The Funeral of Liberty
Thomas LyonsPerhaps 2009 will prove to be the final round in the fight for liberty’s life. Liberty, as defined in the Hobbesian colonists’ sense of the word, has long been subject to any number of restrictions. Americans may not enter into any business they like, or with any person, or at any price, or in any location, without the permission of appropriate government authorities. In fact, there are any number of regulations at all levels of government detailing how wide my lot can be, what school my child may attend, or how many bullets can be in my firearm’s magazine. We may not live as we want, even in some cases say as we want, without government permission.
In short, Americans have long lived under the scope of what some will call Negative Authoritarianism: one is only free to do something one wants to do with permission from the authorities. In many cases, that permission might be easily obtained. It being obtained, though, would have had our Revolution-fighting ancestors up in arms. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a favorite of many in the federal government today. Among other things, FOCA removes what protection health care workers now have in exercising their consciences against performing what they might believe to be ethically questionable medical practices. Saying nothing of any other pros or cons that may be in the proposed bill, the removal of conscience protection takes liberty violation to a new step: from Negative Authoritarianism into a whole new world of liberty destruction – Positive Authoritarianism, or that state wherein one is not free to do what one does not want to do as per governmental decree. Positive authoritarianism forces us to do that which we do not want to do.
To be clear, private actors in the free market negotiate their own actions – and the prices of those actions – all the time. Pharmacists, OBGYNs, and other healthcare practitioners who work for health care providers that offer, in their opinion, ethically questionable medical procedures yet do not respect the dictates of employees’ consciences may not find work as easily, or may find it without similar pay. That, however, is nothing more than the free market of ideas sorting itself out among freely acting, voluntary participants. It is no threat to liberty.
So, when, in the course of my work in commercial banking I refuse, solely on grounds of my conscience, to finance the operations of a nuclear weapons manufacturer, the terms of that refusal are left to the only two actors whose opinions on the subject are at all relevant: my employer and me. I can even up the ante by refusing to work for a bank that finances the operations of what I view as a morally questionable industry. My bank can respond in-kind, by refusing to hire or comparably pay people who refuse to comply with their demands. In time, some happy medium might be found if there is enough common ground.
What we are not, at present, subjected to is either me or my employer being forbidden from this sort of free exchange game. My bank is not forced by the federal government to hire and comparably pay me despite my violations of its ethical code, nor am I forced by the same to work and do tasks that violate mine. FOCA changes that.
Positive authoritarianism is, necessarily, the final nail in liberty’s coffin. Prior to its imposition, I may only have been free to do as I wished with government blessing. With it, I not only am only free to do as I wish with government blessing, I am also only free to not do as I don’t wish with the same blessing. Another example of positive authoritarianism – the military draft – was only justified in wartime, and of course has been repealed. FOCA might be passed without a timeline for repeal nor with similar wartime justification. Perhaps the FOCA supporter means to only extend abortion rights. The bill’s merits on that front are up for debate. What the FOCA supporter might not intend, though, is the murder of liberty everywhere else. By failing to protect the rights of conscience and adding positive authoritarianism to the equation, however, that’s exactly what the American people will receive.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
You really put your finger on the crux of the issue, Tom. Well said.
The Orwellianly named “Freedom of Choice Act” represents a naked use of force by those on one end of the political and social spectrum to use the force of law to silence their opponents. The FOCA is eerily reminiscent of many fugitive slave laws in the South during the 1850s, laws which prohibited the discussion or progress of abolition in any way, shape, or form. (This is not surprising: arguments for abortion often share many traits in common with arguments for race slavery, as a previous article of mine implied http://www.theonlyorthodoxy.com/2008/03/06/would-you-vote-for-stephen-douglas/.)
Freedom necessarily involves accepting that other people will disagree with you, and that they have the right to disagree. In a VERY small sphere of issues (such as when a person and I disagree over who my wallet belongs to [theft], or when one person forcefully disagrees with another’s right to live [murder]), the state has the right to mediate that disagreement and pick winners and losers. In all other areas, however, the state has absolutely no cause to intervene whatsoever. The implication of that principle is that people are individually responsible for mediating those disagreements themselves. The result may often be less tidy, but that’s the nature of freedom.
After all, most people’s rooms probably aren’t as tidy as an average prison cell, but my guess is that those people are okay with that.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Tom,
Could you give a sample of the relevant portion of FOCA? I am not really familiar with the bill aside from your essay, but it seems like a pretty important thing to analyze in depth.
Paul,
When you say, “the state has the right to mediate that disagreement and pick winners and losers”, do you mean a legal or moral right? And on what promise is that right based?
I do not ask this because I disagree with you, but because I have gotten into a habit of flushing out enthymemic arguments…
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
That’s a very interesting question, Benjamin.
Well, the state certainly has the legal right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to, by definition of being the law-making body. But then a Mississippi slave owner in 1857 had the legal right to sue an abolitionist from New Hampshire for trying to sneak his slaves to the North. Most people today would agree that he didn’t have the moral right to do that, however.
I would say that, at least in the examples I used (theft and murder) the state has the moral right to step in as well. That right is based on the legitimate purpose of government, which is to protect the lives and legitimately acquired property of citizens from illegitimate destruction.
If I pick an apple from a wild apple tree and cultivate the seeds until I have my own flourishing apple trees, those trees and all the apples they produce can rightly be said to be mine because I acquired them through deliberate, honest labor. If you walk through my apple trees without my permission and take some of my apples when I’ve expressly forbidden anyone to do so without my permission, however, those apples cannot rightly be said to belong to you. You did not acquire them through honest, deliberate labor, nor did you legitimately acquire them with my permission (either as a gift or through purchase).
Protecting my ability to enjoy the justly acquired fruits of my own labor (no pun intended) is one of the few legitimate purposes of the state. It provides a very basic protection which allows society to exist in any real manageable way. As does protecting my right to my life from illegitimate destruction. There aren’t, I would say, too many more legitimate purposes for a government. Within those purposes, however, the state has the right to act on behalf of those in the right (the “innocent”) and against those in the wrong (the “guilty”).
April 6th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I can’t think of any other situation in all of medicine, in which a doctor is required by law, to refer a patient for a procedure he deems inappropriate.
The presumption here is: whether an abortion is appropriate in the first place, is not a ‘medical’ question that ‘all doctors’ ought to be able to decide privately with their patients. It’s ironic that in order for Roe v. Wade to progress, it has to ultimately trounce the doctor-patient relationship that it so facetiously used to build its original case. ‘No one knows when life begins’… and apparently-we are made to think-that is a question best answered only-by-abortion-providers-and-their-patients.
I was daydreaming today, that Obama walked into a coffee shop smiling, and seeing me, held out his hand invitingly. I flash my eyes at him coldly and say ‘I am a doctor. Don’t tread on my conscience.’ Immediately, secret service men tackle me and push me on the ground. From where my nose is pressed into the dusty tiles I can see Obama’s boots still standing where they were. I hear the same loose, ironic voice: ‘You doctors always were easy to push around. This time won’t be any different.’
April 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Paul,
“Well, the state certainly has the legal right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to, by definition of being the law-making body.”
The state has the ability certainly, but I think we agree that ability alone does not confer a right (eg my ability to commit an immoral act does not give me the right to do so).
“That right is based on the legitimate purpose of government, which is to protect the lives and legitimately acquired property of citizens from illegitimate destruction.”
How does a person define the legitimate purpose of government? You are making reference to a standard I am unfamiliar with. I agree a government can certainly commit moral or immoral acts, or legal/illegal acts (if self-imposed), but that the purpose of government in the eyes of men is what they commission it to do. The fact that we commission our capital-G Government for protection does not seem to be a necessary role for this organization. We might simply arrange for it to regulate our business transactions and require doctors to refer patients for abortions and leave criminal justice and national defense to individuals —- UNLESS —- there is a higher authority who commissions the government with this responsibility. This may be the case, but if it is so, I have not seen nor heard where or how this is mandated.
“If I pick an apple from a wild apple tree and cultivate the seeds until I have my own flourishing apple trees, those trees and all the apples they produce can rightly be said to be mine because I acquired them through deliberate, honest labor.”
I think when you describe the phenomenon of ‘property’ what you are saying is that a man who deprives you of the “fruits of your labor” without your consent has committed an immoral act. Would you agree with this? It makes sense to my…moral compass…for lack of better term, though I do not necessarily see why this should be the case. Certainly it seems unfair to have what you have worked for be taken by a man without your permission, but unfairness or inequality does not always seem to equate with injustice nor immorality. For example, I have no qualms with paying taxes, but Uncle Sam did not ask my permission before requiring I give a portion of my income to run the government. The reason I have no qualm is because of a Biblical directive that the Lord has established the government for his own purposes and also directs us to “give to caesar…”.
Romans 13:1-2
“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
Romans 13:6-7
“6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
My lack of argument with taxes is therefore in spite of the fact that government is taking what I produced without my permission.
To be frank, I think non-Christians have a much harder time justifying taxation.
In summary, I am not yet convinced a government has any right (or duty) to provide protection to its citizens unless there has been a promise to do so. In the case of the U.S. government, I assume there has been such a promise in the legislation set in place with the founding of the country. I do not actually know the law well enough to say what that would be, except that the Preamble to the Constitution makes reference to “[providing] for the common defense”. This confers a legal duty/right certainly, and a moral right on the basis of the promise, but I do not see where the legitimate purpose of government argument would gain support.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
So you don’t like that government steals from you, but you believe the Bible instructs you to let them?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Almost. The Bible seems to grant the government ownership of, or the right to claim and possess, money I have earned on my own; therefore taxation is not stealing. Were it not for this divinely granted authority, I would consider it stealing, hence my position that non-Christians have a harder time justifying taxation.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I go to war on this very issue all the time with my fellow Christians. Granting the Bible a sola scriptura level of authority for the sake of argument, exactly where does Scripture grant a government the ability to tax?
When you answer, please also offer a response as to why you believe the verse in question best supports the contention that taxation is not immoral as opposed to alternative interpretations.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Benjamin, the state just does have the legal right to do anything it wants. A legal right is a right given one by the law, and is separate from a moral right. (This, by the way, is at the heart of disagreements about so many of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Founders understood these rights to be moral rights, which meant that the Bill of Rights merely affirming rights that already existed. Many people today understand those rights to be legal, meaning that the state grants those people the rights to keep and bear arms, to free speech or assembly, to free religious expression, etc.) Hence, the lawmaking body can give itself the legal right to do anything. That doesn’t make its actions morally correct, but it does make them legal.
As for taxes, well, I think the carte blanche you see scripture giving to government taxation is a somewhat simplistic reading. Christ himself implicitly denied that interpretation by commanding us to render under Caesar that which is his, and to God that which is His. If the state taxes people at a 100% level, Caesar basically claims all of people’s productive time and labor for himself, denying that God has any claim over anything. If Caesar claims 50%, he essentially declares that his claim on people’s lives (their time and labor) is equal to that of God. What possible justification for this kind of sinful hubris can there possibly be? I can’t think of any. Thus, when St. Paul tells us to pay what we owe in taxes, I think an interpretation more in line with Christ’s words would be to give over to the state that which it can legitimately claim, and no more. (Playing a Protestant again is fun. I can make scripture say whatever I want it to, since I’m the ultimate authority of correct interpretation for myself. But I digress.)
If you’d like to have a discussion about legitimate purposes, we can. We can save it for lunch, though.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
1) Regarding legal rights, I agree with you that I was conflating moral and legal rights. As you say, legal rights are based on laws, and the law-making body can make any law it likes, though this may be immoral.
2) Regarding the government’s ability to tax:
I see the verse in Romans (quoted above, Tom) as a fairly direct an easily interpretable directive to pay taxes. I am not sure what other scriptural references I need here. I would even go further and say if the government taxes you at a rate of 100%, it is not necessarily at the exclusion of God’s demands. Here you (Paul) may be taking a simplistic view of what resources and in which ways God may require and use sacrifice. It does not have to go directly in the offering plate to be given for God’s sake. In fact, these verses would seem to place a burden on Christian’s to comply with what otherwise seem like unfair rates of taxation.
3)
“When you answer, please also offer a response as to why you believe the verse in question best supports the contention that taxation is not immoral as opposed to alternative interpretations.”
This is permissible because “for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
a. Compliance with taxation is commanded by God (through Paul…)
b. God’s commandments are not immoral
Therefore:
Compliance with taxation is not immoral
Now this verse is certainly up for interpretation, and particularly the phrase “are God’s servants”, but I am not about to pretend I am an expert in exegesis. If someone has someone to teach me along these lines I would appreciate it. Did that meet your request? I was not sure what “as opposed to alternative explanations” meant…
As far the “legitimate purpose of government”, we can discuss it over lunch, but why should we deprive the forum of our learning process?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
After re-reading, I would also add that my interpretation leads me to the conclusion that taxation itself is not immoral.
“…If you owe taxes, pay taxes.”
How can we “owe” something unless the recipient of our obligation has a right to the thing? In this case, how can we owe taxes unless the government has a right (divinely-granted) to demand taxes of us. That is an answer to your direct question of whether taxation itself is immoral as opposed to my earlier response in which I claim that complying with taxation is our duty, which does not necessarily address the moral status of taxation itself.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Benjamin,
You confuse the question. The question you answered was “how do we know we’re obligated to pay taxes?” (Your answer, by the way, I still don’t find as compelling as
Goodell’s). The question I asked was “where does Scripture grant a government the ability to tax?”
Unless you’re arguing for an implied God-ordained (and therefore moral) ability to tax by virtue of Paul’s (St. Paul, not Goodell) order to pay them. That is shaky at best, and refuted elsewhere in Scripture.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Unless I am continuing to misunderstand your request, I did address “where does Scripture grant a government the ability to tax?”, and yes, I did so by pointing more or less to “an implied God-ordained (and therefore moral) ability to tax by virtue of Paul’s (St. Paul, not Goodell) order to pay them.” (see comment 11)
I understand that you disagree. What I do not understand is why. If you would indulge me with your reasoning, we might both benefit.
For example, Paul Goodell’s answer, as I understand it, is to acknowledgment that we ought to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, though he goes further in asserting that what we give to Caesar we are not also giving to God. He then goes on to reason that we owe God “more” than Caesar, and then jumps to the conclusion that this indebtedness would translate directly and exclusively to monetary terms. All the while he has not dealt with the rather apparently plain instruction from St. Paul which instructs us to…pay taxes.
So please do not leave me so impoverished, but show me charity by revealing where this idea is “refuted elsewhere in Scripture”. I do not equate simplicity with inadequacy, and I do not see any reason (yet) why this straightforward interpretation of Scripture is faulty.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
With all due respect, does not your interpretation necessarily justify one striking you across the face? After all, Luke 6, “whoever strikes you on the cheek, offer the other…”?
I personally read that as a directive in how to handle when someone strikes you, not heavenly permission to strike someone else’s cheek. I approach the same to Romans 6.
I read the Bible, I see a God who is none-too-pleased that Israel demanded a king, and that the priests took a foreign coin into temple. Don’t forget, Satan offered Jesus ‘the kingdoms of this world’ in the desert; Jesus didn’t contest that they were Satan’s to give. The Hebrews defied Pharaoh by not murdering their infants. Daniel and the Lion’s den, the Magi and Herod. Etc., etc. St. Paul was arrested on at least two occasions having spent near 7 years of his life in prison; this is not a guy who was all about blind obedience to the authorities. That’s why the initial cursory face-value reading of Romans 13 is, to me, adequate.
Bottom line…The state is not an institution created by God a la the church. The state operates under God’s nose.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Benjamin, I don’t deny that money and time taken from us by the state (I don’t say “given to the state”, because in nearly all cases, the state must take the funds; we wouldn’t give them otherwise) can be used for God’s purposes. That’s part of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, that He can use things not intended for Him for His greater purposes. That fact doesn’t in any way justify the state making claims on my life (my time and labor) in excess of those they’re allowed to make.
God used Original Sin for His glory, Benjamin. Did that use justify humans’ decisions to sin? Clearly not. Then how would a state making completely excessive claims on its citizens be in any way justified simply by the fact of its making them, which is what you’re saying?
God is a God of order, not of disorder, so clearly He intends our communal lives to be ordered in some fashion. For the past 10,000 years that ordering has been done by some form of government, whether tribal, dictatorial, monarchical/imperial, or democratic/republican. Using the standard of communal ordering (not in the sense of law and order, but in the sense of not chaotic) the amount of government necessary to reasonably ensure that society is rightly ordered is all that is required. I would say that the resources necessary to effect that kind of ordering is what we could reasonably be said to owe to Caesar. Asking for anything more than that is, I would say, sinful.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Tom,
Neither would I encourage “blind obedience to the authorities.”
The difference between Luke 6 (turn the other cheek) and Romans 6 (pay your taxes), is that the text in Romans 6 explicitly states that there is no authority which God has not established, and that we are to pay our taxes. Though it does not explicitly state “taxes are demanded from God”, it does say that authorities are in place (given their authority) by God, and that we are to obey them, including taxes. Further, it goes on to say that whoever disobeys these authorities brings judgment upon themselves. Luke 6 simply says, when someone strikes you, do not seek retribution. The text does not say that God has set in place all people who strike you, or that you are to allow it or else.
Where I draw a line regarding obedience to the government is where obeying the government demands immoral or sinful acts (is there a difference?). I assume we are all on the same page here. All the other examples you have cited fall under this general heading of government demanding that people do things contrary to God’s will. Taxes do not seem inherently contrary to God’s will (see above reasoning).
Paul,
Your reasoning seems to require a lot of interpretation about the necessary extent of government. One of the strengths of my position is a very clear delineation of the extent of our obligation to support the government. Actually, your position would imply that almost any support of the government could be completely out of charity. It seems it would create a lot of chaos to direct people to pay only what “we could reasonably be said to owe to Caesar.” What do you think about this?
To both of you:
My reasoning seems pretty straightforward (to me), and while I do appreciate your arguments, I would also appreciate a more direct refutation of my argument since I am placing so much weight upon it. Forgive me if you have done this and I simply missed it, but redirect me to where you have responded directly to my argument.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I think there is one fundamental question that hasn’t yet been addressed explicitly, that underlies the heart of your disagreement.
We all agree–I think–that we have a moral duty to obey the command to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
We all agree–I think–that God decides ‘what is God’s” for the purposes of material giving, and that, ultimately, everything is.
The unaddressed question is: Who gets to decide what is Caesar’s?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I agree that your position has a great deal of clarity, Benjamin. It can be summarized by the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary in St. John’s gospel, chapter 2, “Do whatever he tells you to do.”
You seem to implicitly have answered Jeremy’s question before he asked it. Who gets to decide what is Caesar’s? Caesar does. That seems to be the necessary implication of your positions. How do we know when the government has gone too far or taken too much? Only when it tells us so, something that rarely (if ever) happens. Thus we can safely conclude that the state rarely (if ever) oversteps its rightful authority.
I see nothing wrong with the idea that all giving to the government above a very basic level should be charity. There is nothing in scripture or Church tradition that mandates or implies that such is not, or should not be, the case. There are different political theories that support or attack this position to relative degrees. There is no a priori principle that demands that a state have a broad tax base or robust taxation regime.
Government, in my opinion, should be very strictly limited in size and scope. If unpacking how those limits should be set up becomes a little complicated, then it becomes a little complicated. It’s not necessarily a simple topic. I don’t think it gets all that complicated, really. All that isn’t absolutely necessary to reasonably ensure a functioning free market, basic public safety (limited police), and limited national defense shouldn’t be in the purview of local, state, or national government.
That principle isn’t straight out of scripture, but scripture isn’t a civics book anymore than it’s a science book. It offers broad principles about how life should be lived and societies governed, but beyond that it’s largely silent (assuming that you’re not following the Mosaic law like a pre-Christian Jew). To arrive at my conclusion, one need only take human sinfulness into account and then ask which form and level of government achieves the order implied by God’s creation of humans as social creatures while minimizing the power that coercive state force gives to sinful humans.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Paul, you’re skirting the issue. If Caesar decides what is Caesar’s–which is implied, or at least logically consistent with, the scripture cited by Benjamin–then Benjamin’s position is necessarily correct, absent exceptional circumstances like taxation to the point of starvation, or taxes traceably channeled directly into immoral activities.
Your position relies on the contention that Caesar does not get to decide what is Caesar’s. But you haven’t supported the premise. Who, other than Caesar, gets to decide, and from whence came their right to do so?
April 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Well, Jeremy, I would say that we, the citizens, get to decide what is Caesar’s — at least in a republic or a representative democracy. I acknowledge that this principle is at least as much a function of modern (i.e., post-17th century) philosophy as of scripture or Church tradition. It is at least as old as the Roman Republic, however, and it contradicts neither scripture nor Church tradition. Moreover, it remains a sine qua non of a free society (a society where human freedom is kept at its maximal levels), in the form of the rule of law.
In a state where Caesar decides what is Caesar’s, the rule of law doesn’t exist. Only in a society where the rule of law — the limits on state action and individual conduct predetermined by the people through their representatives (and through traditions and practices that have become codified) — holds sway can human freedom really flourish and is the state really just.
I assume, of course, that a state’s legitimate authority — in a world where no sinful human (or coterie of sinful humans) can legitimately claim authority over an entire society by natural right — derives from the consent of its citizens. They have the clear right to limit their government’s power — especially the power to tax, from which virtually all other state powers flow. I would also add that allowing human freedom to flourish is a key good, and that a society that does so is morally better than a state that does not, because God created humans as free beings, and to deny them that freedom is an affront to their Creator.
So I would say that a society in which the state has the sole, unlimited power to determine what areas of people’s lives effectively belong to it is a morally bad one. And that kind of society seems to be the necessary result when Caesar gets to decide what belongs to Caesar.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“I assume…that a state’s legitimate authority…derives from the consent of its citizens.”
And I figure all authority is given by and/or derived from God. Any other “authority” is not more than the proverbial gun man in the alley forcing you to hand over your things ‘or else’. Because I start from this point, when Romans 13 says:
“6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
It seems a contradiction to me (if you agree to this line of reasoning) to assume we have any right (or need) to change the actions of the government unless they are immoral…as stated above.
I do not see how high taxes are inherently immoral.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I think the amount of free time Paul has to make these exhaustive posts is inherently immoral.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Yes, they are all God’s servants. Everyone is ultimately God’s servant, Benjamin. That’s what God’s sovereignty means. Being God’s servant doesn’t by itself qualify anyone for obedience.
If I tell you to give me all of your money (without putting a gun to your head, of course), are you required to obey me because I’m God’s servant (which, even were I not a Christian, I would unquestionably be)? If you say yes, you’re a fool. If you say no, you contradict this scriptural command, as you’re interpreting it. Being “God’s servant” clearly isn’t enough to command obedience, then, which seems to imply that the meaning you take from that section of scripture is wrong — or at the very least, insufficient.
You may object that I’m contradicting the “clear meaning” of this passage, but consider carefully. By affirming the widely accepted determination that the universe is at least 20 billion years old and the earth at least 4 billion years old, I contradict the clear meaning of Genesis 1-2. And yet, our reason and experience shout to us that the interpretation which insists on a literal 6-day creation is flawed. Ought we to listen to our reason and our experience — two of the primary tools God gave us for finding and understanding the truth? If so, than we must reject the “clear meaning” of Genesis 1-2. In the same way, the “clear meaning” you see in Romans 13 doesn’t comport with reason, experience, or divinely revealed truth. Hence, it is suspect, and (I would argue) to be rejected.
As for your contention that we have no right to change any of the state’s actions (as long as they’re moral), it makes me question whether you grasp the implications of the doctrine of Original Sin. Humans are flawed and sinful, Benjamin. People can’t not sin, if left to their own devices. As the famous preacher, R.C. Sproul, said, “We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners.” This is data, not opinion. It is, as Chesterton noted, the one empirically verifiable Christian doctrine.
Given this data — that people are sinful and their actions tend toward evil — we should expect that those in power will tend to act sinfully and choose to benefit themselves. In fact, we should expect that those in power will be even more inclined to act this way, because of the corrupting influence that having power over other people often has. And this is what we do, in fact, see. Power, as Lord Acton observed, tends to corrupt, after all.
Again, Benjamin, this is data, not opinion. If you look at governments from the Bronze Age through the Information Age, you see Lord Acton’s observation confirmed countless times. You do see occasional exceptions — such as Cincinnatus in Rome, Louis IX in France, King Sejong in Korea, or George Washington in America — but they, by their exceptional wisdom, prudence and justice, prove the rule.
Let’s be exceedingly generous to our fellow humans, Benjamin, and say that only 90% of those in positions of power act sinfully when given the opportunity. No, forget that. Let’s be insanely, irresponsibly, completely unrealistically generous to them, and say that only 50% do so. That means that at least half the time you’re protesting what those in government do. These are not your friends, however. They’re the state. They have the power to compel you do what they want you to do — whether it’s serve in the military, pay your taxes, or financially support an immoral war. Once you give them that power, you can’t take it back (short of armed revolution, that is). And remember: we’re operating at the historically ridiculous assumption that only 50% of those in power act sinfully when they get the chance to. If the percentage is higher than that, your situation is worse.
Here is where high taxes come into the picture, because only through taxes does a government have the power to do anything, good or bad. This means that, the lower taxes are, the less power sinful people have over other sinful people. Conversely, the higher taxes are, the more power sinful people have over other sinful people. Thus, higher taxes aid sinful governments, and the higher the taxes the more their aid.
This is why higher taxes are immoral (not “inherently immoral”, just immoral), Benjamin, because people are sinful and, as a rule, not to be trusted with coercive power over each other. But coercive power JUST IS what government is all about: if it can’t coerce people to obey it, it isn’t a functioning government. This means that to be part of the government is, ultimately, to be in the business of coercing one’s fellow citizens. (This isn’t necessarily wrong, only suspicious. If the state coerces a thief to returning stolen goods to their rightful owners, that’s not bad.)
Oppressive governments literally can’t exist if there are no high taxes. Given the fact of Original Sin, however, oppressive governments will exist if there are high taxes. And oppressive governments are very, very bad.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Thank you for that clearly written explanation of your position. I will have to think about it for a bit to give as careful of a response, so forgive me if I take several days to do so.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Paul, your argument, in essence, is that Romans 13 can’t mean what it says because what it says contradicts your understanding of the world. That’s simply not a persuasive argument.
Your argument would ring truer if you could better support your comparison of Genesis 1 to Romans 13. You assert–mistakenly–that we are free to interpret Genesis 1 non-literally because a literal interpretation contradicts “our reason and our experience.” That’s not true. We are free to interpret the passage metaphorically only because the text, written as it is in the mythical style and the parablic tradition of oral history, grants us the freedom to do so. Our “reason and our experience” counsel us to exercise that freedom–but the freedom of non-literacy comes only from the text itself.
And so it is with Romans 13. If you could show that, when properly contextualized, the text grants us permission to accept a non-literal interpretation, then “our reason and our experience” might, as you argue, counsel us to act on that permission. But you haven’t made the showing, so your analogy fails to persuade.