Can the State Steal?

Can the state ethically steal? What about taxes? There are some laws that give the state the right to take half of a dead man's property. Is this stealing in God's sight?

Discuss!

The first thing that comes to my mind is what Jesus said about taxes. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:17

But the whole question is, what exactly is Caesar's? This has been a topic of debate for a long time. It is hard to tell where to draw the line with regard to obeying the government; where exactly is the point where we would be sinning if we yielded to the state's demands?

But, where should we draw the line? The state requires taxes. How much is too much?

Jesus said "give unto Caesar the things that are Ceasar's"…

NOT "give unto Caesar everything he wants that is yours."

How do we define what is 'Caesars', then?

How do we define what is 'Caesars', then?

Aye, that is the next question.

What do you mean can the state steal? That's what they've been doing for the past 100 years.

But have they really been stealing? Or is it just and right?

Yes they have been stealing.

But have they really been stealing? Or is it just and right?

!

Since when did God say stealing was just and right?

Oh, stop. You know what I meant.

xD

:P

I have an answer: yes. The state can steal. And I’ll prove it.

First let me clear up a point: I am aware that Jesus said “Lend unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” And that’s my point. Notice He did NOT say “Lend unto Caesar the things that are yours.”

So first, let’s define stealing. Stealing means taking something from someone else and keeping it yourself, especially if you’re claiming it as your own, without their consent—unless you have a Biblical reason to do so, such as if you take away and hide a weapon someone is trying to use on you, just for a random example. But if someone steals something from you, it does not become theirs. It is still yours no matter where it is. So stealing doesn’t mean you take something and make it yours without the consent of the owner—that’s impossible. Stealing is when you keep something from its owner.

What does the Bible say about keeping things from their owner? Don’t do it. So just because the state is in a position of authority doesn’t mean they don’t have to obey that.

But does this mean that whenever they require something from you, it’s robbery? Not at all. We owe the government payment for the work they do for us. We pay them through taxes. However, this does not mean that all taxes are Biblical. The inheritance tax, for example, is outright robbery. When you inherit something, it is yours; no one has any right to take it for any reason. So if you could somehow work out some sneaky trick to avoid paying the inheritance tax, it would be entirely Biblical. The property tax is another rip. We own our cars and houses; the government has no business trying to… steal them from us if we don’t keep paying for something that is already ours. However, the income tax is simply a way of giving the government the payment they deserve for what they do for us. Even though we earned our income, they earn the income tax by their work for us.

Now, what if you can’t pay your taxes? What if you just don’t have enough money to pay for both taxes and your basic human needs? Then the government needs to either lower your taxes or help you (assuming that you’re not just a lazy bum who went broke on lottery tickets.

Still not convinced? Are you saying that we need to obey the authorities God has put in place by giving them whatever they ask for that belongs to us? Well, again, being in a position of governmental authority is not free access to everything your subjects have. A subject is his own person. If you say the state can’t steal, you’re basically saying the eighth commandment doesn’t apply to the government; and anything they do that would otherwise be stealing is perfectly fine, just because they’re the government.

Let me help you with perspective. If you say that the state can’t steal, you’re saying that if the state wants something we own, then they have every right to it—they’ve got what it takes to take what we’ve got. If that’s the logic you’re going to use, then you MUST also believe that the state cannot murder. That would mean that if the state decides they want you dead, they have every right to *makes cut throat gesture * you. If you believe the state can’t steal but can murder, then you’re going by double-standard logic. For a less dramatic example, what if the state tries to take away your children? Is that just and right? Would giving your children to the state, if they demanded it, be giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s? Uh, no. And a father owns his children just as he owns his money. Of course, his children are much more important, but he still owns both.

Maybe you think that the state can steal, but if they do, we still have to submit to it. But the Bible says that no one is allowed to steal. So just as people who are not in authority do not have the right to steal from each other, people who are in authority do not have the authority to steal from their subjects. Any authority is capable of stealing, but no one has the authority to steal, no matter what position of authority they are in. And if anyone gives a command that they don’t have the God-given authority to give, it is void.

So there ya’ll go. Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, unto God the things that are God’s, if you may keep for yourselves the things that are yours—and Caesar must allow you to do that.

4th paragraph
“….sneaky trick to avoid paying….” lawyers ring-around-the-rosy. People have been playing it since before the Laws of Chivalry (even the pharisees had their own version of it). And (just for the record) it works both ways.

5th
“….the government needs to either lower your taxes …” Amen! “…or help you…” I'm not so sure… I mean it might be nice to have some help when things get ruff money wise. And sure it is their fault . But I don't think that it's the governments job to give hand-outs (just look at the Caesar Heath Care we have been blessed with). ^sorry if I'm geting off topic^

My thoughts.
Over all I don't think it matters how right we are. If theres something you don't like (like tax laws) your supposed to wright respectful letters and let those in authority know what you think and your reasons for thinking what you do. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this, but it doesn't matter.

About Caesar.
If Caesar says the toys are his. Caesar says the toys are his. And when Caesar has said the toys are his…THE TOYS ARE HIS! Stealing? Nope. They're his. He just said so. By the way…He has money/jail/police/guns/tanks/ballisticMissiles/otherThings/ext to enforce it. So play nice.

Nathan, can you give me a Biblical example of rebelling against authority in order to keep them from stealing from you (or a related example, anything to do with resisting the evil that another person wants to do - such as killing someone who wants to kill you)? I agree with Roy for the most part - it doesn't matter how right we are, there is a point when we must submit to the people doing the wrong rather than rebelling. After all, they are the authorities God has instituted.

If Caesar says that our things are his, they're NOT his. They're ours. Just 'cause he's in a position of authority doesn't mean the eighth commandment suddenly doesn't apply to him. As for rebellion, how about when the Israelite midwives saved the baby boys? Using Roy's logic, we MUST say that it was wrong for the midwives to do that, because Pharaoh commanded that they be killed–and, for that matter, it would not be murder, because Pharaoh has the right to execute who he wants to execute, for whatever reason he wants.

If anyone tries to steal from us, we have the right to defend what is ours. If this means defying what the government says, that's not even rebelling against authority, because there IS no authority for anyone to give such a command. If we own something, it's ours; and Caesar has absolutely no right to it whatsoever unless he has a Biblical reason for confiscating it. Should we still obey if he tries to take it? No, because–once again–he does not have the authority to take it, because God specifically says that no one has the authority to steal.

Could you not also consider taxes as a form of payment for services rendered? After all, our first-class military and emergency room service are not staffed by full volunteers. These must be paid for somehow. As we all benefit from them, it would seem like we owe them something. Taxes is a form of collecting that something. Yes, the money is technically yours, but you could also say that you are refusing to pay your bill, in a sense, and in cases like that, it would not actually be yours (If you had to foreclose "your" house, that would not really be theft on the bank's part, especially as you did not fulfill your payment agreement).

Okay, all that you said about the government and its limited authority is well and good. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that we, as civilians, have no authority to resist the government, or tell it what to do (except for the "authority" that our republican form of government has so graciously given us). Besides that, it's not really our problem to "force" someone to not sin.

Who are we to determine "This much you can have, Caesar, but don't try to take any more or it will be evil"? Obviously differing people have differing opinions on how much should the government tax, including the people that make up the actual government of this country. Of course, we think our opinion is the best. Heh.

I might also bring your attention to a story from the Bible to back up my point with Scripture: 1 Samuel chapter 8 describes the children of Israel demanding a king so they can be like other nations, because Samuel was getting old and his sons were snakes. Samuel warned the people in verses 11-18 of all the things that the new king would take from them. If God wanted to let us know we somehow had the right to resist the government and withhold these things from it, here is a perfect place to do it. Yet there is no mention of this happening. I think part of the reason is because whatever we do to forcibly resist the government isn't really going to work; all we will really end up doing is wasting our lives. (Notice, "He will take the best of your fields, he will take a tenth of your grain, you will be his servants".) I wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's actually our fault that God is judging the people of America with the problems we have today. I wonder if God actually put up the leaders He has in place today because of the way we have turned away from Him. Yes, our government is corrupt; but haven't we, the people of the United States of America, corrupted it? Isn't that truly Biblical?

Okay, so that example is rather unclear. It doesn't specifically back up my point; it just gives an example of the situation we are talking about, to put perspective into this conversation. Let's let the clear interpret the unclear.

What about submitting to your masters? Peter and Paul both cover this topic in their epistles. Peter says "Be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully." Again, "When you do good and suffer for it, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God." Can this not be extrapolated to apply to submitting to government as well? I don't think I have to try to explain how 1 Peter 2:18-24 easily applies to this situation.

Finally, I have my doubts about the whole idea of "rights". I really don't think I have any "rights" at all. A proper, Biblical view of oneself is not "I am important, I have my rights and you can't infringe upon them!" Much more appropriate is the humility of "I am so thankful that God has allowed me to live another day." Because in reality, we have no rights before our God but to be condemned to death, because of our absolute depravity before Him. Think of the absolute humility of our Lord Jesus Christ. He, if anyone, had every right to be treated with respect and honor. He had every right to a fair trial. Because He was innocent, He had every right to go free. But again, Peter says that "when He was reviled, [He] did not revile in return; when he suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously". (1 Peter 2:23) Paul: "Christ Jesus…being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but…He humbled Himself and become obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross". (Philippians 2:5-8) In the words of our Lord Himself: "Do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" (Matthew 26:53-54) We have a Scripture to fulfill. That is 1 Peter 2:21: "To this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps."

Don't get me wrong; I am so thankful for the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the freedom those principles give us today. I would like to point out, though, that the Founding Fathers of this country were not concerned with their own welfare. The "inalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration are not concerned with my own personal wants as much as they are for the good of all of mankind. They are an attempt to make the world (or at least this corner of it) a better place to sojourn. Without these principles, a nation cannot be truly Christian. But this does not mean that we as Christians must insist upon having our rights met.

"As for rebellion, how about when the Israelite midwives saved the baby boys?" The midwives were not wrong to disobey the command to murder. (They were wrong, however, to lie to Pharaoh about it, if indeed they did lie.) "We ought to obey God rather than men"; Pharaoh had commanded them to murder, so obviously they did not carry out the command. But letting the state steal from us is not sin, is it?

"If anyone tries to steal from us, we have the right to defend what is ours. If this means defying what the government says, that's not even rebelling against authority, because there IS no authority for anyone to give such a command."
"Should we still obey if he tries to take it? No, because—once again—he does not have the authority to take it, because God specifically says that no one has the authority to steal."
Again, is there any Scripture you have to back these statements up? Where do you find that it is sin to insist upon our rights, and that it is okay to rebel against a wrongdoing authority?

Could you not also consider taxes as a form of payment for services rendered? After all, our first-class military and emergency room service are not staffed by full volunteers. These must be paid for somehow. As we all benefit from them, it would seem like we owe them something. Taxes is a form of collecting that something. Yes, the money is technically yours, but you could also say that you are refusing to pay your bill, in a sense, and in cases like that, it would not actually be yours (If you had to foreclose "your" house, that would not really be theft on the bank's part, especially as you did not fulfill your payment agreement).

Uh, yeah… you're right! I agree with all that, though there are exceptions to your last statement, such as if someone is incapable of fulfilling their agreement by a certain time, etc. I'm not condemning taxes at all.

Who are we to determine "This much you can have, Caesar, but don't try to take any more or it will be evil"? We don't have the right to do that. I'm not saying at what point the state is stealing; I'm just saying that the state can in fact do it. An example would be if they're taking so much from us that we can't afford to live reasonable lives, or if our inheritance is taken away from us.

There is no proof against what I'm saying in 1 Samuel 8; God was just warning His people of what would happen. He wasn't saying that the king had any right to do it.

When slaves are commanded to submit to masters, even to the harsh ones, it means that they should not rise up in a rebellion. But if the master commands something cruel, such as "stand here and don't run away while I beat you half to death" (just to make up an example), they wouldn't have to obey that. When Paul says "obey in all things those who are your earthly masters", it is a general statement. I could rattle of plenty of examples when the word "all" is used in the Bible and goes with exceptions. So there's no reason to believe that this is any different, especially when you consider this: the HEART of God's Law is justice; and God is a God of love. But you're saying that under this law and God, civilians have to helplessly submit to any horrific thing the government does as long as they are not required to disobey God. Is that what God wants? No, and it's not what He means, either. No; this can't be proven 100%, but neither can it be disproven–and there is not much evidence against it.

A proper, Biblical view of oneself is not "I am important, I have my rights and you can't infringe upon them!" True. A proper, Biblical view IS “God has made me important; I am thankful that He has given me rights; He does not allow you do infringe upon them.” Of course we deserve to go to Hell, but that’s irrelevant, because we deserve to be punished by God for our sins against Him. We deserve bad, I know; but in some sense, no one deserves to be abused by anyone. (God punishing us is not abuse.) That’s kind of the whole point of the definition of “abuse.” And in light of your example of Jesus: does that mean that if we’re falsely accused of something and brought to trial for it, it is not appropriate to defend ourselves? Do we just have to stand there is silence? Jesus had special reasons for doing what He did how He did it—and while we must, of course, handle mistreatment in a Godly way, that does not mean we cannot defend ourselves from oppression.

The Israelite midwives would have been wrong to kill the babies themselves, because they were not government officials. But if we’re going to go by the logic you and Roy are proposing, we have to say that it would not have been wrong for the king’s appointed officials to kill the babies, because what the government says goes; and if they want to execute someone, it can’t be murder because of their authority. Also, we have to say that it would be wrong—rebellious—for anyone to try to protect the babies. There’s no way around this.

Again, is there any Scripture you have to back these statements up? Yes. “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.” There you go. God said it. No one has the authority to steal. So if the government tries to steal and we refuse to submit to that, it is not rebellion. There is no authority behind the command to allow them to steal, and we can’t rebel against authority that doesn’t exist.

Was Naboth wrong to refuse to give his inheritance to (King) Ahab?

You're right - there's nothing concrete in 1 Samuel 8; I was just making a point that God is the one that appoints the authorities, and brings upon us affliction from them because of our nation's evil deeds. This just makes all the more sense of the principle of submitting to and learning from the affliction that God has brought, instead of rebelling against it.

But if the master commands something cruel, such as "stand here and don't run away while I beat you half to death" (just to make up an example), they wouldn't have to obey that. Uhh… Yes they would, they wouldn't really have any choice… :)

But you're saying that under this law and God, civilians have to helplessly submit to any horrific thing the government does as long as they are not required to disobey God. Let me rephrase that… According to the Bible, Christians should submit to the government's actions against them, no matter how horrific, as long as they themselves are not required to disobey God. And by the way, except for the slight change in wording, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And it is what God "wants", that is, what He called His people to do. I think 1 Peter 2 makes it clear enough, but since you don't seem to be convinced, let's let Hebrews do its unique brand of magic. :) I think ESV says it best:

"But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you *joyfully accepted the plundering of your property*, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised." Hebrews 10:32-36

There you go. I don't think it can be much clearer than that. :) Don't you love Hebrews?!?

A proper, Biblical view IS “God has made me important; I am thankful that He has given me rights; He does not allow you do infringe upon them.” I tend to disagree. Jesus had every right in the world; but if God had not allowed them to infringe upon His rights… I don't even want to think about what would have happened. And I think it's pretty obvious that God, at least while we wait on His return, +does+ allow others to infringe upon our rights. It happens every day. The evil will receive their just reward in due time; but until then, vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to us. However, even assuming for the moment that what you said is true, in saying "He does not allow you to infringe upon my rights", we transfer the responsibility of ourselves over to God. We are not required, nor should we try, to stop an authority from infringing upon our rights. That is the responsibility of God, as well as (ironically) our authorities. Again, remember, "Vengeance is Mine"??
And in light of your example of Jesus: does that mean that if we’re falsely accused of something and brought to trial for it, it is not appropriate to defend ourselves? Do we just have to stand there is silence? I am not saying that we cannot verbally defend ourselves. Paul defended himself in court; he also used his Roman citizenship at times to get out of a quandary. We certainly can appeal to the authority - Paul appealed to Caesar. But at least from what I've heard so far, you're talking more about physically keeping the authority from taking your property.

But if we’re going to go by the logic you and Roy are proposing, we have to say that it would not have been wrong for the king’s appointed officials to kill the babies, because what the government says goes; and if they want to execute someone, it can’t be murder because of their authority. Not at all. I think you're misunderstanding me. It is wrong for the government to steal from us, absolutely wrong. Yet, we do not have the right to rebel - because God has appointed them as rulers over us. Resisting them when it's human welfare at stake, rather than God's glory, is just as wrong as the government stealing. Oh yeah, and the government does have God-given authority to carry out capital punishment on a deserving individual. Not just for any reason though; it was wrong for Pharaoh to kill those babies.

I'm pretty sure you know "Thou shalt not steal" is not what I'm looking for. That verse is applicable to all; but it is not our job to make sure others don't steal. In addition, your definition of "rebellion", that is, going against the wishes of a figure of authority unless they are committing sin against you or infringing upon your rights; that definition is extremely arbitrary. I could just as well come up with another definition that suits my purposes better.
Anyways, what I am looking for - I'll spell it out one more time - is a Scripture that says, or implies, or illustrates, in so many words, "We have the right to resist God-given authorities, if they are trying to commit sin against us (e.g. steal from us)".

Was Naboth wrong to refuse to give his inheritance to King Ahab? That's easy; of course not! The business transaction that Ahab had proposed to Naboth was against the Law of Moses. Naboth would have been sinning had he carried it out. See Numbers 36:7; there's probably another verse earlier in the Pentateuch that mentions this too.

Again, Hebrews 10 is the answer. God is pleased, not when we insist upon our rights, but when we humbly allow them to be thrown to the wayside, disregarded and trampled upon, in the hope of the greater inheritance that is in store for us in heaven. :)

Okay; you have proven that it is commendable to let the government treat us horrifically. But going the other way is not sinful.

Now: you've made it clear that you agree that the government can steal, but you're saying we have no right to defend what is ours. What if the government tries to take away our children? What if the government tries to kill our children? Again, using your logic, we MUST say that since they are authority, we have to allow that (but it is still wrong of them). And that is a despicable philosophy. This isn't a "prosperity-gospel" thing, but what if man's welfare is what brings God glory?–because if man has a lot of things, like even money, he can use it for God's glory. One may defend himself perfectly Biblically, and if having all his rights taken away would bring God more glory, then God will make that happen. (I could also argue that if I own things that I am using to bring glory to God, then it would be wrong for me not to defend them.)

The definition of rebellion is to defy authority. Now, if God tells everyone not to do something, that means no one has the authority to do it. You're misunderstanding the concept of authority. It's not about what position you're in; it's how much authority you have. If a thug on the street demands that I give him my stuff, I have the right to defend myself then. And God said "Thou shalt not steal" to EVERYONE, so the government has no more authority to steal my stuff than a thug on the street. Let's look at this logically. (1) All authority comes from God. (2) God tells everyone not to steal. (3) If God tells someone not to give a certain command, then He has denied them that authority. (4) If God denies someone an authority, then any such command does not have God's authority behind it. (5) If a command does not have God's authority behind it, it is invalid. There; it's not about what authority you DO have. Various people have various authorities, and the government has a very broad authority–but NOBODY has the authority to steal, so the command "let me steal from you" carries no obligation with it, no matter who gives it or what other authorities they have.

So since rebellion is defiance against authority, by definition, you CAN'T rebel against the command to allow yourself to be stolen from–because God has not given that authority to anyone. People never have, had, or will have such authority–ever. However, it would absolutely be a commendable thing to obey such commands even though they are fallacious and null.

Also, using your logic, we must say that it is wrong for missionaries to smuggle Bibles into countries in which the Bible is illegal–because God never commanded us to do that. We can preach the Gospel without giving out Bibles.

Oh, and I don't think the midwives were wrong to lie, for this reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PLEI-MZnoDB4ZKY0e2OXzu-Pr9utOJ9f0n&v=l3KhZbh7aHk#t=783.

Nathan, if (like the midwifes) you are willing to face jail/thousandDollarFines/police/tanks/ballisticMissiles/FBI/otherThings/ext over a mere disagreement you have with Ceaser, I wont stop you (In-fact I might consider joining you).

However I think you should get your self elected, because (1)as correct as you may be…power hungry humans don't care. (2) I'll need somebody to wright letters to (and 3) our government was intended to operated by people with integrity. Without them it will crumble into socialism.

I'm not saying it would work out.

I wouldn't either. God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. His ways are higher then our ways.

Were our (American) forefathers of freedom wrong to fight against the English Stamp Act, Hat Act, Iron Act, Writ of Assistance, Parson's Cause, outrageous taxes, and evvvvvvvvverything else???

exert from the decoration of independince (italics added) …The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to acandid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people….

and the list goes on and on. ^here is a link if you want to read more http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.pdf^
my point? it wasn't over taxes. it was against a tyrant. further more the king had said they were no longer part of the crown and that he was going to reconquer them (V.a. the hessian troops)

The colonists were still disobeying what the government was telling them to do! See? It wasn't wrong because they didn't have such authority!

Sorry, I don't see. He kicked them out and was coming to reconquer them. What authority did the king have to refuse them their rights as English Men? Apparently they did need fancy chairs to tell Ceaser "No."

According to the charters Parliament didn't have the authority to tax the colonizes. And if they were given that authority, as English men the colonizes should have been represented in parliament.

Of course; of course. But my point is that the government was giving commands and the colonists were disobeying the commands–which, under the given circumstances, was perfectly Biblical.

I see! yes.

Don't have much time to reply right now, but I just wanted to point out that Roy is trying to say that they were basically a separate nation. Through their actions and their words, the leaders of the country of England had "disowned" the colonies of America. Of course it was Biblical to rebel against a nation that was trying to conquer them - for the same reason that we fought in World War II against the nations that were trying to take over the world!!

Diff' sit.

Diff' sit.

doesn't even know what that means xP

Diff' sit.

*doesn't even know what that means* xP

Different situation.

Legally–officially–they still had authority, I believe. But if I'm wrong, we were right to fight because what the government was doing was illegal by law. But if they still had legitimate authority (which I think they still technically did), and even if any legit government is stealing, it is illegal by Law–notice the capital L. How much more does God's Law liberate us from such things than man's law?!