Welcome to another video covering a common fallacy committed by both statists and religious
fundamentalists alike.
For this one, we're going to have to start off going back in time about 250 years, to
before the founding of our country.
[Tricorne]"No taxation without representation!"
It was the cry that led a revolution.
Since tax money is taken by force, and Parliament decided how much to tax the colonists, they
said their taxes were illegitimate because they didn't have any representatives in Parliament
to argue for their interests.
In 1764, a man named Thomas Whately attempted to legitimize these taxes by arguing for what
he called "Virtual Representation."
He said that, even though the colonists weren't DIRECTLY represented in Parliament, they were
VIRTUALLY represented.
Members of Parliament would debate these taxes, and only vote for them after deciding that
they were in the best interests of the colonies.
George Grenville directly said that this meant that Parliament's taxes on the colonies were
justified.
Obviously, that didn't go over so well in the colonies, but despite the fact that it
had a lot of opposition even among the British people as well, Parliament asserted the validity
of Virtual Representation in the Declaratory Act of 1766.
William Pitt stood up in Parliament to protest:
[Pitt]"It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies...There
is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House.
I would fain know by whom an American is represented here.
Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom?
Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number!
Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough?
A borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw?
This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution.
It cannot continue a century.
If it does not drop, it must be amputated."
It all came to a head with the Stamp Act, the Revolution was born, and the rest is history--and
that history has come down pretty fully on the side of the REJECTION of Virtual Representation.
So, what does this have to do with religion?
It all ties in with Original Sin.
And I don't mean the Original Sin Fallacy; we'll cover that elsewhere in this series.
No, I mean the claim of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions that we are all judged as sinners
from the moment we are born--before we had any chance to behave any other way.
Why?
"Because a talking snake told a lady to eat an apple and Adam did so too and thereby disobeyed
God!"
But that's ADAM doing that, not any of us!
Why are WE held responsible for HIS actions?
Here's the answer, verbatim, from William Lane Craig:
"[Adam] represents us before God just as in, say, the U.S. Congress your federal representative
represents you.
He votes for you.
We don’t have a democracy in which all of us can go and vote.
Rather, we have a representative system whereby our representative votes in our place...all
persons are culpable for what Adam does.
He votes on our behalf, and we are held responsible for it.
Therefore, all persons are born sinners, and therefore they will inevitably sin.
Sin is not just a sort of accident that befalls us.
We are sinful by nature and therefore inevitably will sin."
Of course, the first thing anyone with any brains thinks is, "But I didn't vote for Adam!
I didn't even get a CHANCE to select him as my representative!
I wasn't even born then!"
Craig has his answer for this:
"We cannot complain that we have been misrepresented by Adam before God.
Adam has faithfully represented us before God...and therefore we cannot complain about
what Adam did."
So it doesn't matter that we didn't get to vote for him; Adam represented us anyway.
Virtual Representation.
How is Damnation Without Representation any better than Taxation Without Representation?
And speaking of Taxation Without Representation, which is what this was all about originally
anyway, did we really eliminate that?
"Sure we did!
You can vote for your representative and he votes on whether or not to raise taxes!"
Are you suuuuuuuure?
"Look, you're obviously going to shoot down what I just said, so just get on with it."
All right, all right.
Consider deficit spending.
Who pays the taxes to cover that?
"We do!"
Well, not really.
The debt is paid for with FUTURE taxation.
"Okay.
So?"
So people are going to be taxed to pay off today's debt for another 30 years.
"Okay.
So?"
You REALLY don't see it?
[shrugs]
All right, I'll spell it out for you: would someone who's ten years old today have to
pay taxes to cover the debt until he's 40?
"Well, of course!"
Even though he didn't get to vote?
He didn't get to vote for a single Congressman or Senator or the President or anyone who
had any say into whether or not this debt was incurred?
"Well, no..."
Okay, so he's required to pay taxes because of legislative actions by people who don't
represent him!
In fact, people who aren't even BORN yet will be taxed to pay it off!
Even if we stopped increasing the debt right now, children will be forced to pay taxes
even if they won't be born for another TWELVE YEARS!!!
As soon as they turn 18, they'll have to pay the taxes on this debt, to pay for the things
government is spending money on today.
Taxation Without Representation.
"No, that just isn't it, and I'll tell you why."
By the way, these next few arguments are VERBATIM from statists on my Facebook page.
"Obviously children can't vote.
Nevertheless their representatives in the government have a duty to represent their
interests, and not just the interests of those who can vote."
Isn't that Virtual Representation again?
"Oh...uh...but...What's the alternative?
You don't want them to be able to borrow money, because then people who can't vote yet will
have to pay taxes to pay those debts.
But how is this different from any other decision current representatives have to make that
will, in the future, affect those who cannot currently vote?"
Because THOSE decisions can be repealed by future Congresses.
They CAN'T repeal future debt payments.
"The point of loans is to prevent increasing taxes now."
So, then, it's better to increase taxes LATER on people who have no say about it?
"Well, we can always pay it off early."
But they're not REQUIRED to.
And it's not like the children or the unborn can threaten to vote them out of office if
they don't!
The WHOLE POINT is that they can't vote yet!
"Their parents can do it for them."
Again, Virtual Representation.
Actually, this is Virtual Representation twice removed!
Their parents--representatives THEY DIDN'T GET TO VOTE FOR--select the representatives
they STILL didn't get to vote for who raise their taxes!
How is this BETTER?
"Of course the people can always demand a debt length limit law."
What people?
Not the ones who aren't old enough to vote yet!
Again, you're saying it's valid because SOMEONE ELSE can act on their behalf--someone they
DIDN'T get to choose as their representative!
It's Virtual Representation, no different than the arguments we covered earlier from
Thomas Whately and William Lane Craig.
"The idea that I borrowed any ideas from fundamentalists is silly.
No reason for insults."
I didn't insult you!
I'm pointing out that you're using the same bogus argument as Craig did.
Statists ALWAYS pull this crap, as we've seen throughout this series.
Point out they committed the same fallacy as creationists, and you get:
"Mommy!
The bad man called me a creationist!"
Statists NEVER want to admit to the blatant fallacies they commit.
It's like Alexis de Tocqueville said: "expenses will always be considerable, either because
taxes cannot touch those who vote for them or because they are assessed in a way to prevent
that."
He also said, "a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a
tax can escape the obligation to pay it."
How DARE anyone vote for a tax that someone else who DIDN'T get to vote will have to pay!
And especially when it's THEIR OWN CHILDREN that they're saddling with debt, all so they
can have what they want today.
Oh, but it's the libertarians who are selfish and greedy.
Stay tuned.