If “compulsory taxation” is a trespass against property from Natural Rights Theory, yet it is my Christian ethic by salvation to pay my taxes, then ethical action for response is challenged?
Is this correct?
Yes. It is a dichotomy of “do what you are told” versus “do what is right”. Nat Rts Theory could be summed up by “do right by others and God”. The Chr Ethic directs to do what you are told to do, even if it harms you, as long as you are doing it for God. Any harms to you or others could be deemed “character building”. A harsh view of it, yes, and not a complete view, either. I hope you see the point I am making.
We are indeed close to a real-world scenario and that may be your postulation. Thus a question could be asked, “If I feel that taxation is unethical according to scripture and since I do pay taxes being obedient according to Roman 13; then shouldn't I at least “speak up for where and how the taxation money should go?” If I say yes then that would constitute me “getting involved with unjust Socialism as a voting citizen,” yet if I say no that all violence is to be rejected, then I am removing what little influence I have as a voting citizen to remove unjust law. Its a difficult decision that moves to ethics and is indeed why so many Christians compromise.
Your last paragraph could be reflected by this dilemma. For example: if I am required to pay taxes and the city is operating with arbitrary power, then how am I ethically effective to cause justice to be established in Smith-Town? Does this give me a right to vote the lesser of two evils, or must I remain rigid according to Natural Rights?
I could according to your context “vote” to have the businesses moved, since the City has already force-expropriated money from me (by taxation) and in earnest could make a public grievance to have the businesses be reimbursed by the expropriated money the city took? Thus is that moral or should I say, no “all violence is rejected” thus I must not support or participate in any Socialistic action at all?
I find that this “compromise” is what causes us as the church to be caught in the most difficult decisions with endless circumstances. For if no participation dis-empowers us and participation is a compromise to support the lesser of two evils to do its deadly work, then any action that Smith-Town does that abandons Natural Rights Theory causes us this dilemma.
In any discussion over a hypothetical, I usually attempt to apply the ramifications to the real world. Maybe that is just my “concrete” personality. I have paid attention to many public policy initiatives over the years, and how the ideas were born, and what the agendas of the propositioners were. History is replete with “that could never happen”, and then, guess what happens.
To analyze this “compromise” of partial empowerment by taking part in a system of Socialistic taxation versus the refusal to take part in such a system, we should look at real world examples.
In today’s world, in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a few other states in the U.S., the Amish communities live according to the “all violence is rejected” Natural Rights view. They have: no electricity from the outside world, drive horse and buggy or ride bicycles for transportation, dress plainly, plow fields with horses or ox instead of a tractor, have their own schools and they don’t pay income taxes, although they possibly pay property taxes. Visiting them gives you a look into the past all the way back to the Protestant Reformation years in Germany. They speak a version of German and it is often referred to as Pennsylvania Dutch. This is all possible through the freedom here in the U.S. provided by God through our Constitution.
In Jesus’ time, the Roman Empire controlled the region He lived in, so I would assume He paid taxes at some point, since the repercussions for not doing so were severe. It is recorded that He paid the temple tax with coins from the fish’s mouth, although He stated that He was not required to pay it since the Son is not required to pay tax to the Father.
There is consternation over the meaning of “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Is it to be understood that (A.) since the government has its name and likenesses on the money, that it is due the government at any time required of its choosing? Or is it, (B.) give to the government (Caesar) because you serve the government as opposed to give to God because you serve God? This view demonstrates that those Jesus was talking to gave proprietorship over their lives to Caesar, not God the Father. Or does Jesus mean (C.) it is up to the person to make a choice as to whom it belongs. I’ve seen even more possibilities stated in other commentaries on the web.
I do have one proposal to ponder.
What if the government, I’ll use the U.S. version, were to institute a system as follows:
The governed, you and I, would no longer vote for a particular candidate, per se, but sign up, (vote), to be governed by the party and its platform that is campaigned for during the election. Right now we have Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, etc.
Let’s say I sign up to be governed by the Republican Party ideals. My tax rate would be what the Republican Party would set. Those who sign up for the Democratic Party would be taxed by the rate the Democrats would set. This would settle much of the squabbling over tax rates, for the people would gravitate to the party whose ideals and tax code fit those of the constituency. This would use market forces to maintain a more humane confiscation of ownership (taxation).
