that is one interpretation, but Jesus was a pacifist so if Caesar demanded 'unreasonable' wages he would have paid them too same with him dying in Caesars 'unreasonable' justice system.
that doesn't make sense, he said pay unto ceasar which is his so if government is caesar and says the product of ones labor belongs to it then christians must comply with taxes or become sinners
And no one is condoning not paying taxes. There is nothing in the bible that indicates Christians shouldn't try to reduce their tax burden, especially in a society where we have a say in those taxes. There is nothing that says we shouldn't attempt to influence our government or take part in our political system, in fact many of the first generation church leaders did exactly that when it came to the Roman government. All the bible says is to pay the taxes we are supposed to pay - which we do.
Ceasar didn't have such a claim so your point is raising a strawman. Property rights refer to that which our labor produces (If I make it, I own it.) That is an objective fact that cannot be contradicted by Ceasar, Christ or anyone else including you.
My home is my property. I worked for the money that purchased the mortage that bought the house and that paid the mortgage off. Why is my house considered theft? From who did I steal my house?
Society, by taking its land and resources and claiming exclusive dominion over it. What was once everyone's became yours exclusively. That's theft by any meaningful definition. Moreover, it's theft by force, because your claim is backed by the force of the government.
Nothing was stolen from society, society sold the land. The government, which is the representative and agent of the people, deeded that property into private ownership. Now you can argue that society, who claimed that land and natural resources for Americans without any real authority to do so might have done something wrong. But it would be silly for American society to claim something was stolen from them after aggressively seeking folks to settle here and even providing deeds of sale to document the legal transfer of the lands.
So "facepalm" yet so predictable... four pages of tangential discourse on biblical theology and social programs. Actually, I just find it the most telling evidence of how fundamentally precarious the tax concept is. The defense of the justice of taxation inevitably leads away from the principle of theft itself and to the periphery... the "benefits" of taxation, the "moral mandates" of taxation, even the circular argument that it is "legal"!!! The bottom line is that both theft and taxation is forceful seizure of something not naturally one's own. As far as whether it is a "legal term" or "ontological term"---these debates are irrelevant, everyone understands the concept of owning something rightfully and having it taken by force. Also, it cannot be justified by claiming that we all "consent" to it. The constitution was written by men who are long dead and my signature was not requested before my taxes were demanded. If I did desire to opt out, I would be imprisoned by threat of violent force or required to leave my home, which is even greater theft than my taxes would be in the first place. Democratic majority is a thinly veiled form of tyranny. It's better than it could be, but most of us agree that dictatorship that pillages its nation is a lot of thieves. How can we possibly say that bumping up the number of pillagers to a certain percentage of the population qualifies as just consent from every last citizen? My vote has never once altered the decision to deprive me of my wealth.
The observation that it is legal is not so much a defense of taxation as it is a response to the question of whether it is theft. You want to start a separate thread about the necessity and merits of a given tax system I'd be happy to participate. If you ask me whether it's theft... well whether it's legal or not goes right to the point of the question. Most likely your parents signed you up for the program when you were a minor. When they requested a U.S. birth certificate or other form of establishing you as a U.S. citizen they agreed on your behalf to the rules that go along with it. I'd prefer our tax system didn't employ forced seizure too. I resent a lot of the taxes I'm required to pay and I'd rather see a system where services were simply denied to those who "opted out" of paying for them. But I don't have a good way to do that with national defense or infrastructure and my neighbors are less supportive of denying emergency services, police, or fire protection to those who opted out. That makes it a complex problem that will take time and effort to fix. It's further complicated by the fact we've made ridiculous commitments in our spending. But the compromise for any joint endeavor, for any partnership, is accepting that you don't get to change the rules by yourself. We each get one vote in our 300 million person partnership. So, as long as we're both choosing to continue our membership in this nation, a membership that we or our legal guardian voluntarily entered us into, we need to compromise with the majority even when we don't like the results. If you truly want to see something different though, I encourage you to continue to speak out about the problems and support representatives who are trying to change the systems you feel are unfair. I'll do the same.
This is probably why you're tripping up. The logical shell that everything is self-defined by a legal system denies one to think outside itself. I am appealing to the right of a person to possess their own body, their clothes, their belongings... whatever things are acquired fairly and by one's own labors, these one's own by right, and none of this logic requires politics or a state of any kind---it stands on its own. The discussion reminds me of Christians and their defense of spiritual beliefs... many continually refer to the bible, as if it is its own proof!
Then you're using the wrong word. If you want to discuss natural rights rather than civil ones, if you want to present a moral question rather than a legal one, don't use the word theft. Thinking outside the box is one thing, thinking words mean something other than how they're defined... well it makes your argument hard to follow.
We can use whatever the hell words you want. However, what is the purpose of discussing whether taxation is legal or not? The state dictates both legality and taxation. That question is moot before it is asked. If you're argument now is purely semantic, I would never rescind the claim that one needs no legislation to define the linguistic concept of "theft". The law only defines it to assign it a normative compensational value. In fact, the etymology of the word thief comes from Proto Indo-European *teup - "to crouch down". It is merely a concept of someone who sneaks (with the obvious intent to steal).
Government allows property rights that is why it has the authority to take a portion of those property rights in the form of taxation Therefore the property owner cannot claim taxes are theft because private ownership is a luxury provided by government and the product of their labors can be taken whenever the people want government to redistibute wealth from legal theives (property owners) to the poor. In conclusion property owners engage in theft if they believe they have ownership because their land ultimately belongs to society and it is just being rented from the government
Yes Government ownership is subjective to the majorities will and if we make an enemy of the minority wealthy elite we can legally confiscate the product of their labors with taxation. The way the system is we allow the wealthy to get rich under republican leadership then take it away under democratic leadership and this becomes a cycle so that the tree is always able to bare fruits of someone elses labor to the needy.
Not even a real liberal would write that. Sockpuppet (Internet) A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The terma reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sockoriginally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization.
Funny how so many believe taxation is theft - especially those from the far right who call themselves "Christian". These people should read their own Bible so that they can learn what is required of them in order to gain their stairway to heaven: Romans 13 Submission to Governing Authorities 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God ... Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are Gods servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue ... PAY YOUR TAXES!
It is quite rational to assume taxation is related to government ownership of human beings because it confiscates the product of their labors. But even though that may be true taxation does not have to be a negative
The premise indicated by the OP is that taxation is theft. On that basis, one may suppose that he is suggesting that by not paying them one is engaged in averting robbery. However, many on the right in this forum call themselves "good Christians". As such, according to their Bible they are obligated to pay their taxes. Interestingly, yesterday I saw an interview with a "sovereign" ~ that is a right winger who hates government ~ that was a southern preacher in Alabama. He said taxation is theft and ungodly. Had he bothered to actually read his Bible, he would learn that he is wrong.
As if u rent your own belongings why don't axe gubbmint if you can keep your I pad or laptop or desktop since it all belongs too society why don't u just give yours back If it all belongs too society then what it the objective too work to acquire whatever form Of exchange people trade in for compensation Why must it all belong to society ...if then sobeit all too society does anything require trade the government isn't sole proprietor over all things This theory wreaks of north korean and marxist stinch the government doesn't own or create anything it takes by the threat of force with unbridled power too which extent is just only too the degree of the people Governments have a monoply on all power until the people say no more