[powerslacker]

Sharing is usually voluntary. If the government levied a 100% tax on your income and assets, kept the vast majority of it, and then redistributed you a year supply of beans, rice, and a tent you would consider that to be a violation of their taxing authority wouldn't you? Should the power of the government to levy taxes be considered limitless?

[hotpotamus]

If the government did such a thing, what power would I have to stop them? And if I don't pay my wealth taxes, the state of Texas will indeed put me out of my house, but they won't bother to give me a tent or any beans. So it goes.

[powerslacker]

Well this whole thread is regarding whether or not someone ought to vote for a non-conservative government. So the first thing you could do to avoid such a situation is vote to elect individuals who are true to their word and argue against policies that would rob you of all your wealth through taxation and inflation. Another step you might take is to promote a vision of society where we limit the government to a certain degree so that it does not acquire so much power that it can simply rob individual citizens without recourse.

Further, this particular question is whether the government legally ought to be able to tax without limits. You seem to be conflating that with if the government is able to tax without limits.

[hotpotamus]

Well, I agree with you that the wealthy should vote for conservatives if money is their primary concern. I'm however not in the tax bracket that US conservatives are interested in helping though.

> Further, this particular question is whether the government legally ought to be able to tax without limits. You seem to be conflating that with if the government is able to tax without limits.

I fail to see a distinction here. The government defines what is legal. I suppose one can appeal to some higher power as the source of all law or something idealistic like that, but that's not how the IRS or the Texas State tax assessor work.

[powerslacker]

> I fail to see a distinction here. The government defines what is legal. I suppose one can appeal to some higher power as the source of all law or something idealistic like that, but that's not how the IRS or the Texas State tax assessor work.

Right. That's what I mean by conflating. One can appeal to a higher law. I'd argue that's the only way you can make a moral judgement about the actions of a government, since as you've pointed out they have the ability to create laws. So either there is a law that can be used to judge whether a 100% tax on the individual is justified or there isn't. If there isn't a higher law, then you're right - the government is a law unto themselves. They are totally sovereign and no one can make any moral judgement about their actions since by definition their might makes them right. Alternatively, there is a higher law: a supernatural moral law that transcends the will of men and which the governments of the world and all the people of the world are accountable to. If that's the case then there is a limit to how far the government is able to justifiably tax its citizens - the amount that the transcendent law allows gives them jurisdiction to tax.

It's important to note that if there is no law that transcends the state, then the state is not limited by moral law in any way. In that case it's the source of moral law and nothing that the state does can ever be justified as moral or immoral since under such a worldview the state is the judge of good and evil.

[hotpotamus]

I suppose the problem you run into is that supernatural moral law is ephemeral and probably caught up in some religion or other which means something different to every member of that religion (as far as I can tell), whereas as actual law is written down, and actually exists.

[powerslacker]

Laws are non-material by definition. You can't eat or touch the law of gravity for example.

Using "caught up in a religion" or "means something different to every member" as a reason to ignore an argument is arbitrary and an a priori dismissal of potential evidence contrary to your beliefs. In other words, you are ruling out a position simply because you are prejudiced against that position.

There are laws which claim to be moral supernatural law which are written down. If these laws are what they claim to be and are truly of supernatural origin then not only do they exist, they exist in a greater capacity than laws written by human hands or instruments.

A transcendant law presupposes a transcendant author and arbiter.