Tax Cheats
Culture and Politics - Obama Nation Building
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
When considering the subject of our duty to pay taxes, the Bible seems plain enough. But let's consider the difference a few italics can make.
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now try it this way:
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Romans 13:6-7).
Now I am making a general point here, and am not giving you advice on your own personal taxes. I am not a tax attorney, and I do not play one on television.
We need to get the theology of this thing straight first. If governments can steal, then they can obviously do so through the tax code. Tax codes can be passed illegally and unjustly. Legislators can be bribed to get them to vote for it. The agents charged with enforcement can throw aside all biblical rules of evidence, and so on. If this can in fact happen, and it clearly can, then there are circumstances in which a tax dispute between the government and the citizenry is a dispute which exists because the government is cheating on taxes.
In other words, we should not assume that whenever the government says that money is owed, and blood-donating turnip says that it isn't, that it is the turnip who is cheating. In short, the biggest tax cheat in America today is the federal government.
Governments exist by covenant, and governments like ours explicitly claim to exist by covenant. The word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means covenant. Our founding documents say that the government draws its authority to govern from the consent of the governed. That consent can be withdrawn, and when it is, the process is frequently quite messy. But messy or not, it can be withdrawn. And, like it or not, I think that we are already into the process of it being withdrawn.
The problem is that whenever this obvious truth about governmental tax cheats is pointed out (and it is an obvious truth), certain independent-minded tax resisters charge off and stop paying their taxes all by their own selves. And while (in some cases) I admire the courage and tenacity involved, tactical wisdom is almost always entirely absent. Tactically, this kind of thing is actually a boon to the the organized tax cheats -- for whom it is child's play to make the disorganized tax cheats look like they are the real problem here.
Moreover, it makes resistance seem futile. Nothing is easier than for the feds to pick off this guy, who thinks taxes can't be paid with Federal Reserve Notes, and that guy, who thinks that the income tax is not really in the Constitution because Ohio never ratified it properly, and the other guy over there, who formed an independent republic with his buddies at a hunting cabin in Montana, and in their republic they don't have income taxes.
What is necessary here is for us to return to Calvin's doctrine of the lesser magistrates. Since the Enlightenment, we have been trained to think of the nation/state as a monolithic entity, indivisible, instead of thinking of magistrates holding office as individuals with personal and individual responsibilities to defend the law. When someone takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, is it possible for said enemy to be an office holder, and to be an office holder senior to the person who took the oath? If the answer is yes, then what is the oath-taker supposed to do?
Run this scenario. Suppose Obamacare is upheld in the federal courts, and they then move to implementation. Suppose at that point one of the states, Texas, let us say, resurrects the old doctrine of state nullification. Let us say that the governor and legislature of Texas together say that this bill is an unconstitutional monstrosity, which is true enough, and they declare it null and void within the state of Texas. That being the case, they call upon the citizens of Texas to refrain from filing their income taxes in the coming year. Now what?
My point is a very limited one here. If that were to happen, what would the duty of Christians be? No, I am not arguing that it would be our duty to move to Texas. I am talking about Christians who are living in Texas already. What does Romans 13 require of them? Taxes to whom taxes are due, and Texas to whom Texas is due.
When a magistrate tells you to disobey a magistrate, what then? It is too facile to say that must always obey the highest one in the hierarchy, the one named Yertle, because in the American system, the consent of the governed is the highest one in the hierarchy. One man in the grip of historical arcana about the Constitution is not obviously the voice of the people. But if this sentiment were expressed in an orderly way, by millions of people, through the existing magistrates, then the situation is entirely different.
What to do now? Well, it seems to me that this is a reasonable question to ask candidates for state and local office, in the next round of elections. "Do you believe that someone in the office you are aspiring to has the right and responsibility to protect the people he represents from an overweening, centralized government, and to provide them with a lawful avenue for resisting such encroachments? Why or why not?"
No comments:
Post a Comment