More wisdom from Judge Andrew Napolitano: https://youtube/watch?v=lA_Yl_JCdFg I think the only thing I would disagree with the Judge on would be the notion that all taxation is theft, because I believe there is such a thing as a justified tax that is not theft. The reason behind this is that in contract theory, there is the idea of an implied contract, where person A provides services to person B without person A seeking those services, person A pays for those services, and the services and payment for them continue on for a time without any formal or informal agreement between the two parties as to the services and the payment for them. For example,:I own a seafood restaurant, and a new fishmonger in the area decides to leave great salmon on my restaurants back door step. I accept the offering, and a week later, theres the salmon again on my restaurants back door step. The salmon is top notch, so I decide to pay for both batches by leaving money in an envelope on the back door step should he come again. The fishmonger comes again, leaves the salmon, and takes the money. This arrangement, tho not agreed to verbally or formally, or even informally for that matter, has become a legally binding contract, given the actions of the parties involved. Should I, as the restaurant owner, decide one say to stop paying for the fishmongers salmon, yet still accepting the salmon, claiming there was no contract involved and thus his salmon is merely is gift and I am not obligated to pay for it, the court would look at the actions of both parties and, equitably, would justifiably order I pay for the last batch of salmon and specify whether I would like to continue accepting the salmon or not. Such is the case, I believe as of now, with certain taxes. When a person benefits from the protection of their property and rights from the government that claims authority over the area in which they dwell and own property and exercise their rights, and this person never expresses that he/she would not like to benefit from the government claiming authority over the area in which they dwell, but continues to benefit from its protection ad continues to pay for its services via taxation, then just compensation for this protection is in order, equitably. Now this is not to say ALL taxation is justified because of this notion of an implied contract,or that ALL forms of taxation is just and not theft. I believe that much taxation is theft, and that much of it today is unjust and inequitable. But, I do believe that some taxation for services rendered by government in the protection of a persons property and rights is justified when there is no express opposition to the services rendered, as just compensation. I could be entirely wrong in viewing taxation this way. I dont know. I would rather all things be done voluntarily by everyone in the world, but that will never happen until Christ comes again. But, until that time, I think some form of taxation in the way I just explained is in order. Again, tho, I may just have limited understanding on the matter. If you feel Im wrong, feel free to point out to me my error in my logic. Im not perfect, and if your argument is reasonable, I could be persuaded to see otherwise.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:30:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015