Pacifism, non-pacifism, and taxes (was "Re: re-building a
movement - co
|
David M. Gross
|
Jul 21, 2011 09:47 PDT
|
I, too, don't consider myself a pacifist, though I find myself caucusing
with the pacifists on just about every question that comes down the
line. However, I'm still of a mind that whether or not a person should
use violence in some situation is something that that person needs to
carefully decide on a case-by-case basis and not by applying a pre-made
doctrine.
Paying taxes, though, means that you're /not/ making considered
decisions about your participation in war and peace, violence and
nonviolence, and so forth -- instead, you're leaving those decisions up
to politicians. These politicians are, almost by definition, morally
repulsive creatures. They cannot be trusted with such decisions, and to
allow them to make these decisions for you is morally reckless.
-- David
P.S. I'd turn the question around and ask the "radical pacifists" how
they can justify taxation of any sort (many do, to my surprise). If you
wouldn't support violence even to stop a Hitler, how can you justify
using violence to collect money for any of the far less crucial things
government does?
On 07/21/2011 04:44 AM, Lawrence Rosenwald wrote:
| | ...if one isn't what Ed calls "a radical pacifist" (I myself am),
what justifies doing war tax resistance? And if one is of two minds,
supports some military actions, opposes others, what results does
that have in how one *practices* wtr? Refuse the taxes one year and
not the next? Refuse a different percentage, to fund the intervention
in Libya but not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?...
|
|
|
 |
|
