There are two basic approaches to engaging scripture: one takes scripture as the end of understanding, and one takes scripture as a beginning to understanding.
The New Testament is by no stretch of the imagination a comprehensive manual on governmental theory. The Roman Empire, of course, did not merely enforce criminal justice. The Romans undertook great public works projects, including roads and water systems that can still be seen today. The New Testament neither compliments nor indicts the Roman government for this.
Although the New Testament does not represent the end of all Christian discussion, as a starting point, it provides the foundation for all genuinely Christian discourse.
I would not expect to see a general analysis of the Roman governmental policy in documents written to regulate the behavior of people belonging to an alternative society, like the Kingdom of God—except where a specific criticism could serve as a lesson in contrasts. Since the Roman participants in the kingdom of God were not in a position directly to alter the spending habits of the Roman government, I would not see much reason for the Christians—who had things to discuss that more immediately related to their duties as Christians—to expend precious ink and parchment to matters unrelated to their sphere of responsibility. Apart from the Book of Revelation, the secular government is mentioned without criticism in the New Testament. It is mentioned only to make a point about Christian duty in regard to it—namely, that Christians should be law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. The distribution of community assets in the church was for the support of the poor. This is because the church did not have governmental functions (like the execution of criminal justice) on their agenda.
The purpose of public education is not to provide citizens who are parents with a free service. The purpose is to provide the entire society with the benefits of a better-educated populace. The situation is on the same order as roads and water systems - these are investments that benefit the entire society, including those who do not personally use public roads or directly furnish their properties with public water or sewage. Because we live as part of a society, that which benefits the society at large accrues to our own benefit in direct and/or indirect ways.
The maintenance of roads may be said to be consistent with the government's general duty to maintain a just society, since both military and police functioning are enhanced by the presence of good highways. In fact, I am under the impression that this was a primary purpose of the legendary road systems of the Roman Empire. Once those roads are in place, I believe the government may regulate civilian traffic upon them—again for the general security of the public against criminally wreckless negligence.
The provision of clean water is a matter to which you will not likely find any citizens objecting. If the overwhelming majority wish to pay the government to create public water treatment, then, perhaps they could hire the government to do so, and could pay per usage. If any should object to paying the government for this service, it would be ideal for the government to allow those few who wish to filter their own water to opt out of the general requirement of paying for a service that others wish to use, who do not object to paying for it. It should be clear that private interests (rather than government interests) might as easily (and more efficiently) rise to the task of providing clean water to the public on demand, just as has been done with other necessary commodities, like electricity, natural gas, motor fuel, groceries, etc.
As for public education, I can see how it might be in the public interest to have educated citizens—just as it is in the public interest to have disease-free citizens (our government, however, has not shown itself effective at providing the former, and is not likely to do better with the latter). However, there were very good educational options (and a highly literate populus) prior to the introduction of mandatory state education, and, for many centuries, we have had one of the most disease-free societies in the world, without nationalized health care.
There are an endless number of things that could be said to be generally beneficial to a society, but which the government is neither required, authorized, nor well-qualified to provide, and which can very adequately be provided by private investment and incentives. A moral citizenry is a better guarantee of good education, public health and general prosperity (all factors in the public interest) than the expansion of programs managed and regulated by government officials—who have not demonstrated themselves to be superior to the general population in any measure other than the ability to get themselves elected (often by dubious means).
Accordingly, taxation for undesired services does not amount to robbery. Rather, it is an issue of investment. If one is fundamentally unwilling to accept the terms of participation in their society, then they have the privilege of disinvesting. This is easier in the United States than it is in other parts of the world. No one is forced to retain their American citizenship, and with few exceptions (say, terrorist suspects), no one is forced to dwell under the authority of the American government, which is the enforcing agency of American society. If one wishes, they may renounce their citizenship and attempt to emigrate to another society. Should they wish to abandon societal constraints to a radical extent, they may become stateless persons and pursue a migrant life in international waters or settle in the unclaimed portion of Antarctica. But should they wish to participate in a society, such has its costs, including making oneself available to taxation according to the paradigms of the society.
Nothing I have written should be construed as the advocacy of a tax revolt nor of a general insurrection or withdrawal from society. If there is to be a nationalized health system, I will pay whatever taxes the government requires, just as I do now. I reserve the right, however, to object to government policies on principle. That happens to be a prerogative guaranteed to citizens in this country—and it is also an occasional obligation of Christians in any country.
Your suggestion of the simple option of renouncing citizenship, though presented as if it is an argument for the government to instate any oppressive policy it may choose, because the oppressed can simply leave, is of course no realistic option at all for any but a very few individuals, who may have the flexibility and resources to obtain alternative citizenship. If this option were a real one in the modern world, I would tend to agree with you. However, I doubt that you really see such as a realistic option, so it fails to stand as a legitimate argument for any point you are advocating.
I welcome your explanation of how G-d has apportioned the land on the North American continent.
I have no specific opinion on this, other than my general conviction that the continual adjustment of political boundaries around the globe is an ongoing affair which has been going on since ancient times. I do not believe that any ethnic group possesses a permanent divine sanction to hold any land in perpetuity, but I think that Christians are to accept the current international geographic boundaries as they are, until something (probably beyond our power) alters them again.
In a country where the citizenry is (theoretically) its own government, the citizenry has invested their selves and their assets into the paradigm of that society. Their mutual participation in that society makes their individual decisions one another’s business. And because we are co-participants in American society, what you do is my business, and what I do is yours.
Quite true, which is the very reason that Christians (and others) have the right to critique various governmental paradigms and to declare some behaviors (whether of private persons or of public policy) to be unjust. That is what I am engaged in doing presently.
Individual ethic should not be confused with social ethic.
In one sense, I agree. There are some activities that are ethical for private citizens and are not ethical for governments to perform (like the administration of charity), and there are also activities that are ethical for governments, but not for private citizens, to perform (like executing criminals). On the other hand, all parties, whether private or governmental share one ethical obligation, and that is that they not be unjust.
It is the just responsibility of a society to provide for the needs of its constituents. To do so, the society makes use of its resources, however scattered they may be amongst its constituents. And to do such with discretionary income is not robbery, any more than it is robbery for one’s body to draw unneeded blood or nutrients from one part to the benefit of another.
Providing for "needs" is a dangerously vague description of the duty of governments (though you used the term "society" instead of "government." The two are not the same thing, but the context of your argument leads me to believe that you are equating them). Let us compare that statement with a similar one—and one much more likely to find general agreement: "It is the just responsibility of parents to provide for the needs of their children." This is generally true, but there certainly are qualifications to the general statement that need to be considered.
First, the definition of a "need." If a daughter feels the need to have an abortion, is it the father's duty to provide such? If his children are not satisfied with a diet of beans and rice (a circumstance of a very large percentage of the world population), does this translate into a father's duty to bring home Snickers bars—or even better-tasting, wholesome food? If a poor man, in India, has a leprous child, and cannot afford to provide the best medical care that could be found in North America, is he neglecting his duty to provide for the "needs" of his child? We may say that we "need" expensive healthcare, advanced education, appetizing foods, reliable vehicles, comfortable homes, etc. But this does not mean that the government has a responsibility to confiscate the earnings of productive citizens in order to meet these "needs" for the unproductive. In fact, there is no objective measure by which we could insist on calling these things "needs." Many have subsisted on foods we would find unpalatable, lived in shelters that we would find uncomfortable, traveled in vehicles that we would find rickety and unreliable, made a bare living without higher education, etc. If others have always managed to do these things, by what tortured logic can we insist that any of these things, when considering ourselves, can be defined as "needs"? By what definition of "justice" can I justify the confiscation of another man's honestly-earned resources in order to guarantee me (or anyone else) that these "needs" of mine will be provided?
Second, there is the matter of
means. There may indeed be what anyone would regard as legitimate "needs," but the absence of "means" to procure them. Sometimes a father might have the opportunity to meet his family's needs (which he would find impossible to provide by honest means) through the committing of a crime. Should he then commit the robbery, because it is his "duty" to meet his family's needs? Or should he realize that, as human beings, there are limitations upon the means available for us to meet felt needs? When, despite his most diligent and honest efforts, a man cannot feed himself or his family, I believe he honors God more by committing his case into the hands of the Almighty than he would by breaking the laws of the Almighty in order to prolong a life. The life he is seeking to prolong must eventually come to an end at some time in the will of God. Perhaps this is the time and the manner in which God chooses to bring it about.
This suggestion may sound impractically idealistic, but I believe that the martyrs, and Jesus Himself, acted upon the same principle—to wit, that
it is better to die for one's determination to obey God, than to prolong earthly life by denying Him and violating His commands. "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matt.16:25). Many of us can see that this principle holds true in the extreme cases, like those of Christ and Christian martyrs, but have difficulty applying the same (universal) truth to mundane, daily affairs.
The matter of healthcare comes under this same consideration. If I or someone for whom I am responsible is sick, and can be saved by available medical interventions, then it would seem to be my duty to avail myself of this option. But if I cannot afford this service (other than by robbing someone else), then I am under no obligation to avail myself of this benefit. God has not, in such a case, chosen to provide for this option, and thus has made known His will that some other option be accepted—whether it be death, diminished capacity, or miraculous healing. The acceptance of any of the above would be no sin, but to rob another man in order to obtain that which cannot be had by honest means would be a sin.
The government has no money to pay for healthcare. In fact, it is already in enormous debt for projects which it has no mandate to conduct, and for the payment of which it is robbing several generations yet unborn! What the government lacks means to provide, it is under no obligation to provide this benefit to its citizens. To obtain money by taking involuntary contributions from the rich at gunpoint does not strike me as a moral option. If those who have the money to do so wish to voluntarily contribute to the medical expenses of the poor, this is always an option—but it needs no governmental intervention. In fact, the only factor added to this option by the introduction of government involvement is the gun to the head of the rich. Such robbery is no more ethical when committed by groups of citizens calling themselves "officials" than when it is done privately by a thug in an alley.
This is my view. I can see no moral sense in any other.
