Against Religious Exemptions
Tara Smith is a professor of philosophy here at the University of Texas (Austin) and also serves as the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism. In this paper for the Journal of Law & Politics, she dissects the common justifications for allowing people to ignore the law because of a claim of religious belief.
From this synopsis from ARI ( https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/05/... ) you can follow the links to the article and download the PDF. (You may need to register with the site, the Social Science Researcg Network. I downloaded directly the first time, but had to register when I wanted the article to quote here.) Synopsis and link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Smith argues that if the law is to have any meaning, it must apply to all. Her closely reasoned essay takes on four aspects of the claim to exception: "appeals to the First Amendment, to equality, to liberty, and to the significant role of religious identity in many people’s lives."
Prof. Smith opens "by laying out the fundamental case against exemptions, showing how they fracture the backbone of a proper, integrated legal system and sanction illegitimate uses of its power."
Understand that this is not a "libertarian" claim, but an objective one.
She writes:
"Before we can assess the merits of religious exemptions, I must make plain the framework of government that I am relying on. A government enjoys a unique kind of authority, namely, to make people do as it says regardless of whether or not they would like to.(14) This authority to coerce people’s compliance with its rules is justified only to achieve a specific mission: the protection of individual rights. While one can argue about whether that is the mission of government, any coherent approach to the question of exemptions must presuppose more basic beliefs about the role of government as such, so I am simply laying bare my premises."15)"
And cites in support:
"(14) This has become the widely accepted notion of a government, often attributed to Max Weber, who characterized a state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation, reprinted in FROM MAX WEBER: ESSAYS IN SOCIOLOGY 77, 77 (H.H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills eds. & trans., 1946). See THE FEDERALIST NO. 15 (Alexander Hamilton), for evidence of the Founding Fathers employing the same basic idea. While “government” is a wider concept than a “legal system,” I will sometimes use the two interchangeably merely for convenience; it will not affect clarity or argument.
(15) Note that this is essentially the framework of the Founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and much of the reasoning of the Federalist Papers. For a much fuller explanation and defense of the basic nature of a proper legal system, see SMITH, JUDICIAL REVIEW, supra note 12, at 45–66, 88–111; Smith, Objective Law, supra note 12, at 209–21."
Among very many points in this 50+ page work, Prof. Smith asks rhetorically, if a claim of religious exemption allows one person to ignore the law - for instance a Sikh child wishes to wear a large knife to school - why should the lack of religion deny the same right to another person?
From this synopsis from ARI ( https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/05/... ) you can follow the links to the article and download the PDF. (You may need to register with the site, the Social Science Researcg Network. I downloaded directly the first time, but had to register when I wanted the article to quote here.) Synopsis and link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Smith argues that if the law is to have any meaning, it must apply to all. Her closely reasoned essay takes on four aspects of the claim to exception: "appeals to the First Amendment, to equality, to liberty, and to the significant role of religious identity in many people’s lives."
Prof. Smith opens "by laying out the fundamental case against exemptions, showing how they fracture the backbone of a proper, integrated legal system and sanction illegitimate uses of its power."
Understand that this is not a "libertarian" claim, but an objective one.
She writes:
"Before we can assess the merits of religious exemptions, I must make plain the framework of government that I am relying on. A government enjoys a unique kind of authority, namely, to make people do as it says regardless of whether or not they would like to.(14) This authority to coerce people’s compliance with its rules is justified only to achieve a specific mission: the protection of individual rights. While one can argue about whether that is the mission of government, any coherent approach to the question of exemptions must presuppose more basic beliefs about the role of government as such, so I am simply laying bare my premises."15)"
And cites in support:
"(14) This has become the widely accepted notion of a government, often attributed to Max Weber, who characterized a state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation, reprinted in FROM MAX WEBER: ESSAYS IN SOCIOLOGY 77, 77 (H.H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills eds. & trans., 1946). See THE FEDERALIST NO. 15 (Alexander Hamilton), for evidence of the Founding Fathers employing the same basic idea. While “government” is a wider concept than a “legal system,” I will sometimes use the two interchangeably merely for convenience; it will not affect clarity or argument.
(15) Note that this is essentially the framework of the Founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and much of the reasoning of the Federalist Papers. For a much fuller explanation and defense of the basic nature of a proper legal system, see SMITH, JUDICIAL REVIEW, supra note 12, at 45–66, 88–111; Smith, Objective Law, supra note 12, at 209–21."
Among very many points in this 50+ page work, Prof. Smith asks rhetorically, if a claim of religious exemption allows one person to ignore the law - for instance a Sikh child wishes to wear a large knife to school - why should the lack of religion deny the same right to another person?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
But you miss the point. Because you have a religious belief you can't force it on others; however, you can exercise it by not participating in things that go against your religious beliefs. That's called freedom of choice.
I don't see why "service animals" have been brought up as if similar, though. They're not, and the law making businesses allow them is stupid.
Please take a cost accounting class. Companies take into account the taxes they will pay when computing the prices they will charge for goods and services. Depending on the elasticity of demand for the goods/services and other market conditions, the company may or may not be able to incorporate the full tax burden into the cost of the item, but nevertheless, taxes absolutely do get taken into account.
"Corporate income taxes simply do not affect consumer prices in any measurable way."
This is patently false. Please see any of the following links:
http://www.finweb.com/taxes/are-most-...
"Generally speaking all of the costs incurred by a company to offer a product or service are included in the pricing of a company's products or services."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_...
Note the shifting of the supply/demand curve as the result of incorporation of taxes. Fewer products/services are being purchased as a direct result of the higher prices of those services due to tax burden.
http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/...
This was a paper outlining in detail the effects of lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. It goes into great detail.
The last article is particularly interesting because it highlights the fact that a lower corporate tax affects not only corporations, but individuals as well. This was my point when I noted that corporate taxes are effectively a hidden tax on the consumer. It also directly refutes your assertion in detail.
Incidentally, I am a Muslim and there is nothing in my religion that suggests that other people can't drink alcohol. I just cannot be compelled to do so (nor has anyone suggested that one would).
As to your statement, "most goods are very elastic" -- it depends on the definition of the good. If we are discussing an individual company's product (for example, gasoline), it is highly elastic. If one gas station reduces its price, other gas stations in the immediate area must price match. Thus if we tried to place a tax on only ONE of the stations (similar to what would happen if we impose a tax on Chevron but not on BP -- this incidentally is what happens with corporate income taxes when they are imposed on our companies but not on foreign companies, but I digress), Chevron will not be able to "pass on" the price increase because BP isn't paying it as well and thus must match BP's price to stay competitive. On the other hand, if we impose the tax on ALL gasoline, every gasoline station can raise prices (which is exactly what happens when we place an excise tax on gasoline).
In other words, my entire issue is with the statement that "corporate taxes are almost always passed through to the consumer anyway in the price of goods, so corporate income taxes end up getting paid by individuals anyway." This not only isn't true but it harms the overall argument that you have carefully (and otherwise correctly) stated.
Taxation is an excuse for government to grow beyond any stated reason for existence. The free market will provide solutions in record time if we are smart enough not to allow government to take our scarce resources. Government has proven repeatedly throughout history that no government can be trusted to serve limited purposes. If we continue to allow government to tax us, history will just repeat itself yet again. Enough is enough. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
There are a VERY LIMITED few things that them being tax funded makes sense. Things that are unreasonable to have handled on a private basis. Likely there would not be more than could be counted on 1 hand, I offered 2 of them here.
The only answer is to stop all income taxation and let the federal government learn to produce services that people voluntarily buy, or let the federal government die if it can't compete in a free martket.
BTW, on the Sikh child example. I have personally seen Sikh children carry Rubber Knives while at school as a compromise to their religion.
So, if a baker refuses to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding citing his religious belief that homosexuality is "an abomination in the sight of God", he is within his right as an exercise of his religious belief. The LGBT bride and groom can go elsewhere to get their cake.
If a Muslim gets an invitation to a wedding where alcohol is served at the reception, he has a choice to go or not go because of his religious belief regarding the religious prohibition against alcohol. What's the Muslim going to do? Demand that the wedding party not allow adult beverages? Yet that is precisely what is being done to the baker who is exercising his religious beliefs.
I disagree strongly with Dr. Smith's assertion that the government has the authority "....to make people do as it says regardless of whether or not they would like to." This is NOT in any respect the kind of government that's the Founding Fathers were establishing. In fact, it is just the opposite. They had lived under a government that had forced them to do things whether or not they wanted to, and wanted no more of such a government.
Our government was founded on the principle of personal freedom which allowed for the individual to speak freely, believe as he chooses, assemble peacefully, carry weapons, and pursue his own interests as he sees fit, to name only a few. In today's PC world these rights and others are under attack as "not fair", when the reality is that forcing someone to do something against his will is the only true unfairness.
Dr. Smith has everything bass-ackward, and has obviously drunk the PC Kool-aid of equal outcomes over equal rights.
"...depends on the elasticity of demand and supply of the good in question)."
To some degree, yes, but most goods are very elastic and taxes are one of the components to your costing structures in cost accounting (basic business course). My point is that a corporate tax in reality is just another tax on the individual that is being cloaked as a tax on someone else. That's the way it gets sold to the People and is precisely the way the 18th Amendment was sold (that it would only be a tax on the rich 1%). It's a bait-and-switch.
The other part of your argument similarly runs into some accounting nuances. Dividends are decreased due to corporate taxes - there is no question about that - because dividends are paid from after-tax income. Salaries always come out pre-tax, however, and retirement accounts are a mixed bag of pre- (Roth IRA) and post-tax (conventional IRA).
"it lowers the rate of return on such investment."
Sure. It will lower sales because of the higher product/service costs and because it decreases the money available to be used by the business (re-invested) or paid to shareholders.
The corporate income tax is absolutely NOT passed on the price of goods (though other taxes are sometimes passed on -- it depends on the elasticity of demand and supply of the good in question). That is because the corporate income tax is paid only on actual income rather than the price of the good itself and will differ from company to company. The corporate income tax ends up harming shareholders (who are individuals) and ends up reducing retirement income as a result (since pension funds make up a sizable portion of corporate shareholding). It will also end up harming investment because it lowers the rate of return on such investment. Lowering investment harms individuals because it reduces the productivity of both labor and capital, ultimately reducing personal income.
No one has denied us yet.
Load more comments...