The "Crime" Tax: An Introduction

Financial punishment of the “criminal” and the requirement of them to pay “court costs” sound pretty catchy to the democratic totalitarians of the state. The general mood is that those who break the “law” should have to pay for the system that provides for “justice.”

Of course the majority of Americans would go along with this as it is in fact so seated in the mob rule mentality. But then, Americans have lost all capability to reason the dangers of this program.

“Why,” one might ask, “should law abiding citizens be required to pay for the trial of alleged criminals?” It was not very long ago that the author had the same ignorant mindset, but reason thus finally prevailed.

Many will cower back from the author’s insistence that the financial obligations of the justice system should be born by the collective society in which said justice system operates. Folks will also scoff at the idea that punitive damages (fines) should never be awarded to the state.

To understand why, one must understand the nature of rulers and recognize what is going on across America.

The general thesis would be that the state makes a handsome profit derived through “enforcing laws.” There are some big problems with this. The first would be that the state will be tempted to make more activities illegal, punishable by fines and court costs. Another pitfall here is that if certain crimes were eradicated, then the state would be cutting its revenue from that crime therefore why eradicate the problem.

There are actual examples locally of “law enforcement” seizing “alleged drug proceeds” without charging the suspect with any crime and letting them go on their way.

Anyone that is oblivious to the fact that personal liberty has suffered at the hand of the civil magistrate must be blind or extremely ignorant of his surroundings. (And probably quit reading this already.)

One need only look as far as the various licenses required by the state to participate in otherwise lawful activities! Like working, marrying, traveling, hunting, etc, etc. The list is endless. This has been dealt with briefly in Rights License.

When the government decrees that an activity requires a license, what they are in fact saying is that the activity is itself illegal. Surprisingly enough, the state does not even mask the reason certain activities are licensed.

There are two types of licenses. One is regulatory or one that the holder obtains by proving his ability to safely perform a certain activity (contractor’s license). The other type is called a revenue license. This is a license that’s only function is to provide for the revenue of the state. One may rather call it extortion. (See the author’s appeal to the state about this here.) How this is different than the cosa nostra, one can only wonder.

As to the nature of rulers, anyone with a mustard seed of historical appreciation will be convinced that rulers tend to become despots when unbridled by the people.

Still some pragmatists and statists may object to paying for the trials of the alleged criminals. To the pragmatist, there is nothing to say that will change his mind for he is not principled enough to stand for any idea until he, himself, is the direct victim of such pragmatism. To the statist, what can be said? Criticizing the system is akin to blasphemy.

To those, however, that are truly concerned about liberty and justice, this is a subject that should shed light on the motives of the state. It should also worry you particularly in these times in which municipal revenues are on a sharp decline due to a decline in sales tax receipts, income taxes, various licensing and fees revenues, and property taxes. (Interestingly enough the author’s property taxes increased this year as the property assessor is apparently unaware of plummeting real estate prices.)

Given the current “economic crisis,” one can be secure in the fact that the state will be looking for ways to makeup for these losses. What better way than telling the comatose electorate that more legislation is needed for various make believe problems and that in order to curtail and deter certain activities like eating unhealthy foods, using tobacco, putting your own safety at risk, working without an employer, marrying, etc. Those who partake of such activities should be penalized further. (Make your checks payable to the state, of course.)

Of course the taxes and licensing will not end here. The state sees its electorate as potential revenue. And as has been stated, as the past revenue sources dry up, they will be finding other untapped sources. Of course, they always have their “war on drugs.”

Why the Evangelicals Have Lost the Pro-Life Battle

For some time I have desired to address the philosophical inconsistencies of the modern evangelicals' views on abortion. I will begin by stating that there are very few consistent "pro-lifers" out there. I will go as far to say that probably around 90% (or greater) of the conservative Christian population (I exclude the liberal christians who have embraced homosexuality, female pastors, etc.) is actually pro choice while claiming to be pro life.

The problem arises when they add that little clause, "except in cases of rape or incest." In those cases, they are ardently pro choice. When addressed, the argument for abortion always includes a thirteen year old girl raped by her evil step uncle. The Christian is quick to allow for choice of termination in such cases.

Funny thing is, they have picked the most repulsive imaginable scenario to justify their newly acquired pro choice stance.

Now here I must interject that I will not be so presumptuous as to claim that this would be an easy situation, nor will I pretend that I would be ho-hum about it, but any other attitude would undermine the whole argument that pro lifers use.

How can one claim that abortion is the murder of a person, yet justify it on these grounds?

The best way I can address this is to quote from Scripture. I would hope Christians would yield to God's Word.

2 Kings 14:6Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

Now here we have a mandate that the civil magistrate is not to punish the children for the sins of the father and vice versa.

The civil punishment for rape is death, yet our culture does not even exercise that, while Christians are eager to allow for the voluntary execution of the child, though. How can this be? I would on one hand argue ignorance, but I would suppose this would be naive. I should think it would more accurately be described as pragmatism and autonomy.

So the challenge to Christians is to yield to Scripture. The battle cannot be won through compromises and cannot be won while Christians are themselves pro-choice.