In a recent post I claimed that property rights were human rights. A question naturally arose as to whether I was responding to this essay by Brad Littlejohn, which, as it happened, I was not. The impetus for my post came out of a biography of Samuel Adams that I am currently enjoying.
Be that as it may, I see that I need to point out a few more foundation stones for my imposing and grandiose claim. Where do I get off saying that property rights are human rights. Unlike Brad’s piece, my thinking does not depend on the detailed history of the legal reasoning debates over this most controverted issue. This is because, after you strip away the big words I sometimes use — words like delicatessen — I am, at the end of the day, just a Bible thumper.
So how do I get off saying that property rights are human rights? I am required to love all men because all men bear the image of God, and it is not possible to love a man without simultaneously respecting his stuff.
“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Rom. 13:9).
There are two moral imperatives here that presuppose private property — the prohibition of stealing and the prohibition of coveting. None of these prohibitions should be over-engineered. I cannot commit adultery if there is no marriage. I cannot murder if there is no right to life. I cannot bear false witness if there is no truth. And, bringing this to the point, I cannot steal or covet unless there is such a thing as my neighbor having a right to whatever is modified by his very own personal pronoun. To adapt the nouns from the tenth commandment — his house, his servants, his livestock, or anything else that is HIS.
This requirement to love extends from the lowest strata of society to the very top. Paul tells those who make their living as thieves to steal no longer, but to get an honest job, working with their hands. “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28). He is to get an ordinary honest job so that he might have the wherewithal to give to those in need. He needs property to possess that he has the authority to give away, for without it, he cannot love.
One of the things Paul does when he returns Onesimus to Philemon is to acknowledge that Onesimus may have done some pilfering before his conversion. If that is the case, Paul says, Philemon should just enter it into Paul’s account (Phile. 18), knowing that this would necessarily square the accounts. So the requirement to love my neighbor through respecting his stuff — his car, his stereo, his lawn mower, his silver, his credit cards — is an ordinary obligation.
But what about the “high and lonely destiny” that the lords of the earth would like to have? Sure, the Bible prohibits pickpockets, but where do I get the authority to relegate the mighty ones who pass our tax laws (in their august and solemn assemblies) to the status of those who say arrrgh, and who have a parrot on their shoulders?
Well, its like this. More Bible thumping. When Samuel warns the people against anointing a king like what the other nations have, he warns them of the consequences to their property. In other words, it is reasonable to worry about the pickpockets in town, but wise men worry about another set of men, whose grasp of the distinction between meum and tuum is every bit as tenuous. These rulers will rise to the pinnacles of hubris, claiming to be equal to God, deserving of a tenth.
“And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:14–18).
If we got back to a ten percent taxation rate, we would think we were living in a libertarian’s daydream. We are pretty far gone. We have forgotten that libery must be understood as durable goods.
Last example, showing that the requirement to love a man by respecting his stuff is not limited to street urchins. Kings are included. Kings are singled out, actually. Let’s talk about Naboth’s vineyard, shall we?
Ahab the king broke the tenth commandment, and coveted Naboth’s property. He had a case of the sulks about it, until his wife suggested that he institute land reform, or zoning regulations, or inheritance taxes, or targeting the one percent. Something like that. The greedmeisters call their “reforms” by many different names, but greasy envy is always in the mix. You can read all about it 1 Kings 21:1-29.
This is why a bedrock qualification for political office is that a man must fear God, love the truth, and hate covetousness (Ex. 18:21). Do we have that in the halls of Congress? Not even a little bit close.
I applaud you, Pastor, for refraining from making a “He will put your ass to work” comment.
“[A]fter you strip away the big words I sometimes use — words like delicatessen — I am, at the end of the day, just a Bible thumper.”
God bless you, Pastor Wilson. I’ve been chuckling at every morsel of that line for about 15 straight minutes now (from a guy whose Facebook “religion” entry is “Bible-thumping redneck fundie”).
Thank you, Pastor Wilson. So far as it goes, all this Bible-thumping is right on the mark. The Bible does assume that normally there will be such a thing as private property, and that it’s not very nice to help yourself to your neighbor’s. It also assumes that one of the things that unjust rulers will do is use their power to help themselves to lots of their citizens’ stuff. The disconnect comes when you move from describing these straightforward principles to applying them to contemporary political realities. Obviously enough, there are plenty of modern examples of the sorts of… Read more »
Brad said, among other things, that “public sector employees generally earn less than they could get in the private sector.” The reality is that the majority of public sector employees would not even be able to get a job in the private sector due to laziness, covetousness, and other character flaws. Brad clearly has not been to the DMV lately.
Once again, thanks for this series! I’ve been concerned about this whole government-and-my-property thing for a good while now. Case in point, some decades ago, when TVA decided to build Barkley Dam, a good deal of my grandmother’s best bottom land, land that had been in the family since the 1830s, was suddenly coveted by the powers-that-be, for the “public good” of course! Yes, she “voluntarily” sold the land, but it left what property remained, now mostly timbered hillside, cut off from reasonable access. Of course we can now talk about all the recreational opportunities, the electric power, etc. available… Read more »
The fear of the rapacious king turned out to be a red herring. The roving bandit is much more ruthless than the stationary bandit and the tyrant turned out to be less destructive than the massive bureaucracy which is less destructive than the anarchic mob. The worst case scenario is an all against all such as that on display in Venezuela right now. Brad Littlejohn: “I repeat—our political officials have many faults, but paying themselves too much, at public expense, does not really seem to be one of them.” Check the net worth of a senator or president before vs… Read more »
I’ve enjoyed this series but I do think that it suffers by trying to draw both scriptural and political principles from a very narrow window in time and geography. American history is brief moment in the history of the church and, like it or not, the US Constitution becomes less relevent with each passing day.
Brad, The fact that you immediately give the money formerly known as Doug’s to Donny does not necessarily avoid the charge of covetousness on your part. You want Donny to have, say, $500. You do not, however, want to spend your own $500 to achieve that goal. To that end, you covet Doug’s $500, which you then take, so that you may give it to Donny without digging into your own personal fortune. I’d also question the notion that the civil magistrate can define “meum” and “tuum” — if Ahab could steal from Naboth, it would seem that a higher… Read more »
Here is a hot question that is going to get hotter with the increased number of Mexicans. Mexican natio9nalists claim that we stole the Soputhwest. It has always been Mexico and we need to give it all back to Mexico. What are your thoughts on this?
@Brad, Can covetousness not manifest in other areas beyond elected officials simply lining their own pockets directly? Your depiction of covetousness doesn’t take into account that the object of the covetousness may be something other than dollars and cents. Can they not covet power, position, influence? I think there is just as much covetousness in wanting to be the one to take your neighbors property and give it to someone else as there is in wanting to line your own pockets. Seizing the field, titling it in your name, and planting your vineyard would be the really obvious way to… Read more »
A piece of anecdotal evidence in support of Tim Nichols’s comment: I once had a Democrat supporter tell me that he’d rather give to that political party than to charity because his money went further that way.
Even if every Senator and Representative received an annual salary of $100 million (in fact they receive about a thousandethof that), the total would be less than 2% of the federal budget. There are very obvious problems with such a high salary for Senators and Representatives, but, relative to the Federal Budget, it would be petty theft. Whatever one may think of their other actions, their salaries are not driving the economy into the ditch. The same sort of reasoning applies to the question of covetousness. Yes, they probably should give more of their personal money (we all should), but… Read more »
And of course, Gates could only do that once, not year after year. Over a ten year period, Gates could finance roughly 2‰ (note the symbol) of the Federal Budget.
One more comment:
Sure, at least, without the capitalization of “HIS”. But, as the item you leave out very clearly shows, this does not imply private property, unless, of course, you want to say that a wife is a husband’s private property.
Isn’t Brad simply pointing out that Doug’s analogy of our current federal government to Ahab a bit off? The feds redistribute to the poor. Ahab only redistributed to himself in the case of Naboth. Is there not a difference here? At least a little bit? Is it really necessary to force the analogy because you really, really hate Obama?
Then as now…. I was going through Josephus… Ran across this: Antiquities, Book 1, Ch 4, Sec. 2 “(Nimrod) also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.” Does that sound familiar… The GOAL is to bring US into a constant dependence upon the government’s power and NOT the Power of God….. The irony is that we treat this as if it’s a NEW idea… A NEW theory…. Here’s Josephus writing this around 70 AD – about events that… Read more »
Just to clarify, Brad, are you saying here that it is the government’s job to define meum and tuum? Not just that it is the government’s job to uphold meum and tuum? Are governments free to define as they will?
Looking at it that way should shake your perspective and help you clear your thinking on the matter.
Ok, sure. And thanks for the excellent answer. Exodus doesn’t say that, but perhaps you can make I Corinthians 7 say it. You are not your own, but your body belongs to your spouse. But if your body, then surely also your “property”: They are not your own but belong to your wife. But if they belong to her, they also belong to you, since all that is hers is yours. That is, they are common. And what does the Apostle say next? “Do not defraud each other.” That is, don’t act as if something (or even my very person)… Read more »
No. Rather, private property is instituted by the state No, the reasoning in paragraph five of Pastor Wilson’s post is straightforward and correct: There are two moral imperatives here that presuppose private property — the prohibition of stealing and the prohibition of coveting. None of these prohibitions should be over-engineered. I cannot commit adultery if there is no marriage. I cannot murder if there is no right to life. I cannot bear false witness if there is no truth. And, bringing this to the point, I cannot steal or covet unless there is such a thing as my neighbor having… Read more »
You skipped the part where I argued against everything you said in this last post, ignoring it, and then turned to character attacks. But, you do have this going for you: You sound like Bilbo. “It’s mine, I tell you. My own.”
I will re-read the thread in the a.m. and apologize if I am in the wrong.
I took the measure of you with your “gollum” comment and responded in kind using that and your latest comment as representative of your view.
Until then, good night.
@Drew:
“The feds redistribute to the poor. Ahab only redistributed to himself in the case of Naboth. Is there not a difference here?”
The government doesn’t just redistribute to the poor. There’s also corporate welfare. When politicians steal from the productive in order to give to their cronies, they receive campaign donations in return, and, as someone else on here mentioned, cushy, high-paying jobs once they leave office.
@Brad: “But what we do not have, thankfully, in places like the US or most of Europe, is the ability for leaders to tax people to fill their own pockets.” Did you ever see the story where the Obama family took a vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, and they had a separate flight just for their dog? How can you not consider the extremely luxurious life of some of our leaders to be anything other than stealing from the productive in order to fill their pockets? Also, if crony capitalists have bought out Congress, wouldn’t it fair to say that these… Read more »
Matt, if I give the car keys I have to a bum I know, where will I find the keys to the common car you drive now?
Did Ahab plan to eat all the grapes from Naboth’s vinevard himself, or to share some with needier people?
Among the other rebuttals to Brad’s comments about what he thinks is not (but indeed really is) covetousness, let me add this{ Covetous people (and people tempted to same) roll two other things into riches besides riches themselves and the luxury they buy: sheer power and its accouterments, and being in charge, immune from the rules of the everyman, i. e. bossiness. Many, George Will, for one, have noted that other people’s money is the currency of maintaining power and all the trappings by buying off constituencies. Other people’s money, therefore can be coveted in order to purchase that lifestyle,… Read more »
Ben, the claim about the Obama’s dog was simply a lie meant to taint the Obama’s. That kind of attempt has gone all the way back to FDR. Before you speak evil of someone, check your facts:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bo.asp
AMEN! Preach it Brother.
@Jonathan Franzone:
Meh, I’ll trust my news sources over Snopes. I guess you don’t believe they have their own dog walker and film projectionist either.
You really don’t think Obama lives a life of luxury as President?
Matt, I find your arguments to be really strong. Timothy, looking at various translations of John 14:2 and what commentators have to say about them, I think it is clear that Jesus is saying that there is room for all of us there, not that there are physical structures that each one of us will say, “this is MINE”. The word meaning seems to be that there is space for us, a place for us, not a giant home for each of us. Also, the “you” in the phrase is plural, again taking the individuality and the private assumptions out… Read more »
Ben, you can believe whatever you want to believe, whether you have any evidence for it or not. And if I think it is wrong and should be countered I will try to counter it, with evidence to back it up. If you don’t believe snopes, here’s Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/bos-private-plane/ And here’s Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jul/22/did-obamas-dog-get-his-own-jet-plane/ And here’s truthorfiction: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/Bo-Flies-Solo.htm The reason behind your “own news sources” is clear. News sources reported that the dog traveled on a separate plane. Right-wing blogs engaged in political hackery interpreted that as “his own plane”, even though it was clearly just a separate plane that was… Read more »
Matt Petersen is trying to argue that because husband’s and wife’s bodies belong to each other (which Matt defines as being “common”), therefore all property should be held “in common.” Look closely: Matt is changing his definition of “common” mid-argument. The first “common” refers to husband and wife being on equal footing in Christ, both humans made in the image of God and not available for degradation by the other. With the second “common,” Mr. Petersen makes the illogical jump that somehow this equal footing means all property should be owned by everyone “in common.” Exodus 20:17 prohibits coveting my… Read more »
I always find it mildly amusing when people want to use the lethal power of the sword of government to take money from other people for their pet projects and pieties. God defines government sparingly: “They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” He also defines the premise of taxation in the same limited manner: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants…” Servant…servants, and for the purpose of maintaining general order in society. When someone objects to paying the vig (tip o’ the hat to Mr. Douglas), first they… Read more »
@Johnathan,
For the sake of argument, ignore “mansions, crowns”.
Is salvation mine or not?
@matt,
My hole, shovel comment was unfair; you did raise a sincere argument (Your “gollum” comment from several threads back tainted my opinion of you and I did not read your present comments carefully enough). I apologize for it.
I do not agree with your reasoning; I think Pastor Wilson’s argument from first principles is lock-down tight while yours strikes me as begging the question.
cheers.
t
Imagine no possessions.
No Life.
No Liberty.
No Property.
ok, what next?
Timothy – in the Bible, salvation is frequently referred to as “my salvation” from a human perspective, “his salvation” or “the salvation of our god” or “the salvation of the Lord” in reference to God, “your salvation” when directly addressing God, even “my salvation” spoken from the perspective of God, and corporately as “our salvation” or “salvation for Israel” or “salvation to Zion”. So it belongs to God, to me, and to all of us who have faith in Lord Jesus. I think the most true statement is that “Salvation belongs to our God”, and He shares it with all… Read more »
Hi Johnathan. I agree with you in that all things belong to God. Like the Lion/Lamb dichotomy, this does not mean that nothing belongs to us–take the parable of the talents as an example–with ownership, came responsibilities to God with the things the men where given as property. Men are held accountable for the use of their property. We can (I hope) agree that any men who stole what God had entrusted to those men, would be a thieves. They would probably call themselves “compassionate conservatives” or “progressives” or “nice” but they would be thieves and at odds with God… Read more »
Timothy – How are you differentiating between processes that are clearly the will of God – “God entrusted to those men” – and processes that are clearly against the will of God – ” who is the devil to take it from me”? You seem to be assuming that all economic processes outside of government regulation are the will of God, but all economic processes subject to government influence are against the will of God. I think your entire post is based on a completely unwarrented assumption. Money can be fairly or unfairly given and taken, justly or unjustly distributed,… Read more »
@Timothy:
It is yours. But you are also required to share it. If having received forgiveness for your great debt, you then go and hold your brother mercilessly responsible for his little one, your forgiveness and salvation will be rescinded.
Ya got love it when a man knows his Bible.
Hi Johnathan You seem to be assuming that all economic processes outside of government regulation are the will of God, but all economic processes subject to government influence are against the will of God. No I am not. I am arguing that private property is a right from God. I am arguing that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and is there to secure our rights before God. When, in the course of human events, government exceeds its legitimate authority it is our God ordained right and responsibility to put the damned thing back into… Read more »
Jonathan’s comment, “…our modern Western sense of the holiness of individuality has read a lot of things into the New Testament that are a lot more corporate than we assume them to be.” sums up the great falling away of the modern evangelical church. If holiness is corporate rather than individual, I can do whatever I like (sexual immorality, lying, cheating, etc.) as long as I vote for those who claim to care about the poor with my tax dollars. After all, if holiness is merely corporate, then so is sin. But, I really should volunteer one day every six… Read more »
@melody,
Hi is correct to observe cultural differences over time.
What I do not accept is that the changes that have occurred are worse and contrary to the will of God.
God has invaded this earth and He is changing it. If we where static, it would be a sign of something being akimbo.
Anything God has given us, Man will and has marred. The sin of the lost, does not negate the principles nor our Christian duty.
Sorry “He is correct” not “Hi is correct”. He/Hi being Johnathan (:
Timothy, it’s a serious question so I’ll ask it again.
How are you differentiating between processes that are clearly the will of God – “God entrusted to those men” – and processes that are clearly against the will of God – ” who is the devil to take it from me”?
Does all the money that any of us have control over count as money that God has entrusted to us? Or can we end up with control over money that was not entrusted to us by God? If so, what is the dividing line?
melody, your comment and the train of thought you follow it on has nothing to do with me or anything I said.
Some comments have tried to make the case that in the Good Ole US of A, our politicians don’t directly line their pocket books, so they’re not really coveting. They’ve also said that public sector employees could make a lot more in the private sector. I think you’re wrong on both counts. Politicians take money from group (a) and give it to group (b) so that they can get elected to office, and group (b) isn’t usually poor. I’ve met a lot of people on welfare that are NOT poor. My coworker was recently complaining about loosing free healthcare for… Read more »
Hi Johnathan, How are you differentiating between processes that are clearly the will of God – “God entrusted to those men” – and processes that are clearly against the will of God – ” who is the devil to take it from me”? That is a very interesting question. I have never considered it. My first thought is ‘fruits of the spirit’. Let’s take my donut as an example (krispey-kreme, munch) (sip, coffee…ahhhh!) Several people want my donut. 1 Barak Obama because after a certain point you have enjoyed too much donut. I tell Barak Obama to shove it. Then… Read more »