Nothing Outside the State: Non-Profit Edition
By Mary Theroux • Wednesday June 20, 2012 9:54 PM PDT • 9 Comments
My friend and colleague Robert Higgs has written on the increasing adoption by Americans of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini’s slogan, “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato:” “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
And I have also previously posted on President Obama’s so-far unsuccessful attempts to repeal the charitable income-tax deduction.
But the beat goes on.
In this latest iteration, the findings of a new study published by Free Inquiry, the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism, are being reported as:
The federal government gives up as much as $71-billion a year in revenue by maintaining a virtual blanket tax exemption for religious institutions. [Emphasis added]
While the debate around the study focuses on whether or not religious organizations can be said to provide public benefit, to believers and non-believers alike (e.g., “the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need”), the really disturbing thing to me is the expressed assumption that property left in the hands of its owners, or money directed to uses by those who earned it, is somehow “given up” by the government.
The only logical conclusion of such a statement is that everything belongs to the state and we are allowed to use some of it at the state’s benevolent discretion.
I disagree with Dr. Higgs when he contends that “Americans have become ideal fascist citizens”—I am personally acquainted with too many who have not—but the increasing presumption of statements such as the above certainly must give pause.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Charity, Christianity, Civil Society, Constitution, Culture, Fascism, Morality, Nanny State, Philosophy, Property Rights, Religion, Taxation, Welfare 
Once a tax system was established in America where the state, under the color of the law, could go into anybody’s paycheck, anybody’s business, anybody’s savings and investments or onto anybody’s property and take what they wanted whenever they wanted it for any purpose whatsoever then we have established a nation of mob rule and tyranny. For surely without property rights there are no rights. The idea that the state can decide what you can keep of the fruits of your labor without recourse or appeal based on tenuous laws outside of the Constitution makes the actions of the state not only repulsive but hypocritical in the least. An institution (the government) that was set up to protect the property rights of individuals and, because of a change in political direction and philosophy, decides to violate its charter by attacking property rights under the guise of “economic justice” and “redistribution” of a fiction called “the wealth” cannot be tolerated in a free Republic. To pick and choose winners and losers under a corrupt and changeable tax code is the height of despotism. With that, the only answer is to repeal all Income Taxes in America and return to a Constitutional indirect system of taxation to finance the legitimate Constitutional functions of the Federal Government.
libertarian jerry | Jun 20, 2012 | Reply
What is there to say about Americans? Of course, any statement one is inclined to make will be a generalization. Certainly most are supportive of the welfare and/or warfare state to one degree or another. Relatively few, though a growing segment, are staunch opponents of the whole regime.
I think this is the crux of the matter. We have, through the left/right paradigm been divided and conquered. The State, through its control of education and the major media, has won over hearts and minds.
On the other hand, there are many great heroes of liberty in this country and (the idea, if not the practice) of liberty has survived better here than probably anywhere else in the world. We have fought the good fight, and continue to do so, and are making some headway, as inadequate as it seems at times. The fact that we are (possibly) on the verge of all or part of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional indicates that there are still many Americans out there who support limitations on the federal government, at least in certain respects. And the Internet, that bastion of free communication, has been instrumental in helping us make our case to a larger audience.
D. Saul Weiner | Jun 21, 2012 | Reply
This may be one of the silliest arguments I have ever come across. The issue cannot be who “originally” owns property or income because, if the Lockean world of unowned property ever existed that world is centuries in the past.
The argument is about who should bear the burden of the assessments made by the state. The argument is, further, that it isn’t a proper reason to exempt certain property or income from such assessments merely because it is connected with what some people have decided to label as “religion.”
One may, of course, come to the conclusion that no one should bear such burdens, but if one is not willing to go that far, then an affirmative case or argument needs to be made for exempting some activities or persons from such burden. “It is fascism” just isn’t such a case or argument.
Craig J. Bolton | Jun 21, 2012 | Reply
“... Certainly most are supportive of the welfare and/or warfare state...”
Not only that, but most are supportive of paternalistic, nanny-state government. They believe that without the FDA, all our drugs would be poisonous; without the EPA, every factory will spew filth; without the DEA, all teens will become drug addicts; without OSHA, every workplace will be dangerous; without farm price supports, every farm will fail; etc.
The typical American adult reminds me of a six-year-old who requires parents to feed and clothe him, who misbehaves unless tightly controlled, who accepts all arguments from authority, and who thinks magically instead of logically and rationally. Most Americans act as if government is a combination of messianic religion and perfect parents, and they expect wonderful things from government despite a long history of failures of politicians and government agency heads to deliver on promises.
“... The fact that we are (possibly) on the verge of all or part of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional indicates that there are still many Americans out there who support limitations on the federal government...”
Completely wrong. The Supreme Court justices, not the general public, will decide whether the individual mandate requirement of ObamaCare is constitutional. The fact that most Americans do not support ObamaCare does not mean that most Americans want to do away with federal government entitlements. Some people don’t like ObamaCare because it’s another expensive entitlement. But, other people don’t like ObamaCare because it doesn’t socialize medicine (it just heavily regulates health care insurance).
DoctorT | Jun 21, 2012 | Reply
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Tom | Jun 22, 2012 | Reply
Actually, without the FDA there’s no guarantee as to what you’re getting. Maybe medicines won’t too poisonous but placebos would be common. Without silly ol’ EPA factories could indeed release emissions and Greenies would have to suck it up as they no longer have gubmint to back them up. Indeed teens would become drug addicts: it’s their body and their choice and if they want to do drugs then gubmint ought not to intervene. Factories don’t want injuries but don’t want gubmint to get involved if it does happen. And finally, yes a lot farms are only viable under gubmint assistance and deserve to fail.
Gil | Jun 24, 2012 | Reply
At least the trains ran on time for the Italian Fascists, we don’t even get that in return, we get the TSA.
Dallas Weaver | Jun 25, 2012 | Reply
Whether or not “Americans have become ideal fascist citizens”, the rhetoric behind pronouncements that the government “gives up” revenue through tax exemptions for religious institutions or that as a whole taxpayers “subsidize religious organizations” (see Washington Post article) is based on the premise of a “tyranny of tolerance”. In this case it appears that people of faith must be tolerant of others’ points of view, but this tolerance is not generally reciprocated. Therefore, people of faith and their associated religious institutions must be coerced to “give up” what apparently belongs to the state, notwithstanding the generally accepted role of religion within the American tradition.
While there is natural tension between “church and state”, what ultimately happens to religious organizations as the state continues to usurp the role traditionally fulfilled by religion? Doesn’t the state essentially become something wholly other than which it was intended while carrying on under the guise of divine decree?
Believe All Things | Jun 27, 2012 | Reply