The words “seems tangential” about the paragraph on currency debasement are just right. I keep referring back to it because it isn’t. Currency debasement relates to Caesar’s idolatry as the fruit does to the root – the corruption of sin begins on the inside, and works its way outward. The living idol eventually believes his own lies, and believes that he can simply decree reality to change to suit his own wishes. Why else do rulers resort to currency debasement?

I agree that I could have made this connection more explicit in the article – but since it was a first ever published effort, was already rather long for what it was, received extensive feedback elsewhere, and was never going to be perfect even in my eyes, you can perhaps understand why I kept tight copyright ownership on it and decided against allowing direct correspondence to me from this site.

After all, if we wait to arrive at perfection in the execution, few of us will ever practise (let alone practice) – will we?

For the record, I wasn’t attempting to separate the size and function of a tax (either “half-heartedly” or otherwise). I was merely acknowledging that not everyone in my intended audience is necessarily a libertarian, and that a good many commentators do try to use this passage among others to legitimise taxes – wrongly in my view (and presumably yours). I was merely showing that even a statist reading of this passage sanctions far less than what the modern state actually demands of us.

This brings me to the subject of coercion. You are only partly right about coercion distinguishing a tax from anything else. A tax is distinct in being levied by force of law, but this is not the same as saying that it can therefore be coercively extracted from the general population by the government regardless of circumstances. How else could tax avoidance be both lawful and lucrative, while tax evasion is a criminal offence in both the UK and the USA?

Anyway, thank you again for your feedback.

The words “seems tangential” about the paragraph on currency debasement are just right. I keep referring back to it because it isn’t. Currency debasement relates to Caesar’s idolatry as the fruit does to the root – the corruption of sin begins on the inside, and works its way outward. The living idol eventually believes his own lies, and believes that he can simply decree reality to change to suit his own wishes. Why else do rulers resort to currency debasement?

I agree that I could have made this connection more explicit in the article – but since it was a first ever published effort, was already rather long for what it was, received extensive feedback elsewhere, and was never going to be perfect even in my eyes, you can perhaps understand why I kept tight copyright ownership on it and decided against allowing direct correspondence to me from this site.

After all, if we wait to arrive at perfection in the execution, few of us will ever practise (let alone practice) – will we?

For the record, I wasn’t attempting to separate the size and function of a tax (either “half-heartedly” or otherwise). I was merely acknowledging that not everyone in my intended audience is necessarily a libertarian, and that a good many commentators do try to use this passage among others to legitimise taxes – wrongly in my view (and presumably yours). I was merely showing that even a statist reading of this passage sanctions far less than what the modern state actually demands of us.

This brings me to the subject of coercion. You are only partly right about coercion distinguishing a tax from anything else. A tax is distinct in being levied by force of law, but this is not the same as saying that it can therefore be coercively extracted from the general population by the government regardless of circumstances. How else could tax avoidance be both lawful and lucrative, while tax evasion is a criminal offence in both the UK and the USA?

Anyway, thank you again for your feedback.

I would read it slightly differently. A Christian can pay taxes to any kind of state, but in doing so he does not legitimise anything. He is not offering support to the regime, but simply recognising its coercive power. By way of analogy, it is not a sin to hand your wallet over to a mugger with a gun, and in doing so you do not legitimise his action. Your obedience remains with God despite your ‘victim action’. So a proper reading would not, in my view, fail to support taxes so much as criticise social contract or tacit consent theories.

I would read it slightly differently. A Christian can pay taxes to any kind of state, but in doing so he does not legitimise anything. He is not offering support to the regime, but simply recognising its coercive power. By way of analogy, it is not a sin to hand your wallet over to a mugger with a gun, and in doing so you do not legitimise his action. Your obedience remains with God despite your ‘victim action’. So a proper reading would not, in my view, fail to support taxes so much as criticise social contract or tacit consent theories.