I called him an idiot judge.
What they need is tough laws with severe penalties and execution of the law which are not present in countries like India and Sri Lanka. Which is demonstrated by Judge advising people to break the law.
1 Like
But thatâs what that book is: instructions for organizing the lives of monks. One canât derive from it a charter for organizing worldly life, a life which the Buddha repudiated and consistently disparaged.
When the Buddha went forth, he wasnât a monk yet. The world said he had obligations. But he quit. He said ânoâ.
The Buddha recognized that people who lived the lower, ignorant, and impure worldly life were entangled in a network of conventional and enforced social obligations. Those are fetters. For those who had not the wits or inner strength to go forth, he offered kindly practical advice. But he never offered some sort of religious charter of legitimation for the worldly, political realm - which he viewed as a meaningless wheel of pain.
The Buddhaâs outlook does not seem to be like that of the social thinkers of medieval Europe and the institutional church of that time. Those people thought society was wisely divided by God into three orders: those who fight, those who labor, and those who pray. Each order was considered legitimate in itself, and had its proper functional place in society. And the whole system functions as long as you have monks praying for the departed souls of the people who had piled up sins in their lives, and helping them get out of purgatory.
The Buddhaâs view of violence and material acquisition was much less accepting. He thought all such people were ensnared by Mara in a debased and impure life that is harmful both to themselves and others. These people are fools and ignorant dullards, to be guided compassionately and gently toward a more noble vision.
"From acquisition as cause
the many forms of stress
come into being in the world.
Whoever, unknowing,
makes acquisitions
âthe dullardâ
comes to stress
again & again.
Therefore, discerning,
you shouldnât create acquisitions
as you stay focused on
the birth & origin of stress.â
- Sutta Nipata 3.12 (a nearly identical passage occurs at 5.4)
Look at the chief lay disciples in the suttas: Anathapindika, Ambapali and the several kings the Buddha converses with. These people are all fools, but compassionately regarded fools. Anathapindika is a wealthy merchant. His daily life is filled with the blind and ignorant piling up of material acquisitions. He is at some level good-hearted, and so has some vague understanding that he is doing some kind of good by giving to the sangha. But despite the fact that he has been assisting the sangha for years, it is not until he is at deathâs door, and hears from Sariputta the dhamma that the monks hear every day, that he finally understands the fundamental purpose of the holy life he has been supporting for all that time.
Ambapali is a courtesan. She lives in a world of lust and desire, made up like a puppet, singing and dancing and love-making, and turning on the endless wheel of sensual craving, sensual gratification and sensual disappointment. Late in life she goes forth, and then looks back poignantly on the transient absurdity of her earlier life:
The kings are the most pathetic figures, ensnared deeply in a cruel life of power, suspicion, war, intrigue, murder, conquest and punishment from which they canât escape. The daily doing of severe harm is part of their chosen livelihood: the livelihood of the will to power, supremacy and control. The better ones travel into the forest to look longingly on the freedom of the Buddha, a freedom that comes from an utter lack of worldly attachment and entanglement. And then they return abjectly to their world of violence and pain.
The Buddha seems to have regarded the political life of the earlier republics as somewhat superior to the politics of the rising kingdoms. There is some greater degree of voluntariness; some lesser degree of employment of the rod of violence. But even that republican life is dusty and deluded, much consumed with organized fighting and wealth-accumulation and control over others. And so the Buddha gave it up.
7 Likes
Itâs a sign of desperation. The whole system is dysfunctional - essentially each man for himself, engaged in a lifelong struggle to survive. Tax money that should be spent on medicare and infrastructure is instead squandered and looted by whole squadrons of politiciansâŚ
3 Likes
Very well said, @DKervick. The whole of the Buddhaâs Teaching is centred on asceticism and renunciation of family, society and the world. All the systems and social structures conjured up by people are just left behind altogether. But this age seems to be obsessed with âprogressâ, with no time to pause and examine if the means can justify the ever-moving goalposts of greed and acquisition.
2 Likes
Itâs interesting, @Sujith, because a similar historical development can be found in the history of Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth recommended that his followers leave their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and follow him to await the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Some did so, and in doing so set themselves at odds with the norms of Roman-dominated society in the Mediterranean world. But in the space of only a few hundred years, this movement of drop-outs and martyrs had become the state religion of Rome, and was safely legitimized and domesticated within the imperial system. The followers of the crucified God had expanded to include the religious underwriters of the system of the crucifiers.
I suppose a religion that is âsuccessfulâ in worldly terms ends up with its core message and practice community being co-opted and absorbed as âfunctionalâ parts of some larger worldly system.
2 Likes
As I understand it, there is no law to say one must pay tax. I have heard that former employees of the IRS (internal revenue service) in the USA found out they were not required by law, to pay tax, so they stopped and nothing was done about it.
1 Like
Interesting.
I am not sure whether a small fish like you and I get away from it.
Only a big fish can challenge it.
Perhaps in above case, maybe it is too small for IRS to worry about it.
I always wonder how Donald Trump did not lodge his tax returns and still became the US president.
I own a business that was audited by the IRS years ago, and whatever the actual law says the IRS seems to believe they have the right to examine everything and make their own decision about how much you should pay 
Definitely felt like it was the opposite of the usual rules for the legal process âinnocent until proven guiltyâ. They treat everything like you are a criminal until you can prove you arenât . Maybe they need to do it that way because people lie so often on taxes (I am being very honest here and saying I do not lie on taxes and pay my fair share). In the end it was fine, but it left me feeling certainly like this is how the Buddha talked about âkings and thieves taking your moneyâ. Accordingly I have never thought about the 2nd precept having anything to do with paying taxes. They need to be paid or you will end up in trouble.
3 Likes
No, taxation is not morally transformed by procedure, scale, or democratic ritual. Taking property under threat of force remains taking property under threat of force. Calling it law does not change its ethical character. Calling it democratic does not make it consensual. And calling it socially useful does not make it voluntary.
The central error in the argument is the claim that taxation is justified because you are âin a contract.â This is simply not true.
A contract requires explicit consent. You signed no contract with the state. You were born into its jurisdiction. You cannot meaningfully opt out without uprooting your life, abandoning property, or emigrating. That is not contract.
That is imposed rule. Saying âyou can voteâ is not consent either. A victim does not consent to expropriation because he was allowed to vote on which faction will expropriate him.
Majoritarian approval does not alter the nature of coercion. Fifty-one percent voting to seize what belongs to the forty-nine percent does not cease to be coercion because ballots were used instead of guns.
Nor does the fact that tax revenue is spent on roads, schools, or hospitals rescue the moral claim. This confuses ends with means. The question is not whether some tax revenue funds useful things. The question is whether useful ends justify coercive extraction. A robber who donates part of his loot to charity is still a robber. If the underlying act is coercive seizure, then pointing to downstream benefits does not cleanse the original act. This is one of the oldest and simplest libertarian objections: good uses do not retroactively legitimize bad means.
The Buddhist argument here also equivocates between legality and morality. It says taxation is not theft because the state defines property and therefore cannot steal from what it legally regulates. This is circular. If the institution doing the taking also defines what counts as rightful ownership, then any expropriation can be legalized by decree. That does not solve the moral problem, it merely restates state power in legal language. The right position begins from prior property rights, not state-granted privileges. Property is acquired through original appropriation, voluntary exchange, gift, and production, not by legislative permission. If that premise is denied, then âthe state may take what it defines itself as entitled toâ becomes unfalsifiable.
The appeal to democracy is equally weak .
âYou have some sayâ is not the same as consent. Slaves with a vote over their overseer are still not free. Democracy does not abolish coercion, it merely diffuses and legitimizes it. It transforms personal rule into impersonal expropriation and makes confiscation appear moral because it is bureaucratic and procedural. The tax collector is no less coercive because he arrives with a legal form instead of a sword.
Also you said we have no choice. But thatâs the whole issue. Private competing firms in a free market are capable of providing better services at cheaper prices than a monopoly government.
When I really think about it, if given a choice, Iâd rather pay taxes than not. Itâs not that much and I get a lot in return. Plus, I live in the US and am already fabulously wealthy compared to most of the world. My cars have a better bedroom than most all people of the world have a home for their entire family!
When I was younger, I too had a moment where I was resentful about paying taxes. The arguments seemed sound but ultimately, resistance was futile.
All I can say about it now is that any anger or bitterness or grasping that occupies my mind must go! Otherwise it will fester, kill joy, hinder my progress on the N8FP and will incline my mind towards ill will. Thatâs the kind of kamma I choose to not generate. Plus, itâs just craving for money and stuff that stands in the way of freedom from dukkha. Best to put effort into letting go now or carry that craving into another life.
If you really donât want to pay taxes, renounce and ordain! Way better return on investment!
5 Likes
Sorry guys, Iâve already âoriginally appropriatedâ everything in the world in previous livesâright down to the last particle. It all belongs to me. Any âthingsâ that you think that you own, actually belong to me. Any wealth created with those things, also belongs to me. You may think that you own things, but they were only ever on loan. You will have to give them all back when I ask for them. Thatâs just the way it is.
1 Like
I think this question is kind of hard to make sense of. What can it mean that collecting taxes is breaking the second precept from the POV of the early texts?
-
If someone steals from me, my job is to reflect on that in a way that doesnât cause unskillful qualities to grow in my mind. It doesnât really matter if itâs the state or a local thief who steals from me.
-
If taxes = breaking the precept, who exactly is breaking the precept? Whose job is it to âstop stealingâ?
-
The government workers (tax collectors) donât personally get to keep the money.
-
(in democracies) the politicians who decided the level of tax donât get to personally keep the tax money
-
political parties usually run political campaigns on what to spend money on. So there is some sense of trying to agree on as a society how to use some amount of available resources.
-
there are usually strong laws and conventions against personal enrichment from government activities like tax collection (anti-corruption laws).
-
Since states arenât conscious beings with intentions, taxation doesnât seem to fit very well with the second precept IMO.
But if a government employee is siphoning some tax money into their own account, then that would usually be legally considered stealing (afaik). Anti-corruption laws are usually broader though, covering not only monetary gain but other forms of advantages, gifts, trips, vacations, etc.
1 Like
I like your answer very much. 
You are absolutely correct in saying â If someone steals from me, my job is to reflect on that in a way that doesnât cause unskillful qualities to grow in my mind. It doesnât really matter if itâs the state or a local thief who steals from me.â
Thatâs the correct way to handle this I think. But surely we must do our part of not supporting socialism per se, as I see people posting on various buddhist forums.
If ownership means nothing for lay followers then second precept would also mean nothing.
Iâm suggesting that the concept âoriginally appropriatedâ doesnât make sense to me. But Iâm a product of colonialism, so maybe I have a different understanding to you. I would, for example, suggest that all of the wealth of the United Kingdom (where I live) was stolen from the colonies. Whereas others might (do) suggest that it was âoriginally appropriatedâ.
Stealing is a precept because local societies decide what property rights apply to what things. For example, certain pieces of paper have a monetary value in the UK in 2026 and so they are subject to stealing in the UK at this point of time. Local legislation has an important bearing on interpreting the precepts.
To be honest I thought that you were trolling us.
Just as an asideâŚ
I donât know of any free markets in the world. Which ones were you thinking of?
1 Like
British rule was exploitative, but not just smash-and-grab. It also built institutions that had economic value, railways, ports, courts, public administration, disease control, integrated trade networks etc.
Empire was not benevolent. Colonialism was exploitative and extractive, but certainly it was more complex than pure looting.
For example, I was reading Buddha and the Sahibs by Charles Allen. Much of what we know today about early Buddhism comes from the painstaking work of East India Company officials and colonial-era scholars. By the time they began investigating it, Buddhism had largely faded from India and was often treated as a lost religion on the subcontinent, even though it continued to thrive across much of Southeast Asia. The recovery of that history, from Ashoka to the Buddhist past of Bihar, Kashmir, and Sri Lanka, was made possible through the extraordinary detective work, scholarship, and personal sacrifice of those officials.
Free markets donât need to exist in pure form to be economically intelligible, just like âperfect competitionâ doesnât exist yet economists still use it.
But certainly we know that more economic freedom certainly relates to more personal freedoms and better society.
And it built me (an Anglo Indian), and I am of course very wonderful. That doesnât make one bit of difference. I know my own history.
Secondly I didnât say that colonialism was pure looting. Please read my reply again.
Iâm a bit sad and surprised that in my absence your post hasnât been flagged for these anti-Indian racist tropes. Did nobody who read your post notice? It just shows how far to the right the Overton window has moved on this forum. Anyway, I wonât flag it either but just directly call you out with an @moderators and let them decide if there are lessons to be learnt for the forum.
Anyway, it looks like I do need to explain, so ⌠All of those things that you cite were built by and for the purpose of destroying existing social institutions and destroying existing civilisations. Thatâs how colonialism works.
I knew Charles. He was a wonderful scholar. He gave a talk on that very book at The Buddhist Society in London when I was the librarian there. I imagine he too would be sad that his research is being used in this way. Unfortunately we will never know.
Hereâs an old adage (often attributed to Gandhi) to lighten the mood. When asked âWhat do you think of Western Civilization?â He replied, âI think it would be a good ideaâ
3 Likes
Itâs weird how it has become respectable-seeming to defend regressive ideas lately.
Colonialism was and is really evil, literally millions died in India from famines that were made worse by, at best, colonial mismanagement â but itâs hard to think racism wasnât part of it (see e.g. Winston Churchillâs mega racist statements about Indians and the Bengal Famine).
Like, if youâre defending colonialism, youâre defending some of the most evil shit in history⌠yikes! Donât do that!
6 Likes