- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 3:05 pm to Champagne
Posted on 1/2/26 at 3:05 pm to Champagne
quote:
We've happened upon a genuine topic for great debate here. It's a rare event that we find a topic so perfect for genuine interesting debate.
You can say that again. It certainly is more interesting than yet another 15+ page thread dissecting the latest utterances by Nick Fuentes or Candace Owens.
0
Posted on 1/2/26 at 3:32 pm to FooManChoo
Render unto Caesar, what is Caesars.
Your money does not belong to the government.
Taxes are to provide a way for the government to provide roads, some utilities, and services needed by the people. They in no sense of the word, have a right to your income. It never belonged to Caesar. It’s supposed to be a mutual agreement between the people and their government. It has totally gotten out of control.
Your money does not belong to the government.
Taxes are to provide a way for the government to provide roads, some utilities, and services needed by the people. They in no sense of the word, have a right to your income. It never belonged to Caesar. It’s supposed to be a mutual agreement between the people and their government. It has totally gotten out of control.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 3:37 pm to Champagne
quote:
I'm not sure that a Governor of an American Colony had any greater moral right to launch an armed revolution than did any peasant farmer or peasant innkeeper, but, this requirement does provide some control and modulation, and that's good.
If a rebellion is illegitimate unless approved by a government official, the logic either collapses into infinite regression OR it makes the legitimacy of rebellion dependent upon rank rather than morality.
The former is an endless loop without a starting point while the latter is not a moral argument but instead is a procedural argument.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:08 pm to Champagne
quote:I appreciate the desire for biblical warrant, and would state that I wouldn't hold to something dogmatically that cannot be drawn directly (or indirectly) from the Scriptures, either in direct statement or principled inference. If ever someone can show that anything I say is ultimately unbiblical, I must consider it carefully and reject it, or lower it to the status of unbinding tradition or application, so thank you for that reminder, first of all
The topic is worthy of analysis.
I'm not sure that a Governor of an American Colony had any greater moral right to launch an armed revolution than did any peasant farmer or peasant innkeeper, but, this requirement does provide some control and modulation, and that's good.
I'm not sure where this "Governor's Exception" can be cited in the Bible, even if we agree it makes sense.
I think the principle of the lesser magistrate having authority to rebel against a greater magistrate comes from several biblical principles.
The first is that the civil magistrate is ordained by God, but it is limited in its scope of authority. Romans 13:1-4 speaks to this concept, where the governing authorities are servants of God and granted authority by Him, and therefore are limited in what they can legitimately do within their scope of authority; it is meant to reward good and punish evil, and if it goes against that mandate, it is acting contrary to the will of God.
The next principle is that civil disobedience is required when a command goes against what God has commanded. This is found in Acts 4:19-20 and 5:29, as well as Daniel chapters 3 and 6. If a greater magistrate is acting tyrannically, the lesser magistrate must disobey and even rebel to do what is pleasing and obedient to God, instead.
Next, going back to Romans 13, we see that the magistrates are given the sword, which is a way of describing the lawful use of violence in the name of justice and keeping peace for the people (rewarding good and punishing evil). The lesser magistrate has this authority just as much as the greater magistrate.
Lastly, there are biblical examples of lesser magistrates intervening and resisting the authority of the greater magistrates, such as 2 Chronicles 23, where the tyrant Athaliah, who usurped the throne as Queen, was deposed and executed by the Priests and Captains of the army. The book of judges is also filled with individuals that God called to the position of judge, and rebelled against tyrannical oppression of foreign rulers.
It's a rather clumsy defense, as I'm no expert on this, but it was the position of Augustine and later developed by Aquinas, based on biblical principles of submission to authority (civilians are supposed to submit even to wicked rulers), and responsibilities for those in authority (the office is granted both the authority of the sword and the responsibility of faithful rulership). Therefore, the lesser magistrate, by his authority as a magistrate to minister the sword of justice, has a special authority that the civilian does not have, and therefore has a responsibility before God and for the people to serve both faithfully in rewarding good and punishing evil, even if the higher authority or greater magistrate commands otherwise.
I hope that's at least marginally helpful.
As an aside, I'm glad to not be debating Protestantism vs Catholicism for a moment
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:28 pm to yakster
quote:To my knowledge, it has always been the case that the subjects of a government/ruler owed some tribute to their rulers, whether as a sign of devotion and fealty, or funds for protection and amenities for being on their land. Taxes, therefore, were owed to governors/rulers, meaning that the people under their jurisdiction were not entitled to live there for free nor to keep all of wat they owned, but were to give a portion to their lord or king.
Render unto Caesar, what is Caesars.
Your money does not belong to the government.
Taxes are to provide a way for the government to provide roads, some utilities, and services needed by the people. They in no sense of the word, have a right to your income. It never belonged to Caesar. It’s supposed to be a mutual agreement between the people and their government. It has totally gotten out of control.
The Israelites owed a tithe to God, which was a percentage of the fruits of their labor. Since that came out of their income, it could have been considered an income tax, except it wasn't always money, per se, that was "taxed", but the produce (crops or animals, typically) that they had as increase that was given to God, since Israel was a theocracy.
But back to Jesus and the Roman tax: the point He was making was that since the coin was made by Rome, who had dominion of Israel, they had the right to demand the money as a tax for its subjects. Jesus didn't dispute this, but told the people to give to Caesar what belongs to Him. Paul was more explicit when he said in Romans 13: "For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
The language of "owing" is that of obligation. Taxes are obligated payments to the government. You may disagree, but that wasn't the view of people throughout history.
But I agree with you that tax situation in America is absurd, and there is too much waste. It's why we need godly leaders who want to rein in the waste and reduce the tax burden on citizens.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:31 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:I would say the procedural argument is moral at its core, because the reason why citizens are to submit to their governors is because God has placed them in power, and therefore to disobey rulers is to disobey the God who put in them place. Submission to governing authorities is a moral issue, which is why the 1st and 5th commandments exist: one is about submission to God and the other is about submission to human authorities that God has instituted. Both ultimately lead back to submission to God.
If a rebellion is illegitimate unless approved by a government official, the logic either collapses into infinite regression OR it makes the legitimacy of rebellion dependent upon rank rather than morality.
The former is an endless loop without a starting point while the latter is not a moral argument but instead is a procedural argument.
Therefore, it is a moral act to submit to authorities that you disagree with, so long as they aren't commanding you to sin. That's where disobedience is a moral obligation.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I would say the procedural argument is moral at its core, because the reason why citizens are to submit to their governors is because God has placed them in power, and therefore to disobey rulers is to disobey the God who put in them place. Submission to governing authorities is a moral issue, which is why the 1st and 5th commandments exist: one is about submission to God and the other is about submission to human authorities that God has instituted. Both ultimately lead back to submission to God.
Therefore, it is a moral act to submit to authorities that you disagree with, so long as they aren't commanding you to sin. That's where disobedience is a moral obligation.
This is a tautology since Colonial Governors in the Crown Colonies were appointed by the King.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 5:38 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:They had authority in their office, and if they used that authority to defy tyranny, that is still legitimate.
This is a tautology since Colonial Governors in the Crown Colonies were appointed by the King.
The appointment is procedural but the authority remains, and God says that He is the ultimate cause (first cause) of the authorities in place and He gives them such authority, so it doesn’t matter if they are appointed directly by the King or someone else.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 1/2/26 at 5:43 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They had authority in their office, and if they used that authority to defy tyranny, that is still legitimate.
What gave the Colonial Governor authority? The King or God?
Posted on 1/2/26 at 6:01 pm to FooManChoo
Yes, that's a helpful answer.
But, there were no Colonial Governors who called for armed revolution against the British King. Patrick Henry called for revolution but he was a member of the Colonial Legislature.
I'm not sure that under your model of analysis, we can confidently conclude that the American Revolution was good in the eyes of God. In fact, the analysis IMHO seems to lean towards the conclusion that the American Revolution was immoral and wrong.
But, there were no Colonial Governors who called for armed revolution against the British King. Patrick Henry called for revolution but he was a member of the Colonial Legislature.
I'm not sure that under your model of analysis, we can confidently conclude that the American Revolution was good in the eyes of God. In fact, the analysis IMHO seems to lean towards the conclusion that the American Revolution was immoral and wrong.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 6:12 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News