Comment: The moral case is different from the legal case

(See in situ)

The moral case is different from the legal case

So while you don't have to take the position that "all taxes are stealing" certainly I take the position that taxes collected and spent on things that they are not authorized to spend money on is stealing, just as if they spent it on buying themselves steaks and limos. And in a way they do. They bail out the big banks, then quit government and get a "job" with those banks. So yes, tax dollars spent on things that the federal government is not authorized to spend money on is a form of stealing called "misappropriation".

But the moral case is that the limit of government is to provide justice. It is the role of individuals and churches to provide MERCY and charity. Social Gospel people like to pretend the Christian thing to do is to vote to expand the welfare state. Nothing could be further from the truth, as "compulsory compassion" ruins the joy of giving for the one paying and the attitude of gratitude in the receiver.

The Bible is full of rules, the Old Testament law had like 900 commands which we can't even follow, but you will not find one single command where the state is authorized to penalize someone for failure to be generous to the poor. God said He would punish for that Himself. Other things were "civil crimes" and He prescribed a state penalty for them.

The Social Justice Christians are nothing of the sort. They can't point to one single verse of scripture to support their case. Justice was the role for the state, mercy was the role for the individual or the church.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)