It is also wrong to expect or compel someone to act as an agent of government without just compensation (they have given up time attending to their own business after all).

The answer to this is surely simple. Contracts. Governments under the Lord’s law, as I understand it, were covenantal (as it is spiritually). This means that people would agree to pay taxes. Those who do not want to pay would not be allowed the benefits thereof. Joel Skousen goes into the details of how this could work in his philosophy of liberty.

This always seems to be the confusion between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives tend to wanting to compel people into a social contract of the higher laws, and libertarians often leaving out the concept of a covenant altogether.

A libertarian foundation with a voluntary covenant founded in the higher laws of God (reflecting the spiritual covenant in the Church) is the answer to many confusions on the matter of agency and property in my honest opinion.

“You have yet to show me a scripture where the Lord himself or through a prophet clearly states that taxation is ok.”

The following could call for it’s own article (which I may write) regarding government being able to rightfully compel people (and tax), with limits of course… I would recommend you read/re-read Ezra Taft Benson’s Proper Role of Government, and pay attention to this part, and the various uses of the word ‘tax’ throughout the article:

“I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:

(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation’s defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.”

Also…

“taxing authorities may levy taxes”… “…Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that each person’s property or income be taxed at the same rate.”…

This is just from one article that came to mind, but I’m sure I could find other statements from prophets regarding justified taxation.

You said it more politely that I ever could :)

I”m working on being more diplomatic, but my patience wears thin.

Even if the punctuation is incorrect in the King Benjamin statement, it does not imply that he taxed the people. I am of the opinion that individuals probably followed his example and gave of their time, labor, and money to benefit their communities.

1 Kings 12:4 refers to the Israelits wanting less taxes. Am I to assume that this means that God approved of them being taxed at all? If I remember correctly, they didn’t have a spotless record of always asking only that which was in accordance to God’s will and command. Some of them said they preferred slavery over suffering hunger in the wilderness (Exodus 16).

Your use of Alma 11 baffles me. It refers to the judges receiving a fair wage. It does not state that the people were obligated to pay that wage. When it refers to a man owing another, it is giving an example of a conflict that would be appropriately settled in court. IE: If I contracted to borrow money from you to pay back but never paid you back. Under the terms of the contract you could take me to court to seek restitution. It then says that the man would be “compelled to pay that which he [already] owed” or suffer other consequences. It does not say that he paid his debt and the judge’s wage.

It also never states that the officers were not volunteers.

Your identification of the many wicked leaders who imposed grevious taxes could just as well support that God does not want us to be taxed at all, because as soon as a wicked man is given control of your wealth, he will take it to that extreme. This type of logic, I feel, is present behind the word of wisdom.

You have yet to show me a scripture where the Lord himself or through a prophet clearly states that taxation is ok.

I respect your effort, but fear your logic is a bit stretched.

Sorry if I’m less than coherent. I wrote this while watching a movie.

The word ‘AND’ provides the needed verbal puncuation between “not be laden with taxes” and “that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne.”
Any ‘AND’ could be the begining of a sentece. My point is: Those are two completely different thoughts. You have basically have to love coercion so much that you must ignore basic grammar principles.

What you have done is overlooked obvious verbal punctuation to ignore what King Benjamin is saying.

There are ways to get revenue. without taxing. King Benjamin and the Mosiah’s lived the commandments.

Causing a convicted theof or robber to pay for reparations AND the costs of dispensing justice is not a TAX. It is a punitive fine. THe problem in our society is NOT the coletion of punitive fines for REAL criminals. It is theft of weatlh. You obviously have to use a VERY large and expansive ( and weak) definition of the word ‘tax’ in order for your arguemnt to hold any water…that is in addition to yourbrushing aside of plain langauge.

Wrest with the scriptures to your own destruction I say.

You’re entitlted to opinions, but when you twist truth to control your fellow man, it is reason for me to have a healthy fear of you and what you would do. You heart is NOT for my well being.

The people weilding sticks, tasers and guns have more of a benefit of a doubt in your mind than the plain truth and the joy and freedom of your bretheren.

I spoke about this part of the scriptures in the latest LDS Liberty Episode.