Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Immanuel Can]

"Stealing" is the general term for taking someone's property without permission, while "theft" is the legal term for the unlawful and intentional act of taking property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

What you're not realizing is that something may be genuine theft, and still approved by the authorities. Look at all the confiscations and dispossessions during a pillaging, or during the Russian or Chinese revolutions: those were all legal, but also immoral, and totally acts of thievery.

An immoral action doesn't suddenly become moral just because some tyrannical or corrupt regime rubber-stamps it. It's still theft.

No it isn't. "Theft" is a legal term.

No, theft is first and foremost a MORAL term. Any legal legitimacy it has is derived from that. The laws, as you have already pointed out yourself, can fail to be moral, and often do.

[MikeNovack]

It might be useful at this point to address the nature of the relation "owns" in the expression A "owns" B. IC is defining "theft" as taking somebody's property, and B is A's property if/f "A owns B".

OK, just what sort of a relation is "owns"? What makes the statement "A owns B" true or false? I suggest you will not be prepared to discuss this unless you have at least looked at the analysis of this question by the individualist anarchists (right libertarians). But of course somebody from the traditional (Marxist) left should feel free to try to make the case that "owns" is a relation in material reality << good lick with that >>

I would argue that "owns" is a relation in SOCIAL reality. A owns B if/f A believes this to be true AND so doall the people around A.

In which case the truth that A owns B disappears if the people around (the society) cease to believe it true. In whole or in part. Thus if they believe 20% goes for taxes, so be it.

[Alexiev]

What you're not realizing is that something may be genuine theft, and still approved by the authorities. Look at all the confiscations and dispossessions during a pillaging, or during the Russian or Chinese revolutions: those were all legal, but also immoral, and totally acts of thievery.

An immoral action doesn't suddenly become moral just because some tyrannical or corrupt regime rubber-stamps it. It's still theft.

No it isn't. "Theft" is a legal term.

No, theft is first and foremost a MORAL term. Any legal legitimacy it has is derived from that. The laws, as you have already pointed out yourself, can fail to be moral, and often do.

Merriam-Webster disagrees:

Theft:
:the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b
: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

[Alexiev]

It might be useful at this point to address the nature of the relation "owns" in the expression A "owns" B. IC is defining "theft" as taking somebody's property, and B is A's property if/f "A owns B".

OK, just what sort of a relation is "owns"? What makes the statement "A owns B" true or false? I suggest you will not be prepared to discuss this unless you have at least looked at the analysis of this question by the individualist anarchists (right libertarians). But of course somebody from the traditional (Marxist) left should feel free to try to make the case that "owns" is a relation in material reality << good lick with that >>

I would argue that "owns" is a relation in SOCIAL reality. A owns B if/f A believes this to be true AND so doall the people around A.

In which case the truth that A owns B disappears if the people around (the society) cease to believe it true. In whole or in part. Thus if they believe 20% goes for taxes, so be it.

Of course. Property is (and can only be) a relationship between people. If you own a car, it makes no difference to the car. Instead, you can call the police if some person drives away with it without your permission. Property allows one person to control other people vis a vis and inanimate object.

[Immanuel Can]

No it isn't. "Theft" is a legal term.

No, theft is first and foremost a MORAL term. Any legal legitimacy it has is derived from that. The laws, as you have already pointed out yourself, can fail to be moral, and often do.

Merriam-Webster disagrees:

Theft:
:the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b
: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

MW forgets to include any universal definiton. By adding the word "felonious," in a) it makes its first definition redundant with its second, "unlawful." That's an obvious error.

But if we take MW, that would mean that something isn't "theft" if there's no human law involved. One tribesman stealing from a rival tribe woudl not be theft. Or if a polity failed to have a law, than anything would become moral.

And the Divine perspective is that theft is always wrong.

So when MW fails to agree with God, go with God on the subject. It wasn't human law that created Commandment 7 of the big 10.

[Alexiev]

MW forgets to include any universal definiton. By adding the word "felonious," in a) it makes its first definition redundant with its second, "unlawful." That's an obvious error.

But if we take MW, that would mean that something isn't "theft" if there's no human law involved. One tribesman stealing from a rival tribe woudl not be theft. Or if a polity failed to have a law, than anything would become moral.

And the Divine perspective is that theft is always wrong.

So when MW fails to agree with God, go with God on the subject. It wasn't human law that created Commandment 7 of the big 10.

How does God define property? Or does the Bible just accept the way it is defined by the polity of the era?

[Immanuel Can]

MW forgets to include any universal definiton. By adding the word "felonious," in a) it makes its first definition redundant with its second, "unlawful." That's an obvious error.

But if we take MW, that would mean that something isn't "theft" if there's no human law involved. One tribesman stealing from a rival tribe woudl not be theft. Or if a polity failed to have a law, than anything would become moral.

And the Divine perspective is that theft is always wrong.

So when MW fails to agree with God, go with God on the subject. It wasn't human law that created Commandment 7 of the big 10.

How does God define property? Or does the Bible just accept the way it is defined by the polity of the era?

"Property" is whatever God has given to you, or put in your charge. Usually, it's something physical or material, an object of some kind; but it's also dominion, the opportunity to have custody of something that ultimately (like all things) belongs to God Himself, but which He has graciously permitted you to steward on His behalf so as to demonstrate faithfulness. It's not something to be used for one's own mere pleasures or advantage; whatever it is, it's held in charge, under the prospect of accountability to the ultimate Owner.

Anything over which you have even temporary power of direction is part of your "property," as conceived Biblically. It's never possessed, but always given only to be managed and dispensed in some way that serves the greater glory of God.

Does that elucidate the concept?

[MikeNovack]

How does God define property? Or does the Bible just accept the way it is defined by the polity of the era?

"Property" is whatever God has given to you, or put in your charge. Usually, it's something physical or material, an object of some kind; but it's also dominion, the opportunity to have custody of something that ultimately (like all things) belongs to God Himself, but which He has graciously permitted you to steward on His behalf so as to demonstrate faithfulness. It's not something to be used for one's own mere pleasures or advantage; whatever it is, it's held in charge, under the prospect of accountability to the ultimate Owner.

Anything over which you have even temporary power of direction is part of your "property," as conceived Biblically. It's never possessed, but always given only to be managed and dispensed in some way that serves the greater glory of God.

Does that elucidate the concept?

Not really. It explains what YOU mean by property well enough, but of no help to us who believe in other gods or none. HOWEVER, even in your terms, do you deny God (via your text) specifies tithes/taxes? (some of which are for "social service") << yes I do know that you might believe the Bible before the New Testament superceded these requirements, but they WERE mentioned/specified. And the sages recognized that these amounts would be minimums (and argued when the amount of voluntary additions would become excessive)

Note to all: My willingness to dispute with IC on his terms should not be taken as morer than the ability (knowledge of the texts) to do so.

IC, shall we consider what "property" might be/have been in the millenia before the God you believe in ever "spoke" to men? << to inform them what was or was not their property >> Are you suggesting that those people did not have their beliefs about property?

[Immanuel Can]

How does God define property? Or does the Bible just accept the way it is defined by the polity of the era?

"Property" is whatever God has given to you, or put in your charge. Usually, it's something physical or material, an object of some kind; but it's also dominion, the opportunity to have custody of something that ultimately (like all things) belongs to God Himself, but which He has graciously permitted you to steward on His behalf so as to demonstrate faithfulness. It's not something to be used for one's own mere pleasures or advantage; whatever it is, it's held in charge, under the prospect of accountability to the ultimate Owner.

Anything over which you have even temporary power of direction is part of your "property," as conceived Biblically. It's never possessed, but always given only to be managed and dispensed in some way that serves the greater glory of God.

Does that elucidate the concept?

Not really. It explains what YOU mean by property well enough, but of no help to us who believe in other gods or none.

Well, I was asked what the Bible says about it. My job was to tell the truth as I know it, not to "help" those who don't believe in God. Absent God, there really is not help for them to be had, you'll find.

do you deny God (via your text) specifies tithes/taxes?

Taxes are not for God. They're for "Caesar," so to speak. We pay what's due to the secular authority...but nothing more. And we pay what is due to God, which is everything.

As for "social service," if you mean government-run welfare, there's no such concept in Scripture. Rather, charity is the watchword; and charity is always voluntary and initiated by the stewardship of individuals. There are no institutional alternatives.

IC, shall we consider what "property" might be/have been in the millenia before the God you believe in ever "spoke" to men?

Well, since God has spoken since the beginning of human history, that will be a short conversation. God speaks in many ways (Romans 1) not solely in Scripture, you'll find. But today, the written record of that revelation is the final determinant to our epistemology of what He wishes from us.

[phyllo]

God didn't define 'property'.

People define 'property'.

In this case, it was defined by some guys in the Middle East and/or some guys reading what those guys wrote in a book.

[Gary Childress]

Well, since God has spoken since the beginning of human history, that will be a short conversation. God speaks in many ways (Romans 1) not solely in Scripture, you'll find. But today, the written record of that revelation is the final determinant to our epistemology of what He wishes from us.

If that's what you believe then that is what you believe. Whether it's true or not is another matter to some of the rest of us. And it will fortunately or unfortunately stay that way with me since I see no way of verifying it objectively. Especially since some things written in the Bible disagree with what the sciences have discovered and some things seem to defy common sense.

[MikeNovack]

Taxes are not for God. They're for "Caesar," so to speak. We pay what's due to the secular authority...but nothing more. And we pay what is due to God, which is everything.

Psalm 115:16 please << THIS might be key to understanding the difference between the Adon worshipers and the Baal worshipers and carry forward to between Judaism and Islam --- Both Adon and Baal mean "lord" but in different senses. >>

And no Caeser involved before the New Testament. Nor were the tithes/taxes JUST for God.

The Semitic religions are "root" based languages. One "root" for "righteous" and "charity" (how translated to English) So "righteous" isn't about God but "doing rightly" (dealing justly) and "charity" part of "doing justice", not extra/optional generosity.

When you appeal to using God as the explanation you cannot mean just as your sect of God worshipers understands but as ALL believe in God do. You can't just dismiss those who recognize just the so called "old" Testament out of hand. Well you CAN, but then you talk just to yourself.

As for BEFORE, this is similar. Some Christians might believe that those before the word given just shit out of luck not knowing God's will on matters. The other God worshipers do not hold them guilty.

[Age]

And, on and on 'they' go.

Never reaching 'an outcome', and, never achieving, nor resolving, any thing.

Exactly like the previous few millennia, before when this was written.

'These people' would prefer to argue and fight over 'their 'current' presumptions and beliefs', then actually 'come together' and work out, discover, and resolve things, peacefully.

[Immanuel Can]

Taxes are not for God. They're for "Caesar," so to speak. We pay what's due to the secular authority...but nothing more. And we pay what is due to God, which is everything.

And no Caeser involved before the New Testament.

My allusion was to Matthew 22:21.

Sorry...I had the idea that maybe you had some familiarity with the text. I don't mind explaining, if you don't.

The Semitic religions are "root" based languages. One "root" for "righteous" and "charity" (how translated to English) So "righteous" isn't about God but "doing rightly" (dealing justly) and "charity" part of "doing justice", not extra/optional generosity.

The NT was written in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic. And I'm a Gentile.

You can't just dismiss those who recognize just the so called "old" Testament out of hand.

I don't. But you're mistaking what were commandments specifically to Israel for policies of secular government. They're not, and they were never intended as such. If they were, all Gentiles would practice circumcision, sabbatarianism, animal sacrifice and Jewish holidays, too.

None of this has any light to shed for us on the use of secular government to extort money from the unwilling poor, far less with the total kind of extortion and theft necessary to run a Socialist regime, where no means of production is owned by anybody else.

[Immanuel Can]

...the Bible disagree with what the sciences have discovered and some things seem to defy common sense.

What did you have in mind?