- This topic has 23 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
That is my new motto.
See, I finally figured out a question that has been irking me for a while. See, I am a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I kind of think that the government should let people starve to death.
The question is how to reconcile that with my belief in the Torah’s moral obligations of tzedaka.
It is no answer to say that the torah is only a moral obligation and not a legal one, for two reasons.
First, that should make no difference. If there is a moral obligation, it is in fact obligated.
Second, the Torah does provide that Beis Din forces people to give tzedaka.
So for a while I just lived along with this question, knowing that I was correct on both, but not being able to solve the apparent contradiction. But now I’ve solved it, and it is pashut.
The answer is that of course a government should force its citizens to live morally, and of course it is moral to support poor people, to the degree they require. ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??.
But, that is not what is going on in America, or in Europe. Instead, it is just thievery, where the citizens vote to take money from others and give it themselves. That is not something the torah would support. That is not something I support.
I think in a democracy, we should not allow people to vote for redistribution of wealth to themselves. When people do that, it is immoral. Redistribution of wealth should only be done in a monarchy, or autocracy–where the people making the decision are not the recipients.
Thus, no taxation with representation.
(My other maxim is “No taxation without sixteenth amendmentation”.)
Can’t be reconciled.
shmoel: It can be reconciled perfectly the second you let go of the idea that any power should be absolute.
I have always reconciled the problem with a strong commitment to federalism: I oppose the Federal government taxing people to redistribute wealth, but I strongly support taxation at a local level to provide welfare, healthcare, housing, and other such services for the poor within that jurisdiction. I believe this squares with the halachic model of expansive taxation and redistribution powers at the kehillah level, and the heavy burden born by gabbayei tzeddakah to use the funds efficiently and without waste – this can only be done by local, accountable bureaucratic administering welfare to local needy with minimal overhead and fraud.
You seriously think that in a monarchy the people making the decision about taxes are not the recipients of tax dollars?
America is a democracy. We tax ourselves. If public opinion favored closing down government services and abolishing taxes, it would come to pass. The fact that most people favor high services but without the taxes to pay for them is an interesting problem, and potential crisis. Note the absence of people demanding they pay more taxes, as well as the absence of people demanding fewer services and benefits.
Torah is not a democracy. Torah states much of what we as a community must provide, and gives a framework for raising the money. Given the needs of supporting the poor, educating all children and supporting a high level of scholarship, there is a problem that needs always exceed income. So we rely on Ha-Shem and since we’ve survived this long, we must be doing something right.
Again, as opposed to a monarchy, where the 0.00001% can and did tax the the 99.99999% for, among other things, his own personal living expenses. How is that not a much worse example of the thing you are complaining about?
of course a government should force its citizens to live morally
oho
Agav, is the 16th amendment really the seminal legal basis for taxation of income? How exactly was it constitutionalized?
A monarchy under a good and just monarch operates much better than a democracy. The problem with monarchy is that there is no way to insure that.
A monarch has the ability to get things done that are better for the long term without the need for a shortsighted four-year result. He can get things done without a congress full of local-minded individuals hampering his efforts for the sake of their own re-election.
When Moshiach comes we will see the benefits of a righteous king. Until then, democracy is the only safe way to go. But as Ben Franklyn said, the minute people figure out that they can vote themselves money democracy is doomed.
I meant taxing income b’chlal – as opposed to property or excise taxes. How exactly did they built up to that shebang?
I think democracy is kind of like communism – sorta perfect in theory, yet never works quite right in reality. 😛
” A monarchy under a good and just monarch operates much better than a democracy. The problem with monarchy is that there is no way to insure that.”
Of course there is a way to insure it, there is a commercial line of insurance called political risk insurance.
You’re making an artificial distinction. You wouldn’t call Buckingham Palace a social program, because it doesn’t benefit society. It is however an example of the proceeds of wealth redistribution in exactly the same way Medicaid is (except that it’s an example of redistribution from everyone but the richest to the richest. It’s precisely as likely that you’ll discover a monarchy that is run without regard for self-interest as it is that you’ll find a democracy that is run that way.
As for the historical tax rates, the largest difference between now and early times isn’t democracy, it’s that better enforcement mechanisms exist (mainly the possibility of mass imprisonment and the fact that respected borders between nation-states limit options for fleeing from authority). Some quick Googling told me that the only two countries I can think of which could test this question (Jordan and Swaziland, which are strong monarchies that don’t have resources to fund their governments) both have tax rates roughly similar to the US. (Jordan has 16% income tax and a 14% VAT, Swaziland has a 33% income tax and a 14% VAT)
I do understand that, but that’s not a function of democracy; it’s a function of every government. In every monarchy the king also votes himself benefits.
So you’re opposed to all forms of government?
You’ve said you’re opposed to governments which transfer wealth to the people in power. You seem to recognize that this is something all governments do. What am I missing?
So what type of government would that be? What set me off here was that in you original post you said that in a monarchy redistribution of wealth isn’t done by its recipients. That just isn’t true. But either way, there really isn’t such thing as a government where the ruling class does not act in its own interests. At least in the US (outside of California and its referendum culture) the thing you’re describing does not literally occur, even if you’re right that it’s happening figuratively.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.