Well, I wouldn’t go that far either. St Paul teaches us in Romans 13 about the importance of submission to governing authority: “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation...”. His logic is that even impious rulers who nevertheless keep the peace and make sure the law is observed are operating under a divine mandate: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
From this wise and apostolic teaching we can deduce, I think, that even bad rulers who do fulfil the basic functions of governance (perhaps the House of Saud would be a good modern-day example) ought to be obeyed and have their taxes paid to them in full. On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine rulers that do NOT fulfil this role (the Taliban, perhaps the Mayor of Baltimore?). To these rulers it might easily be argued that we do not owe obedience and should not pay our taxes. Unaddressed by St Paul is the question of obedience to lawful rulers who nonetheless demand far more in tax than they actually need to fulfil the basic functions of government, so perhaps some common sense and individual discretion is called for. To this kind of ruler it might be argued that we owe partial obedience and some amount of taxes, but when the demands become so excessive that they conflict with other financial duties we have (to our family, our friends, our religion) that some tax evasion might be permissible. But this calls for some case by case assessment. The state is sometimes no more than a protection racket, but rarely is this entirely the case or even mostly the case.
I agree with the “no”, as in EAs shouldn’t do it, but I dispute the second sentence. I’d describe it more as paying a protection racket.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far either. St Paul teaches us in Romans 13 about the importance of submission to governing authority: “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation...”. His logic is that even impious rulers who nevertheless keep the peace and make sure the law is observed are operating under a divine mandate: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
From this wise and apostolic teaching we can deduce, I think, that even bad rulers who do fulfil the basic functions of governance (perhaps the House of Saud would be a good modern-day example) ought to be obeyed and have their taxes paid to them in full. On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine rulers that do NOT fulfil this role (the Taliban, perhaps the Mayor of Baltimore?). To these rulers it might easily be argued that we do not owe obedience and should not pay our taxes. Unaddressed by St Paul is the question of obedience to lawful rulers who nonetheless demand far more in tax than they actually need to fulfil the basic functions of government, so perhaps some common sense and individual discretion is called for. To this kind of ruler it might be argued that we owe partial obedience and some amount of taxes, but when the demands become so excessive that they conflict with other financial duties we have (to our family, our friends, our religion) that some tax evasion might be permissible. But this calls for some case by case assessment. The state is sometimes no more than a protection racket, but rarely is this entirely the case or even mostly the case.