Taxation: Not Theft

By -
At least not according to scripture:

'Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?'

'“Collect no more than you are authorized,” [John] answered.'

-- Luke, 3:13

Nowhere in scripture, that I'm aware of, does a prophet advise listeners to commit just an authorized amount of adultery, or worship false gods just so far as the state asks them to.

Comments

  1. Keshav Srinivasan9:43 AM

    I think Bob Murphy would probably interpret this line the same way he interprets the “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” line. He says that it means that if you owe something to Caesar then you should pay it to Caesar, which doesn’t imply that you actually owe something to Caesar. So in this case he’d probably say it means you should collect as much as it is morally justified to collect, which does not imply that there is any nonzero amount that is morally justified for you to collect.

    All of which I think is clearly a strained reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:10 PM

      That's definitely not what John says there: he says "Collect no more than is prescribed," i.e., the legal amount of the tax. He is telling tax collectors not to extort any additional funds from the taxpayers.

      Delete
    2. Ken B11:24 PM

      And that if they do so then they can be baptized, ie meet the minimum moral requirements. There is no suggestion they abjure tax collection.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more