You say that as though some major religions don't have pacifism
Aye. A fair point.
But it should be noted we do not make pacifists fight in the army. IOW we don't force them to participate in the activity.
Someone paying taxes does not participate in any given activity. Tax dollars (with the exception of MEDI/SSI) aren't dedicated. Income taxes are fungible. Meaning... the pacifist cannot detect where their particular dollars are being spent by the government. That is not true for an individual making a purchase of a specific
product or service on behalf of another individual.
Further, tax revenues are removed from the individual. After paying the IRS, the pacifist is no longer in control of that money. And the individual hold NO decisionary power over how that money is spent. The individual taxpayer is not directing the money to war material. The government is doing that. As such the pacifist bears no responsibility for how his tax dollars are spent.
This is not the case with a private purchase of a product. HL has control over how it's own money spent, and have the duty to act within the directive of it's religion, values, or whims. Because they write the checks directly --they the active participant and are accountable for the results. It's HL's money --NOT THE GOVERNMENT's, NOR EMPLOYEE's.
That is the mistake HL's opponents are making. They are claiming right to decide where HL's money is spent. It is a claim of another's property without title.
Bottom line... individuals should have the most possible control over their own spending as possible. We can argue that taxes go against that. But even if so... one wrong does not justify another.
This post was edited on 12/28 at 4:50 pm