I don’t necessarily agree with the notion that all taxation is theft. First, I’d like to give a Biblical look at taxes. Here is the argument against the notion that taxes are theft.

P1. All taxation is theft.
P2. God commanded taxes in the OT (Exodus 30:11-16).
C. God commanded theft in the OT.

The issue is that God would never command theft in the OT(Exodus 20:15). It cannot simply be said this is the OT and is irrelevant to us today. The issues with that response are that we don’t treat the Old Testament like that. It also allows for God to command moral evil in the Old Testament. That is an attack on the God of the Bible itself.

The “shekel” is mentioned in 21: 32. A “half shekel” (v. 13) is about one-fifth of an ounce. This tax must be paid by adults of military age (v. 14). The fact that the rich are to give the same amount as the poor shows that it is not how much one has that obtains atonement for his life (v. 15). The proceeds from the census tax are to be used by the Levites in their service for the Lord and are also to serve as a memorial for the Israelites (v. 16).

Kaiser, Jr., Walter C.. Exodus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 7340-7343). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Over at T-blog I asked Steve Hays his thoughts on this political philosophy and here was the result.

I asked:
This question is irrelevant to the video, but do you have any thoughts on Anarcho-capitalism and “Taxes being theft”?

steve said:

I don’t think taxes in principle are theft. The electorate consents to taxation. In society, we sometimes pool our collective financial resources for the common good. That’s the idealistic justification.

Taxation for purposes of income redistribution is theft. Taxation that goes above and beyond the mandated duties of gov’t is theft.

I said:
Would it be theft for those that wish not to participate for the common good? I think that we usually pay taxes voluntarily and that really isn’t theft. It isn’t the same thing as someone breaking into our house and taking my property. What thief leaves a military, roads and etc behind? You’re completely right on income redistribution being theft.

steve said:

The social contract involves ceding a degree of individual freedom. In a representative democracy, the majority makes decisions for everyone.

Admittedly, that principle can allow for opt-out provisions in many cases. Take taxation for public education. If a parent chooses an alternative to public education, he ought to get a tax credit. Why should he pay into a system when he doesn’t receive the benefit?

In addition, there are tons of gratuitous licensing fees that only exist to pad the gov’t coffers.

I’m struck by how passive the electorate is in letting gov’t rip them off. In a representative democracy, it’s ultimately up to the pubic to determine the rate of taxation. But many people either get used to the status quo, and don’t notice it anymore, or are addicted to invasive gov’t.

I said:
Well, this will be my last question on this issue to keep you from getting bogged down on this issue. I think an Anarcho-capitalist would maintain that the social contract and the state are at a conflict of interest. That the state being apart of the social contract is in conflict with the role of a state that makes laws. The problem I think with that is that the State isn’t the final arbiter of conflicts. That the U.S. has a constitution and isn’t just arbitrarily setting statutes.
I think this is based on Voluntaryism. So, what are your thoughts on Voluntaryism? Thank you for your thoughts and God bless.

steve said:

Voluntarism is too one-sided. Because humans are social creatures who live in community, it is often necessary for humans to take collective action to survive and thrive. Hence, it isn’t feasible for each and every individual to have the right to veto collective action. There’s a coercive element to social life. Individual liberties must be counterbalanced against the rights and needs of other individuals. And cooperation must sometimes be imposed. That’s unavoidable given the fact that humans depend on other humans to flourish.

Our Constitutional system of gov’t is one such attempt. Once ratified by the people’s elected representatives, it is default binding on subsequent generations who didn’t vote for it.

However, the Constitution itself has a mechanism for subsequent generations to renegotiate the social contract by amendment or even a Constitutional convention. And the status quo isn’t absolute. In extreme cases, revolution remains and option. Indeed, that’s how the Constitution came into being.

Majorities can be tyrannical, but so can ruling elites. I don’t think there’s a purely abstract way to balance individual liberties over against the common good. I think we need to begin with some specific rights and responsibilities in reference to individual and social ethics alike. The Bible is the primary frame of reference. Of course, that has its own complications, but that’s the best starting-point.