixing up the signifier and the concept.
de Sausurre thought about this over 100 years ago. He said there were two components -the word (signifier) and the concept.
From Dictionary.com “From there he drops a bomb that puts a new spin on the whole business: the signifier (written/spoken sound-image) is arbitrary. That’s right, according to Saussure the only function of the word “tree” is to be different from every other word. For all he cares it could be “blarg” as long as every speaker of a language recognizes that “blarg” signifies a leafy wooded plant.”
Do you disagree? If so, from where does this objective meaning arise?
It is not mob rule, but usage that (largely) dictates the signifier. Whatever the signifier, the concept may remain unchanged. In the 17th century vegetables and fodder were called “meat”. Now they are no longer called that, but we still have vegetables and fodder. The signifier has changed but the concept remains the same. So if a dictator in some country enforces a rule that shooting by police is not to be called murder, that does not in any way change the facts of shooting by police. We could invent a new word that means the same as “murder” used to mean and object just as strongly. Nothing in the world has changed except a label.
Compare these two statements.
Harold “if it proves a sticking point it would be better to move on and use a different term…”
MF “Meanings, not definitions.”
Yours is the more succinct, but I think they are essentially expressing the same idea. The meaning of the words is what is important and if we can’t agree on the meaning of a term then lets please use different one we can agree on.
“IS IT OR IS IT NOT MURDER?
Objectively?”
This cannot be objective because it depends on the definition of the words. We see this in phrases such as “meat is murder” and in abortion and execution debates. Pretty used to mean cunning. Were they wrong back then? There is no objective answer. Words do not have an objective meaning but the meaning is dependent on agreement within a context. Words are slippery.
“Mises wrote about this tendency in the socialist mindset, to resort to semantic quibbling when a position cannot be defended on rational/logical grounds.”
Rubbish There is a symmetry in our disagreement. You want to use one definition, I want to use another. My instinct is to try to agree using a dictionary, yours is to stick to your own idea of what the words mean and pretend it is objective. It is inconsistent to say I am quibbling over semantics whereas you are debating on rational grounds.
We see this from Jordan Peterson a lot. For example, he defines “atheist” in a totally different way than it is usually used, which allows him to claim that people like Sam Harris are not atheists. This is not a socialist tendency but it occurs everywhere and in all sectors.
“You can’t claim that “of course” by your own standard.” Touche – you are correct – we must first agree what “homicide” means. However, most words most of the time are uncontroversial and it is a reasonable assumption that this will be the case. Only where disagreement occurs is it necessary to check further. As a further example of this I imagine pro and anti choice people would argue about whether abortion was homicide not only due to an argument about the definition of “homicide” but also about the definition of “person.” However, whether it is called murder or homicide or anything else does not affect the views of the participants.
“Every attempt you make that comes from a direction of “THIS IS THE DEFINITION YOU MF’ERS, DEAL WITH IT”, your own statements blow up when your statements are all pooh poohed as “depends on how you define all those words”.”
You are wrong again. It is you who are taking this approach by insisting that tax is theft because we must accept your definition of theft and deal with it.
“So what now?”
How about agreeing that taxation could be described as theft using some definitions and it is not theft using other definitions. It is a semantic argument that cannot be resolved objectively and if definitions cannot be agreed there is no option but to move on and you could explain why you don’t like taxes.
Unfortunately we cannot wave a magic wand and make the whole world into Rothbardians. But just because our mental model differs from theirs does not mean that they are confused and we are not. Many of those with whom you disagree will look at what you have to say and assume that you are the one who is confused. And they will be partly right. No matter how carefully we construct our mental models and how diligently we work to eliminate error, we will always be wrong about countless beliefs that we hold to be true and blind to countless truths to which we have not been exposed. We are all imperfect and, as it is written, “we see through a glass, darkly.”
Jesus advises to be just in all things and love one another. He advises us to share as a Christian and loving one another . No where does he advise state sponsored, enforced sharing?
While Jesus does tell people to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s on taxes. as he recognizes the need of an organised society, He also warns the powerful:
“Collect no more than you are authorized to do.”
“Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Again, he is telling us to love one another, and treat others justly, and warning us if we are not. Good advice.
At the risk of getting super literal here, the command to give to caesar what is caesar’s is, at its core, simply an instruction to give someone whatever you rightfully owe them. Jesus does not take any position whatsoever on what it actually is that a citizen may or may not owe caesar. The amount that caesar is owed may very well be “zero.”
As an AnCap, I wouldn’t say that I refuse to pay the state what they are owed. My position is that I do not, in fact, owe them anything. And nowhere does Jesus take any stand against such a position.
I don’t always understand what the exact meanings behind certain Bible verses are, and I think that there can be room for differing interpretations. But I think that taxes are always wrong, because they entail some people telling other people what things they will be compelled to purchase, and what price they will be compelled to pay for these things. And it’s hard for me to believe that God would disagree with me here.