Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[thrombomodulin]

Stealing according to dictionary.com is "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:"

Is this clause in any way not a fitting description of exactly what taxation is - with possible exception of the words "... or right"? But, the words "... or right" in this definition of stealing are subtly making a positive ethical statement. The proposition being affirmed is that there are ethical circumstances for the taking of property belonging to another without the former owners consent. I, however, can think of no such exception which would indeed be legitimate***. Citing the words "... or right" in the dictionary definition to establish that taking property without permission can be ethical would be the fallacy of "begging the question".

Rather it is necessary to make a positive case for establishing who it is that owns any given piece of property: John Locke, in his second treatise on civil government, well argued that one beings with the proposition that a persons own body is not owned by other human beings. That is to say, "A" does own "B's" body. Rather any person is the owner of his own body. In so far as any person takes something unowned out of the state of nature and transforms it by applying his labor ("Mixes his labor with it"), that person assumes initial ownership of the transformed property. This is called "homesteading". All subsequent exchanges of property between consenting individuals, gifts, or inheritance would involve a transfer of ownership of property with the consent of the owner. For example: I come to own three loaves of bread because I produced them (e.g. by homesteading). If I purchase something and give the three loaves in payment, it would be true that the new owner of the loaves has assumed ownership of them with my consent. Vice versa applies to what I receive. Consequently, a more succinct and sufficient definition of theft is "to assume ownership of the property belonging to another without the consent of its owner." Thus, as taxation is "without permission" it is an instance of theft per a Lockean understanding of property rights. If Locke was wrong, there remains a possibility that one could argue otherwise.

As long as one is free to leave the society that is collecting taxes and providing services, there is nothing any more sinful about imposing taxes as there would be about charging a patron to spend the day at Disneyland.

The analogy does not hold because Disney is private property established by homesteading and consensual exchange. On the other hand when the State evicts a property owner from its territorial boundaries it necessarily takes away by force private property a person has attained by trade and homesteading, or if the person remains and is taxed the same holds true. The qualitative difference here is not about the freedom to relocate to remove oneself from unfavorable circumstances, but rather the differences pertains to property ownership.

*** A possible exception is the case of restitution, but arguably it is not an exception to the rule. The property taken from the thief was never his property in the first place, so the permission from the thief to reclaim stolen goods is not required because he does not own the stolen goods. X

So how do YOU interpret, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"?

The text informs us that the intention of the questioners was to trap Jesus. My understanding is that Jesus avoided the trap by effectively not answering their question. Perhaps a similar motivation applies here as for his stated reason for speaking to the crowds in parables. I say he did not answer the question because of the complete absence of revelation defining what is or is not Caesars. If elsewhere there was a biblical teaching about what belongs to Caesar, then this interpretation of the passage would not be viable.

[Candlepower]

Hello Paidion (and others),

You said I said (and I did)

It is clear to me that forced charity via governmental taxation is theft because it involves the coerced and unjust transfer of wealth from one person to another.

You asked

So why is this any more a theft than taxation for any other purpose?

Later in my post that you referred to above, I said…

“The role of civil government, according to Scripture, is to exercise justice—to punish evildoers. Collecting from citizens the money necessary to accomplish that purpose is Scripturally sanctioned, it seems to me.”

There is a proper role for civil government, and I think Scripture describes that purpose. It follows that for government to carry out that purpose, it rightfully must levy taxes. I have no problem at all with taxation for that purpose. They are legitimate taxes because they are for a legitimate purpose, that is, a purpose God has ordained. But it bothers me a great deal when the civil government taxes me, against my will, to pay for programs that are clearly beyond the God-ordained role of civil government.

Here’s an illustration that may reveal my thinking. I hire a plumber to fix a leaky pipe, we agree on a price, and I go away for the day. While I’m away, the plumber fixes the pipe, then mows my neighbor’s lawn, and then cleans another neighbor’s windows. A week later, I receive a bill for $200 from the plumber and find he has charged me for fixing my pipe, and for the work he did for my neighbors. I send the plumber the agreed $80 and tell him I will not pay for the extra charges; they are illegitimate because I did not authorized them. Continuing our exciting tale, the plumber comes to my house, pulls out a pistol, and demands that I pay him the extra $120. I pay him. Wealth was coercively transferred from me to the plumber, without my consent, and without compensation to me. No one would argue that the plumber was not a thief.

Here is the parallel:

I authorized what the plumber may do, and God authorized what civil government may do. For the plumber to perform and demand payment for work I did not authorize is like the civil government performing and demanding payment for work God did not authorize. A key, it seems to me, is who authorizes the action. We are legitimately liable to pay for legitimately authorized work. The State robs people when it taxes them for work God did not authorized it to do, it seems to me.

Paidian asked

A local government built a road near my remote cabin, and then raised my taxes because the cabin had "access" to the road (though in actuality there was no more access than previously). Furthermore I didn't want the road there. Was I robbed?

I don’t read in Scripture that building roads is an aspect of punishing evildoers, which is what the civil government is authorized to do. “How will we ever have roads, then?” one may ask. I can conceive of ways it may be done without having to expand the state’s power beyond what Scripture has established. And I can also conceive of how civilization might have developed in radically different (and better) ways, had man not depended so much on the state. So, yes, I think the local government robbed you.

In Canada, provincial governments tax in order to provide health services. Is this theft?

I believe it is. Health services are currently provided in ways other than by government programs funded by involuntary taxes. There already are many church-run hospitals. There are voluntary health co-ops. I don’t see the need or the wisdom of relying on the state to provide health services. They have a bad reputation of doing so. I’ve heard that many Canadians prefer US health care and travel here to purchase it. They vote with their feet and their Maple Leafs. But things will reach a lower common denominator as socialistic medical care takes over down here.

It is also the case in Canada that the middle and upper classes are taxed heavily, and those with little income may not be taxed at all. Isn't this similar to your "forced charity" issue?

I believe so.

Government taxes create and maintain highways for the public benefit, even though some people never use them. Is this theft?

Yes, and this covers the same ground as your first question

School taxes provide public education in spite of the fact that some people don't send their children to public schools. Are these people being robbed?

I believe they are, and for the same reason. To confiscate my money to educate another person’s children is an inappropriate transfer of wealth. It is robbery. As with health care, I don’t think education is a God-ordained function of the state. In fact, there is hardly an entity less competent, and more untrustworthy, than the state when it comes to educating children. It is not hard to conceive of what could be done with education if the civil government were out of the picture. Homeschooling routinely produces a better product than the state does.

Governmental gifts are given to many organizations whose purpose is objectional to me. Am I being robbed?

Yes you are, in my opinion, and for the same reasons mentioned above. If I take $20 from you, against your will, and send it with a birthday card to my friend, that act violates the Eighth Commandment. No person or collection of persons is exempt from the Eighth Commandment. Stealing for a good cause is still stealing. How can that not be true?

In Christ's day, the Roman Government doubtless used taxes for many purposes to which Christians objected, yet Christ taught his disciples to pay their taxes, and to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So He recognized that taxes belonged to Caesar and ought to be paid.

Regarding this subject, Steve said…

“I am not a tax resister. I do not tell people that they should not pay unjust or unlawful taxes. That is an entirely different ethical discussion. What we are discussing is whether free citizens ought to support or oppose certain policies of our government, upon which we are being asked to vote. The morality, or lack thereof, of any policy needs to be considered before throwing our support behind it.”

These are my thoughts also. I will pay my taxes even though I know the $ will be spent for programs I oppose and think are unscriptural. But those are hills on which I choose not to die. My first obligation is to advance the Kingdom; everything is secondary to that. But I believe advancing God’s kingdom will have a beneficial effect on all governments: family, church, and civil. While that’s not my motive for advancing the Kingdom, I’m not blind to the secondary benefits.

I oppose almost everything the civil government is doing. While a pilgrim in this fallen world (and looking for a city not built with human hands), I pay taxes as something I must endure. I am not happy about it anymore than if I were mugged on the street. Paternalistic government and its high taxes are the results of man depending on man instead of on God. Christians are of a different Kingdom; a radical counter-culture. Jesus did not tell us to stop paying taxes, pick up a sword, and attack the state. He said pay the tax, pick up His Cross, and follow Him. So that's what I'm trying t do.

Christians, I fear, too often become enamored by the world’s culture, and fail to see the superiority of the radical counterculture of God’s Kingdom, which resembles a family. Jesus said I have to pay for Caesar’s programs, but I don’t think He wants me to adopt Caesar’s philosophy and argue in favor of it.

Blessings,

Candlepower

[steve]

SteveF wrote:

Would you consider a senior or disabled person to be stealing if they took advantage of the Medicare program since they would be using stolen money to pay for their health needs? Their only options in that case would appear to be:

A) Insist on paying for the procedure with their own money
B) Decline treatment if they can’t afford it

First, I want to say that political theory is not a field in which I possess any sophisticated expertise. I have not concerned myself with politics (nor even voted in elections) most of my life. I am entering the discussion, not so much as a political theorist as a Christian man, guided by scripture, contemplating what justice is. I am not trying to change the world and do not consider that politics is the Christian's primary tool for establishing justice in the earth. However, political theory and justice are categories that clearly overlap. Therefore, I am writing as a man of Christian conscience, more than as a man with political agendas.

In answer to the above question, I do not believe that a person is stealing who receives services provided through the government's confiscatory policies (though I may be wrong). The money has already been taken by the government from others (as well as from the recipient, if he is a taxpayer) and has been offered to him. He may, on principle, refuse to receive stolen goods, but this refusal will not get the money back into the hands of its rightful owners. Only changed governmental policies will do that. The sick man at the hospital is not personally in a position to change that immediately.

I do not blame the person who needs and uses the government services, any more than I would think myself a thief if the fire department comes to my house and puts out a fire, or if I would send my child to public school (I might object to the latter on other grounds, but would not see it as theft on my part). When something is offered to me (and everyone else) without any fee other than the small portion I paid through my taxes, I think receiving the thing offered is not dishonest, since I could assume (without warrant, of course) that the portion of the expenses for the service that I am actually using has been paid for by my own taxes, combined with those who themselves have no objection to the confiscation (some people must vote for these things!).

It is a rationalization, but it may work for some. I have not chosen to use this rationale (except for the fact that my youngest child spent his last two years of high school attending a state school. Of course, for thirty years, I was raising and educating five children, without using the state schools at all—all the while paying for those schools through my property taxes. I think thirty years of property taxes more than covered the cost of those two years using the system).

My concern would be if I felt I was using money extorted from an unwilling participant in the co-op. In my own imagination, I can convince myself that I, along with people who happily paid into the system have contributed through the taxes taken from us. This doesn't mean that I believe such a system should be in place.

Would you include things like sewage, street lights (especially appreciated by ladies), meat inspectors etc… as things that are beneficial for the safety of a society and to be included along with roads?

These, and a thousand other expensive services, might indeed prove beneficial to many end-users. However, I do not make the assumption that these services must be subsidized by tax money, and could not be provided by private companies, providing service only to those willing to use and pay for them.

If I have a well and a manner to safely dispose of wastes on my property, I might have no interest in paying the government to provide sewage treatment to me or to other homes. My guess is that, in a society with the hygienic awareness of ours, many people without wells would gladly pay a private company to treat and provide clean water to their homes. If poorer families needed treated water, and could not afford to pay for it, then their fees could be paid through private charitable means, as with their other needs.

If I and my neighbors wish to enhance the safety of our neighborhood, we could certainly cooperate together in the purchase and installation of street lights utilizing private (not government) contractors—or even installing them ourselves, if we wished to save the money.

If I wish to raise my own meat, I might not wish to hire government meat inspectors to inspect other people's meat. On the other hand, if I wish to buy meat from a rancher, I might reserve the right to buy only from such sellers as will submit their farms to the scrutiny of some private inspection agency, in order to assure quality control. If I know a homesteader whom I trust, I might choose to buy from him without his submitting to such an inspection (this would save us both money). It would be my free choice. In other words, I would be taking responsibility (like a grown-up!) for my own well-being, and not delegating such choices to a paternalistic government agency.

We have a private highway in our province which is now owned by an Australian company. I think it still requires government (hiring or contracting city planners etc) to allocate land for such a project and that kind of administration requires money (taxes) as well. You know, the same administrators who tell you, you can't build a skyscraper right in front of an airport landing strip etc..

I think that violation of another's property rights is just the type of crime that the government is there to prevent or punish. If an airport is functioning in a location prior to the building of the skyscraper, then the building of the latter in that location would violate the existing right of the airport's owners to safely land planes on their property. Those who wish to build skyscrapers should choose locations that will not endanger the public and violate the property rights of existing neighbors. Similarly, if an airport were to be built in an area where the noise is oppressive for local homeowners, this would seem to violate their property rights. It seems clear to me that building new structures and businesses must not be done in places or in a manner where doing so would violate the rights of existing neighbors.

[SteveF]

Thanks for your thoughtful response Steve.

“First, I want to say that political theory is not a field in which I possess any sophisticated expertise.”

That makes two of us. Listening to those who’ve made it their life study makes me realize it’s like many other things. There’s never a perfect solution but lots of theories on how it should be done. Anything short of Christ’s perfect Kingdom and it won’t suffice in my opinion. Functioning in something as simple as a family can get complicated (planning my Father-in-law’s upcoming 90th birthday celebration is a great example ), never mind an entire society!

“Of course, for thirty years, I was raising and educating five children, without using the state schools at all—all the while paying for those schools through my property taxes. I think thirty years of property taxes more than covered the cost of those two years using the system).”

That makes sense to me. A province in Canada (Alberta), from what I understand, will refund something like 2 thousand dollars per child if you home school them. The only stipulation, I think, is you must use the money for educational purposes (I could be wrong on that point). Your rational would seem to be in concert with this particular government.

I just wanted to add a thought for those who don’t have children. I think there’s fairly strong evidence that an educated population is good for society as a whole and not only for the individual who receives the education.

“I could assume (without warrant, of course) that the portion of the expenses for the service that I am actually using has been paid for by my own taxes, combined with those who themselves have no objection to the confiscation (some people must vote for these things!).”

In Canada, I think you would be safe with that rational. The vast majority of people seem to be willing participants in our current healthcare system. I can’t speak with authority, but in my experience it seems that Christians in Canada almost universally support universal healthcare. It seems to be the exact opposite in the United States.

I suppose if one required a very expensive procedure and you were fairly certain you were taking more than the share of those who support the system you would find yourself in a dilemma. I will add though that the single biggest detractor of Medicare seems to be Christians in America. That being the case, it may be safe to assume that a Christian actually wouldn’t contest their money going towards Medicare, even though they don’t support the philosophy of its existence(I hope that made sense). Hence, you may have almost universal willing contributors in a backwards kind of way.

“If I have a well and a manner to safely dispose of wastes on my property, I might have no interest in paying the government to provide sewage treatment to me or to other homes. My guess is that, in a society with the hygienic awareness of ours, many people without wells would gladly pay a private company to treat and provide clean water to their homes. If poorer families needed treated water, and could not afford to pay for it, then their fees could be paid through private charitable means, as with their other needs”

Having lived in a city with millions of people all my life, I’m not too knowledgeable of wells etc… I know one family that lives out of the city and has their own septic tank and they pay lower taxes as a result. In the city if you have less bathrooms etc.. you pay less tax since you would presumably use less sewage. The same goes for the value of your property. The more expensive it is, the more property there is to protect from theft and fire, hence more taxes. It seems fair to me.

“If I and my neighbors wish to enhance the safety of our neighborhood, we could certainly cooperate together in the purchase and installation of street lights utilizing private (not government) contractors—or even installing them ourselves, if we wished to save the money.”

Here’s what comes to my mind.

What about repairs and the cost of running them? It seems like you’d almost need to organize yourself in some way to keep track of all the costs and things in your neighborhood…... something like a government I know yours would be voluntary participation but with millions of people it could get quite complicated, especially with thousands of people moving in and out of the city every month.

“If I know a homesteader whom I trust, I might choose to buy from him without his submitting to such an inspection (this would save us both money). It would be my free choice. In other words, I would be taking responsibility (like a grown-up!) for my own well-being, and not delegating such choices to a paternalistic government agency.”

I agree with you in principle. My only concern would be for those who are not astute and can be taken advantage of. They may unwittingly buy rotten meat thinking they are getting a deal. That would be an argument for a common standard in my mind. I do get what you’re saying though.

“I might reserve the right to buy only from such sellers as will submit their farms to the scrutiny of some private inspection agency, in order to assure quality control.”

I think even in this case you would still require some kind of government agency to ensure the inspecting companies are legit and have proper standards (of course, no government agent has ever been bought off ). You’d also want to make sure that meat companies are not using deceptive packaging that make it look like it’s been inspected. It seems though that your suggestion would indeed lead to less government taxes and administration (if that’s the goal) as it would likely take fewer employees to “inspect the inspector”.

‘I think that violation of another's property rights is just the type of crime that the government is there to prevent or punish. If an airport is functioning in a location prior to the building of the skyscraper, then the building of the latter in that location would violate the existing right of the airport's owners to safely land planes on their property. Those who wish to build skyscrapers should choose locations that will not endanger the public and violate the property rights of existing neighbors. Similarly, if an airport were to be built in an area where the noise is oppressive for local homeowners, this would seem to violate their property rights. It seems clear to me that building new structures and businesses must not be done in places or in a manner where doing so would violate the rights of existing neighbors.”

All I need to say is, I agree.

[kaufmannphillips]

I've been working on responses to previous material. But I'm going to jump out of order to engage this one:

mkprr wrote:
As long as one is free to leave the society that is collecting taxes and providing services, there is nothing any more sinful about imposing taxes as there would be about charging a patron to spend the day at Disneyland.

thrombomodulin wrote:
The analogy does not hold because Disney is private property established by homesteading and consensual exchange. On the other hand when the State evicts a property owner from its territorial boundaries it necessarily takes away by force private property a person has attained by trade and homesteading, or if the person remains and is taxed the same holds true. The qualitative difference here is not about the freedom to relocate to remove oneself from unfavorable circumstances, but rather the differences pertains to property ownership.

You have stated previously: "I would like to propose, for consideration and critique, the idea that one (or a group) only has authority to rule where God has positively granted it."

With this in mind: please identify where G-d has positively granted the authority to define the principle "private property [is] established by homesteading and consensual exchange."

In the matter of consensual exchange: how does one satisfactorily determine that an inviolate chain of exchange has preceded one's purchase? For example, how does one satisfactorily determine that an indigenous holder of the property was not forcibly dispossessed of it, 150 years back? What burden rests upon a purchaser to ensure that they are not acquiring the fruits of robbery?

You have stated previously: "As we are lacking any divine revelation about whom among us should rule, I would like to propose that the state affairs is Christian should consider ideal is that of the book of Judges where 'There was no king, and each man did what was right in his own eyes'."

If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then what do you propose for resolving the following situation: two or more men have competing claims to a parcel of property, and each man's claim is sincerely right in his own eyes.

Also, please address a matter that might be relevant to most landholdings in the United States: vast swaths of land were claimed for European states by their explorers; and those swaths of land were then transferred by various agreements to the United States, including a number made by purchase.

If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then how might one resolve the claim that all settlement on those swaths of land is subject to the paradigms established by the United States government, which could include tax liability?

Let us temporarily presume, for the sake of discussion, that "private property [is] established by homesteading and consensual exchange."

Now, it seems reasonable that the owner of a parcel of land could voluntarily agree to a contract with society around him, attenuating his claim in any various respect. Could not such a contract afford tax liability against his land?

For the sake of further discussion, let us imagine that the owner has not agreed to any contract with society around him, and his claim to the land is unattenuated; but his parcel of land is surrounded by parties who have voluntarily contracted with society.

Let us imagine that the society blacklists the owner and forbids any passage from his land onto land owned by signatories to the society contract, and vice versa. What remedy would the landowner have for this blockade?

For the sake of still further discussion, let us imagine once again that the owner has not agreed to any contract with society around him, and his claim to the land is unattenuated; but his parcel of land is surrounded by parties who have voluntarily contracted with society.

Let us imagine that the society allows passage to and from his land, but signatories to the society contract are not allowed to conduct any economic activity with the owner - leaving the owner with no prospect for economic partnership for hundreds or thousands of miles. What remedy would the landowner have for this embargo?

For the sake of still further discussion: let us imagine once again that the owner has not agreed to any contract with society around him, and his claim to the land is unattenuated; but his parcel of land is surrounded by parties who have voluntarily contracted with society.

Let us imagine that the society makes no impingement on the owner's economic affairs, but withholds military or police protection for the owner. How shall the owner engage the possibility that his landholding will be an attractive target for petty criminals, cartels, and/or conquest?

[thrombomodulin]

With this in mind: please identify where G-d has positively granted the authority to define the principle "private property [is] established by homesteading and consensual exchange."

This principle is not explicitly defined in the scripture.

In the matter of consensual exchange: how does one satisfactorily determine that an inviolate chain of exchange has preceded one's purchase? For example, how does one satisfactorily determine that an indigenous holder of the property was not forcibly dispossessed of it, 150 years back? What burden rests upon a purchaser to ensure that they are not acquiring the fruits of robbery?

A determination is only required in the case where a dispute over ownership arises. If one can demonstrate that they are rightful owners or heirs to the property formerly stolen, then indeed whatever was stolen must be returned. There is no burden for the purchaser, for he is not required by any law of scripture to validate that goods he purchases were not stolen.

If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then what do you propose for resolving the following situation: two or more men have competing claims to a parcel of property, and each man's claim is sincerely right in his own eyes.

The method of discernment would, of course, be to apply the principle of homesteading and consensual exchange. Whomever has first undertaken development of unowned property has superior claim to that property. If, on the other hand, the same property was purchased by two people, then it would be the case that one of the sellers did not possess a title to the property which he was selling, and that buyer's claim is illegitimate (this is why we buy "title insurance" when purchasing land). By "title" I don't mean documentation specificly, but more broadly whatever evidence exists to confirm the fact of ownership pursuant to the principles.

If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then how might one resolve the claim that all settlement on those swaths of land is subject to the paradigms established by the United States government, which could include tax liability?

A claim to a large swath of land does not fulfill the homesteading requirement, because the homesteading principle necessarily involves that one "mixes his labor" with the property in order to obtain ownership of what was formerly unowned. Since the initial claim is invalid, so also is the property tax liability.

Now, it seems reasonable that the owner of a parcel of land could voluntarily agree to a contract with society around him, attenuating his claim in any various respect.

Yes, an owner is free to enter a contract. However, a contract is made between specific individuals where both parties have specified and particular obligations. It is impossible to make a contract with an amorphous "society".

Could not such a contract afford tax liability against his land?

It can form a liability pursuant to the terms of the contract, or the terms specified in the contract that applies when the contract is breached or unilaterally terminated. Unilateral contract termination creates a finite debt, it does not create a perpetual and unending obligation upon the land owner, nor would that debt be owed to "society" but rather the specific counterparts of the contract, hence I would not affirm the use of the word "tax" as an adjective to liability.

Perhaps you are trying to discern if in my understanding a property owner can fully relinquish his ownership (e.g. by giving away what he owns). Yes, he can. But then recipient of such property, whomever he may be, becomes the new owner.

For the sake of further discussion, let us imagine that the owner has not agreed to any contract with society around him, and his claim to the land is unattenuated...

As I noted above contracts exist only between individuals, not "society". Society in not an entity an thus cannot "blacklist" someone. Rather a group of specific individuals may perhaps choose to boycott a person or business for any reason whatsoever, and kindly request others to do the same. In a most extraordinary case perhaps every individual which was kindly asked also agrees, and chooses to boycott this one person and land owner. Then, in such a case the owner survives under a state of Autarky, until such a time as one of those individuals changes his mind and dissents from the boycott.

To up the ante even more, as you suggest, maybe all individuals write contracts with each other to pledging that they will never trade with this third party for the rest of their lives on this earth. The circumstances of our property owner to engage in trade is thus diminished, but alas it is the case that every day new people are born and mature to the age of being adult in this world, and others die. The contracts terminate upon the death of their signatories, and thus to sustain the state of affairs each and every new entrant into the market must somehow be convinced to sign a contract not to buy from this one property owner. I will grant that such could really happen in the real world, but only under the caveat that it is infinitely improbable.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You have stated previously: "I would like to propose, for consideration and critique, the idea that one (or a group) only has authority to rule where God has positively granted it."

With this in mind: please identify where G-d has positively granted the authority to define the principle "private property [is] established by homesteading and consensual exchange."

thrombomodulin wrote:
This principle is not explicitly defined in the scripture.

Is there any other locus, besides scripture, where G-d has positively granted the authority to define said principle?

And if not, by what right would one (or a group) impose said principle as a rule?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In the matter of consensual exchange: how does one satisfactorily determine that an inviolate chain of exchange has preceded one's purchase? For example, how does one satisfactorily determine that an indigenous holder of the property was not forcibly dispossessed of it, 150 years back? What burden rests upon a purchaser to ensure that they are not acquiring the fruits of robbery?

thrombomodulin wrote:
A determination is only required in the case where a dispute over ownership arises. If one can demonstrate that they are rightful owners or heirs to the property formerly stolen, then indeed whatever was stolen must be returned. There is no burden for the purchaser, for he is not required by any law of scripture to validate that goods he purchases were not stolen.

If the principle by which private property is established has not been authoritatively defined, then how could one demonstrate that one is a rightful owner?

What burden rests upon a purchaser if they are purchasing a type of good that is notoriously liable to have been stolen?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then what do you propose for resolving the following situation: two or more men have competing claims to a parcel of property, and each man's claim is sincerely right in his own eyes.

thrombomodulin wrote:
The method of discernment would, of course, be to apply the principle of homesteading and consensual exchange.

Whence cometh the "of course"? Without positive grant as discussed above, how does this method of discernment become determinative?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If there is no positive grant of authority or revelation that determines how private ownership of land is established, then how might one resolve the claim that all settlement on those swaths of land is subject to the paradigms established by the United States government, which could include tax liability?

thrombomodulin wrote:
A claim to a large swath of land does not fulfill the homesteading requirement, because the homesteading principle necessarily involves that one "mixes his labor" with the property in order to obtain ownership of what was formerly unowned. Since the initial claim is invalid, so also is the property tax liability.

But if the homesteading principle has not been authorized by positive grant, how shall it be held to invalidate "swath" claims?

Also, for the sake of discussion: if the homesteading principle were upheld, how then might wilderness be protected? Without improvement, the land would be unowned; without ownership, one could not dispute another person's taking and improving the land.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Now, it seems reasonable that the owner of a parcel of land could voluntarily agree to a contract with society around him, attenuating his claim in any various respect.

thrombomodulin wrote:
Yes, an owner is free to enter a contract. However, a contract is made between specific individuals where both parties have specified and particular obligations. It is impossible to make a contract with an amorphous "society".

A society can form a contractual body. An individual could subsequently become a party to that contractual body, or could contract with that body.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Could not such a contract afford tax liability against his land?

thrombomodulin wrote:
It can form a liability pursuant to the terms of the contract, or the terms specified in the contract that applies when the contract is breached or unilaterally terminated. Unilateral contract termination creates a finite debt, it does not create a perpetual and unending obligation upon the land owner, nor would that debt be owed to "society" but rather the specific counterparts of the contract, hence I would not affirm the use of the word "tax" as an adjective to liability.

The contract could include some stipulation: e.g., on a recurring annual basis, landowner X will pay a sum, to be assessed by Society, Inc., and the sum shall be applied to the defense and/or general welfare of Society, Inc.; and the penalty for failing to pay said sum on any particular occasion will be the forfeiture of X's landholdings to Society, Inc.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
For the sake of further discussion, let us imagine that the owner has not agreed to any contract with society around him, and his claim to the land is unattenuated...

thrombomodulin wrote:
As I noted above contracts exist only between individuals, not "society". Society in not an entity an thus cannot "blacklist" someone. Rather a group of specific individuals may perhaps choose to boycott a person or business for any reason whatsoever, and kindly request others to do the same. In a most extraordinary case perhaps every individual which was kindly asked also agrees, and chooses to boycott this one person and land owner. Then, in such a case the owner survives under a state of Autarky, until such a time as one of those individuals changes his mind and dissents from the boycott.

To up the ante even more, as you suggest, maybe all individuals write contracts with each other to pledging that they will never trade with this third party for the rest of their lives on this earth. The circumstances of our property owner to engage in trade is thus diminished, but alas it is the case that every day new people are born and mature to the age of being adult in this world, and others die. The contracts terminate upon the death of their signatories, and thus to sustain the state of affairs each and every new entrant into the market must somehow be convinced to sign a contract not to buy from this one property owner. I will grant that such could really happen in the real world, but only under the caveat that it is infinitely improbable.

As noted above, a society can form a contractual body, which then can blacklist parties.

Now, let us imagine that certain influential members of a population form one of these contractual bodies; and then they shrewdly and inflexibly apply blacklist/boycott/embargo tactics to pressure others to join the contractual body. Once a tipping point in social mass was surpassed, it seems highly probable that only a very few persons would persist in refusing to join the contractual body. Just consider - how many persons in the modernized world are prepared to survive long-term under a state of autarky?

Also...

mkprr wrote:
As long as one is free to leave the society that is collecting taxes and providing services, there is nothing any more sinful about imposing taxes as there would be about charging a patron to spend the day at Disneyland.

thrombomodulin wrote:
The analogy does not hold because Disney is private property established by homesteading and consensual exchange. On the other hand when the State evicts a property owner from its territorial boundaries it necessarily takes away by force private property a person has attained by trade and homesteading, or if the person remains and is taxed the same holds true. The qualitative difference here is not about the freedom to relocate to remove oneself from unfavorable circumstances, but rather the differences pertains to property ownership.

What about residents who do not own property?

And what about persons whose property is mortgaged? (I suppose major financial institutions aren't terribly interested in being blacklisted/boycotted/embargoed and trying to survive under a state of autarky.)

[thrombomodulin]

Is there any other locus, besides scripture, where G-d has positively granted the authority to define said principle?

In stating commands such as "do not steal", or "do not covet what belongs to your neighbor's", God has affirmed the concept of private property. If it were otherwise, the notion of coveting and/or stealing what belongs to someone else would be meaningless. The task before us is to discern which property belongs to which person. As the scripture does not explicitly define property ownership, and one cannot deny its existence, it is in my judgement fair to deduce what those principles are. I am unaware of a superior analysis than expressed by John Locke, and am willing to follow this line of reasoning until such a time as a superior definition of could be articulated and defended. You might recall that my final challenge to you on the usury thread was to articulate a competing definition of property rights.

And if not, by what right would one (or a group) impose said principle as a rule?

Since stealing not a positive law, but rather negative law, I would like ask if you clarify what you mean by 'imposing'. Perhaps you could clarify with an example.

If the principle by which private property is established has not been authoritatively defined, then how could one demonstrate that one is a rightful owner?"

By concluding that property ownership can be deduced by reasoning from natural law. If this conclusion were incorrect, then it necessarily follows that the command "do not steal" is meaningless. Since God's commandments cannot be considered meaningless, I must conclude that God's word affirms property rights and expects that human beings are able to reason correctly about what those rights are.

What burden rests upon a purchaser if they are purchasing a type of good that is notoriously liable to have been stolen?

None, could you point me to a law in the scripture anywhere which states otherwise?

Whence cometh the "of course"?

It cometh from what I had already been expressed. If I express a principle I believe to be true, it is only sensible and consistent on my part to apply that principle the example in your question.

But if the homesteading principle has not been authorized by positive grant, how shall it be held to invalidate "swath" claims?

If homesteading is invalid then the merits, or lack thereof, of "swath" claims need be assessed on other grounds. Do you wish to affirm swath claims? Which particular ones do you recognize in the past as valid? Are there any you don't recognize as valid? How do you decide between mutually contradictory swath claims? Will you accept it if right now I choose to make a swath claim of the whole world for myself?

Also, for the sake of discussion: if the homesteading principle were upheld, how then might wilderness be protected? Without improvement, the land would be unowned; without ownership, one could not dispute another person's taking and improving the land.

I agree that there is not a basis for disputing unowned land from being developed, thus the wilderness is not protected.

The contract could include some stipulation: e.g., on a recurring annual basis, landowner X will pay a sum, to be assessed by Society, Inc., and the sum shall be applied to the defense and/or general welfare of Society, Inc.; and the penalty for failing to pay said sum on any particular occasion will be the forfeiture of X's landholdings to Society, Inc.
Now, let us imagine that certain influential members of a population form one of these contractual bodies; and then they shrewdly and inflexibly apply blacklist/boycott/embargo tactics to pressure others to join the contractual body. Once a tipping point in social mass was surpassed, it seems highly probable that only a very few persons would persist in refusing to join the contractual body.

I agree that a corporation can be formed by a specific or particular set of contracts, and that pursuant to those contracts others could be made. The idea that a person would become a participant in such a one sided contract, or a contract where the penaties are so great, is very unlikely if not impossible.

What about residents who do not own property?

Residents who do not own property are able to establish a contract with a property owner to allow them to live on said land owners holdings per the term and duration of the contract. Any person other than the property owner does not have the rightful authority to overrule the decision of the property owner. This is similar to one going to disney land. The owner(s) of disney land agree that I may be present on their property in exchange for a certain payment. A person who does not own disney land not have the authority to expel a person from Disney land.

And what about persons whose property is mortgaged? I suppose major financial institutions aren't terribly interested in being blacklisted/boycotted/embargoed and trying to survive under a state of autarky.

How is the case of a mortgage relevant to the question at hand. I do not think it is possible that such autarky can arise under a free market.

[kaufmannphillips]

Candlepower wrote:
Kaufmanphillips, I was hoping your response would rise at least to the level your usual fluff and filler about socialism. But it didn’t. You flailed, and you sank. I shouldn’t have been disappointed, though, because Socialism is bereft of anything worthy or good.

Reminiscent of your previous gem, "Here’s a recap of what you said, kaufmannphillips: blah, blah, blah. Claptrap." It’s as if you imagine vague boilerplate insult to be an adroit rebuttal.

Candlepower wrote:
I was shocked that you didn’t distance yourself from the Nazis.

I don't need to fall all over to "distance [my]self from the Nazis"; I'm only some decades and an international flight from a boxcar ride to Treblinka - that distance is significant enough.

Candlepower wrote:
It appears that while you say you are a socialist, some of your comments in this thread indicate you don’t have a good understanding of what the term actually means.

You might notice that other participants on this forum put out the effort to cite remarks that they are responding to.

But as you wrote (soon thereafter), "the word, socialism, is used in a variety of ways, and ... there are shades of meaning." And as I wrote (somewhere above): "I am not a purist."

That being said...

In socialism, the axial interest is society - how society will be structured, so as to meet the needs and interests of society. In capitalism, the axial interest is stuff - how stuff will be managed, so as to yield and acquire more stuff.

In one, the economy is about people; in the other, people are about the economy (n.b., the phrase "human capital"). In one, the significance of stuff is what it can do for people; in the other, the significance of people is what they can do for stuff.

Candlepower wrote:
By the way, Human Action is the title of the monumental work by Ludwig Von Mises. In it, he demolishes socialism. You ought to read it. It will help you understand economics.

If you "understand" it, how's about you make the points yourself. Surely that would be more advantageous for readers here than a ~900-page reading assignment.

Candlepower wrote:
Socialism is built on three evil pillars. They are:

1. Man owns the world...

2. The elite should rule...

3. Envy (disguised as philanthropy)...

Perhaps you are ill-acquainted with Christian socialists, democratic socialists and libertarian socialists. Socialism is more variegated than you paint it.

Candlepower wrote:
The principles of sound economics are found in Scripture, not socialist schemes.

There are principles in scripture that can inform economic philosophy. But I'll challenge you to demonstrate that your anthology of sacred documents was/is intended to be the final word on economic theory.

Candlepower wrote:

Socialist elitists consider the unenlightened masses (proletarians) incapable of stewarding themselves or property.

The problem is not that private parties are "incapable of stewarding themselves or property." The problem is that private parties are liable to prioritize their private interest over the public interest. And so, pragmatically, it is important to bring public interests into the decision-making process for economic operations. Once upon a time, the political complaint of the public was "taxation without representation"; today, the economic complaint of the public must be "operation without representation."

Candlepower wrote:
...Hitler, whose economic theory you share, along with his cronies.

An artful rhetorician generally should avoid H(itler)-bombs and N(azi)-bombs; they are a hallmark of the inelegant, the indolent, and the illiterate. So Southwick's codicil to Godwin's Law: If one cannot mount a convincing argument without invoking Hitler or the Nazis, then one is seriously lacking in literacy, acumen, diligence, and/or taste.

But regardless - I scarcely will adopt a categorical imperative to avoid agreeing with Hitler or the Nazis. Ol' Adolf was against tobacco use, and Nazi Germany had a strong anti-tobacco orientation. So must I smoke and shill for Philip Morris? Animal protection was a notable issue under the Nazi regime. So must I stump for force-fed foie gras and animal vivisection?

If a person is obsessed with being the antithesis of Hitler, then that person has surrendered nearly as much control to the man as if they had tried to be his duplicate.

Candlepower wrote:
All socialists ... feel they were born into an unfair world...

We are born into an unfair world. Care to argue otherwise from your scriptures?

But we don't have to resign ourselves to the status quo; we can strive to build a world that is more fair.

Candlepower wrote:
Because socialists deem people too stupid, or too greedy, or too rich, or too powerful, or too whatever, they push for a system that will force people to "be good" according to their standards. “Do-gooders” as they are sometimes called, think they inherently know what is good for the rest of us, and they are determined to enforce their will. Only when they are in charge, they think, will the world be a fair place.

Of course, not all socialists are authoritarian. And the "Do-gooders" charge is a perennial slur from people who would rather not have to do good.

But all human efforts at justice involve the imposition of values upon others, including others who may hold differing values. Ike may have low standards when it comes to striking his wife. Shall society withhold from imposing its values upon him? Charlie may have dubious standards about sexual activity with teenage females. Shall society withhold from imposing its values upon him?

Now, society cannot "force people to 'be good'" any more than it can force people not to be bad. What society can do is develop social constructs that encourage and facilitate what is good, and that discourage and hinder what is bad. And society can impose consequences that influence people's choices about their behaviors - whether good behaviors or bad.

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

Et Frederic Footballeur a dit: "I do not dispute my teammates' right to invent strategic plays, to practice them, to employ them in the midst of competition with other teams. But I do dispute their right to impose these plays upon moi - under threat of being benched or fined or even kicked off the team!"

Of course, capitalists never impose wars upon the populace, wars that serve commercial interests and protect far-flung ventures; and they never compel the populace to pay for these wars with taxes. And capitalists never impose infrastructure upon the populace, infrastructure that serves commercial activities; and they never compel the populace to pay for this infrastructure with taxes.

And of course, establishing a "free" society is no imposition upon those who would prefer to establish a just society.

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
Socialists do not consider the law sufficient that it should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, they demand the law directly to extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

Et Frederic Footballeur a dit: "Sacre bleu! This team is not satisfied to have each sportif set his own regimen; instead, they have a chef and a curfew, and a training schedule, and a code of conduct!"

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
To socialist intellectuals, the relationship between the people and the legislator is the same relationship between the clay and the potter. Socialists envision a utopian society of which they would be the wise leaders. They find ideological support among legislators whom, for the most part, assume themselves to be better than the people and the peoples' saviors from their own stupidity...

Et Frederic Footballeur a dit: "Quelle alors?! Does this team think it is wiser and better than moi? Does it not realize that I am wiser and better than it?!"

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
The proposition that law should extend wealth and happiness to everyone is the road to serfdom that will inevitably result in legislation being the battlefield of the utopias and greed of everyone.

Of course, ceding the management of society to private enterprise won't yield a battlefield of principalities and greed. Mercy, no.

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse.

It is no plunder for a society to ensure that citizens receive their rightful due - whether it be their rightful due in compensation, or their rightful due in charity.

Candlepower wrote:
The role of civil government, according to Scripture, is to exercise justice—to punish evildoers. Collecting from the citizens the money necessary to accomplish that purpose is Scripturally sanctioned, it seems to me. But Scripture does not describe government as an agency of welfare or charity, so that function is beyond civil government’s God-ordained role, and taxing for that purpose, while legal, is wrong.

I am unaware of where the bible claims to be the final word on political science. You are free to identify where I might have overlooked this claim.

As for the bible’s view on government, I will reiterate and elaborate: national leaders are frequently spoken of as shepherds; and shepherds have a responsibility not only to defend their flock, but to pasture and water it as well. How did Joseph respond to the impending famine in Egypt? With a laissez-faire policy? Even Herod melted down palace gold to feed the needy in time of famine.

So what does a good shepherd do? A good shepherd doesn't leave lagging sheep to learn by consequences. No - a good shepherd swats and cajoles and carries and nurses and patiently and sacrificially does what is feasible, trying to help the laggards through.

And sometimes the shepherd makes arrangements to obtain water and pasturage from other parties. Indeed, the shepherd may shear the flock and exchange the wool for access to grazing land and water. Now, some of the sheep may give more wool than others, but the good shepherd takes as much wool as is needed to ensure that the entire flock is fed and watered.

Indeed, the shepherd also will seek to provide veterinary care. If one or two of the sheep are ill, the good shepherd may exchange wool from many sheep, just to hire a veterinarian for the few.

And indeed, the good shepherd provides for things that the sheep might bleat their objections to. The shepherd might impose sheep dip on an entire complaining flock – and once again, the shepherd might exchange wool to do it.

In our society, every voter is a shepherd. And if I am a voter, the question is: will I be a good and prudent shepherd, or will I be a neglectful and naive shepherd? Do I expect the flock will naturally take care of itself, or do I expect that it will be necessary to intervene, in multiple ways, to make sure that all are cared for?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
It's a good thing there haven't been hundreds of Christian rulers, going back through the centuries, who were murderous thugs on a grand scale. If there were, I'm sure you wouldn't admit to being a Christian, since that would mean you're associating with such "scum."

Homer wrote:
There never was a "Christian ruler" who was a murderous thug. He might have taken the Lord's name in vain; that did not make him (or her) a Christian. "My sheep hear my voice, they follow me". Those and only those are Christians.

This is an old argument here - shall Christianity be gauged by its adherents, or by its paragons?

For the moment, then, let us swap out the reference: It's a good thing that there haven't been hundreds of American leaders, going back through the centuries, who were murderous thugs ... and/or racists ... and/or slanderers ... and/or drunkards ... and/or lechers ... and/or fraudulent ... and/or corrupt. If there were, I'm sure Candlepower wouldn't admit to being an American, since that would mean he's associating with such "scum."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
As for government policy - "establishing a healthy economic environment" involves legislation that mandates certain business practices: e.g., profit-sharing; employee participation in corporate governance; minimum compensation tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Homer wrote:
I worked for many years for a major corporation. It was decided that "employee involvement" would be an advantageous management style. The idea was to involve all employees in decision making but a great number wanted no part of any decision making. One of our very best millwrights, in both ability and attitude, informed me he did not want any part in decision making. He said "just tell me what you want done". The company even went so far as to have no management personel in some groups - the decisions would be made by the group. This proved to be a failure. As one wise person, a consultant from Sweden (surprise), told me before the new management style was put in place, if you put a group of dogs in a room in two minutes thay will have a leader. With a group of people ot takes a looooong time and many bad things will happen along the way. Mandated employee participation can bring all sorts of trouble. It needs to be voluntary.

"Employee participation in corporate governance" does not require the direct involvement of every employee, all the time. Our political democracy takes the form of a republic, with delegated representation and management. The same sort of device is viable in a business setting: one or two millwrights might be elected to represent their colleagues. And participation in governance does not require micromanagement; it does require periodic opportunities for input and substantive influence in the decision-making process.

It is curious how our nation so instinctively grasps the importance of political democracy, yet so poorly intuits the importance of democracy in the business sector.