It is easy for conservatives to talk about how much we love liberty, but this too often comes off like commenting on how much we love ice cream. What such a person actually loves is the sensation for which ice cream is the necessary apparatus. But while it is lawful to love ice cream in that way, particularly Marionberry, we ought not to love liberty that way.
Liberty is not a consumption item. “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). Perhaps instead of talking about how much we love liberty, we should instead be talking about how much liberty loves.
And what does liberty love? Liberty loves to live by the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 1:25), and that involves the standing obligation to love my neighbor (Rom. 13:8). Love says that we are called by God to respect our neighbor’s stuff. That is what love looks like. That is what love does. That is central to the logic of love.
One time Jesus was in a polemical exchange with a lawyer (Luke 10:25). The lawyer asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asked him what the law required. The man said that he was supposed to love God with all that he had, and that he was to love his neighbor as himself (Luke 10:27). Jesus said that this was right, and if he lived this way scrupulously, right out of Leviticus, he would live (Lev. 18:5). The lawyer, stung, resorted to the high mountain air of refined definitions, and asked “who is my neighbor anyhow?” Drawing himself up to his full height, he said in stentorian tones, “let us define our terms.”
Jesus then told the story of the Good Samaritan, which begins with a man being beaten and robbed, and He ends the story with another man giving away money for the first man’s care. The Good Samaritan did not become the hero of the parable by radiating love rays at the wounded man. He did this by using the contents of his medical kit (Luke 10:34), and by giving the innkeeper two coins that would cover the man’s upkeep (Luke 10:35). Property in this parable is a delivery platform. The robbers delivered their contempt and hatred by taking his goods, and the Samaritan loved his neighbor by bestowing his own goods upon him.
But the lawyer, seeking to justify himself, asked “who is my neighbor?” But he could just as easily have asked “what is my neighbor’s stuff?” Your have said the robbers took his “raiment,” but what does “possession” of “raiment” actually mean?
Now despite initial appearances, I am not being unfair to those who question my “simplistic” approach to property rights, because I know and cheerfully grant that they are as much against purse-snatching as I am. Their objection is to the way that I lump Social Security payments in with purse-snatching. No, no, I do make a distinction. Our family has never lost any money through purse-snatching. We have lost countless thousands through a deft variation on purse-snatching called “withholding.”
When I charge government officials with theft, I am saying that they have confiscated something they have no right to take. It is a matter of indifference what they do with the money after that point — the theft remains theft. I knew of a situation once where a team of professional, high-level shoplifters helped build a church with the proceeds. That doesn’t matter. If it ain’t your’n, it ain’t your’n.
Now we have to recognize that the influence of Christianity has made it difficult for despots to sit on a mountain of doubloons, sprinkling them over their heads while cackling. And I grant that orgies on the White House lawn are a thing of the past, not seen since the term of Chester A. Arthur. But they still seize enormous amounts of money that don’t belong to them, and redistribute them as ring-givers, doing this in order to purchase for themselves what they desire. In order to succeed as thieves in this setting, they have to do what they do fraudulently. They have to look like they are doing something else, and so it is all “for the children.” But at the end of the day, if a thousand dollars is gone, I regard fine distinctions between pirates, credit hackers, porch climbers, and congressmen as largely immaterial.
In short, I am not just accusing them of theft. I am accusing them of fraudulent theft. They are lying, and only naifs believe them. There is no defense of Medicare, or Social Security, or the IRS that would not apply equally as well to the glossy prospectus issues by the administrators of the Temple in the first century. The way their laws were structured, all of that was perfectly legal. And yet . . . and yet . . . Jesus said it was a nest of thieves. And it was too (Matt. 21:13). Should I argue that the Federal Government is not a band of thieves like the Sanhedrin was because our Feds have stolen a million times as much?
If a government official steals money from me, he might buy many different things with it. If he buys cocaine and floozies, then he is a straight up pirate. If he buys respectability and a high reputation as compassion guy, he is still trafficking in stolen goods.
There is more to be said about all this, and I will probably get to it soon enough, but let us just note for the present that unless property rights are understood and protected from the top of a society to the very bottom of it, human rights are in peril. You cannot love a man without respecting his stuff. Social justice (is there another kind? just curious) requires a religious foundation for clear title. That foundation is the law of the living God. Thou shalt not steal.
And God said to Moses on Mount Sinai, thou shalt love clear title, thee and thy children after thee, to a thousand generations, hating bureaucratized covetousness. It is even more forceful in the Hebrew, and when the mountain is smoking.
Thank you pastor.
Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.
Is the non-aggression principle something that can be deduced from scripture? By that question I don’t attempt to hide the cards in my hand. An-Cap ideology has been tickling my ears lately. I’m still trying to figure out whether or not it’s a good tickling.
I’m really enjoying this series on private property. I’m curious about this though: “In short, I am not just accusing them of theft. I am accusing them of fraudulent theft. They are lying, and only naifs believe them. There is no defense of Medicare, or Social Security, or the IRS that would not apply equally as well to the glossy prospectus issues by the administrators of the Temple in the first century” Is your argument that all taxation is theft? Or just taxation that supports unconstitutional programs like Medicare and Social Security? I hope you will clarify and make some… Read more »
I would refer to Matt 22:16-21 or Mark 12:14-17 when questions pertaining to the “right” of civil authorities to collect taxes come up…..
As has been pointed out, you are still assuming what you are trying to prove, and ignoring your critics. While speaking as if you have the Lord’s authority.
How does one prove life, liberty and property?
You might as well prove perfume smells good.
oy, I am tired. good night.
Doug, using a specific government program that you mentioned in this post, why do you say Social Security generally ought to be considered as fraudulent thievery? It doesn’t seem like most folks who have paid into it and meet the objections conditions for eligibility, are not reaping from it — against any general notion of fraud. What abuse has happened so deceptively and pervasively that makes you think it is over all such a fraudulent program (vs. merely having exceptional instances of fraud/abuse which any agenda involving the governance of depraved men is statistically expected to be subject to)? Are/were… Read more »
Timothy:
Your remark is telling. We do not believe in Sola Declaratine Independentiae. If one defends them at all, one defends them from Scripture. Without, as in these posts, assuming them from the outset.
Hi Matt, Unlike God, Pastor Wilson does not speak principles into existence. He starts with God’s principles–simple ones, like the ten commandments–and builds a case based on his knowledge of Him and His Word. I find it logical, compelling, consistent with the Spirit of God and true to my experience. While it is logically consistent, it is not a logical proof. If you have a different case to make, by all means make it. p.s. Sola Declaratine Independantiae (Matt’s very own sixth soli, I presume) does not translate on bing or google. I assume it means “Lone dog barking up… Read more »
Hi Brian
The thievery (sp?) is taking the money you paid in, spending it on other cash-for-clunkers (the DOE version) and replacing that cash with i-o-u-s.
The fraud is lying to you and telling you it is all ok.
My take, not PW*’s
cheers t.
*PW = Pastor Wilson
All, just for the record, if Social Security were a private insurance company, the entire board of directors would be in the slammer, three cells down from Bernie Madoff.
The thievery (sp?) is taking the money you paid in, spending it on other cash-for-clunkers (the DOE version) and replacing that cash with i-o-u-s. ”
“just for the record, if Social Security were a private insurance company, the entire board of directors would be in the slammer, three cells down from Bernie Madoff.”
So then the knock against Social Security is not so much the fact that it exists but the way it’s done? If the government would administer it more efficiently and honestly it then would not be fraud or theft and you’d be okay with it?
Hi JohnM
yes. I would and am. I do not think it is wise, given observed behavior of governments to do what they have historically done and what ours is doing. that is a different argument.
@JohnM Imagine the ideal scenario, where every cent paid into Social Security were put into the hands of honest, capable government brokers who invested everyone’s money in solid, safe, interest-earning bonds, stocks, etc., and then once the person reached a certain age, he would receive everything he paid in plus the interest earned. Even in this ideal scenario, which is about a million miles from actual reality, it would still be immoral, because it would be forcing people to invest a certain percentage of their earnings in things they may choose not to invest in were they given the choice.… Read more »
Do you believe it is lawful for federal tax dollars to be used to support, medically if nothing else, crippled up veterans, their widows and orphans? How about the GI Bill?
@Robert “Do you believe it is lawful for federal tax dollars to be used to support, medically if nothing else, crippled up veterans, their widows and orphans? How about the GI Bill?” The answer seems simple to me. If it’s morally acceptable to coerce the population into providing funding to fight a war (let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is purely defensive and therefore a just war), then I think these things could reasonably be considered necessary expenditures of that war. In my view, all coercive spending is immoral, and these things of course would be included… Read more »
That’s me in the cartoon on the sailboat in the background. Since I gave the harbor patrol guy my bottle of laundry soap when he left his on the boat (his boat is in the same marina), he didn’t ask for my tax return.
Let me say as a combat veteran myself, I don’t believe I have necessarily earned benefits such as the Post-9/11 Veterans Ed. Benefit (which I have used, BTW!), etc. A rational nation wouldn’t be engaging in meddlesome wars overseas, and would instead confine war-making to truly defending against existential threats to its citizens’ lives, liberty, or property. We are not a rational nation; heck we’re not even a nation anymore! A military like I’m describing would be very limited, consisting perhaps (as in the early republic) of a basic structure of career military men, the rest being all of us… Read more »
BTW, I think another crisis is coming for all of us military types, both current and former, in really understanding and taking to heart the oaths we swore “. . . to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” While I know our Constitution is far from perfect (I agree with Patrick Henry on this one, and would have preferred a strengthened Articles of Confederation), if we simply adhered to its original intent, we’d be far, far better off! Bottom line: I did NOT take that oath in order to support the theft by the corporatocracy,… Read more »
@DavidSmith ‘s views are similar to my own.
@melody. Brilliant.
David, I here you in your refusal to support such wars. And I certainly do not think that you should be denied that benefit at all – I think we need to treat our soldiers far, far better than we do. I would prefer we not send them to war at all, but I also prefer that we protect all lives within war, and put forth enormous effort to heal them afterwards. All that said, I would question the ethics of taking an unjust payment in order to make up for a perceived unjust theft, even if the benefit gained… Read more »
David, I “hear” you
Ben, Thanks. It wasn’t your comments that prompted my questions, but you did express one view of the matter, and I think I already knew it’s the one you held. Your direct answers to my first question (take a look again if you like) I think would be: “No, it’s both, and the way it’s done isn’t the fundamental issue”. I think your direct answer to my second question would be: “No, not okay then either, no matter how well it was done it would amount to theft”. Does that sound about right? Timothy, Of course one of your comments… Read more »
@JohnM
Yes, those would be my direct answers to your questions.
@Jonathan Franzone
“I don’t think we are supposed to steal back, even from thieves.”
So if I steal your bicycle, and you see it out in my yard when I’m not home, and you take it back, you’d consider that “stealing?”
Hi JohnM. Yes. To go further, I would be content with a Godly socialism as existed in Acts. I would be content with a Godly monarchy. I would be content with a Godly A republic appeals to me because men are not angels and I agree with our founder’s attempt to limit the damage sinful men can do to our liberty in Christ. If the post-millenialist view is the correct one, I expect new political systems to emerge that support what God is achieving in this world. Finally, I wish national politics wasn’t such a central issue to fight. I… Read more »
Is there a point in any of this incoherent drivel?
“I don’t think we are supposed to steal back, even from thieves.” So if I steal your bicycle, and you see it out in my yard when I’m not home, and you take it back, you’d consider that “stealing?” I think that your specific example, generally, wouldn’t be the ideal response under Christ. First off, I don’t think that rectifying that particular injustice is a personal responsibility (at least, not if you have to violate someone’s rights to do it). You should notify the proper authorities, not judge the theft and then commit one that you feel justified about in… Read more »
@Jonathan Franzone “You should notify the proper authorities, not judge the theft and then commit one that you feel justified about in return.” But I don’t see it as theft in the first place. Maybe the bike was a bad example. What if someone stole a wheelchair that belonged to one of your loved ones (something they obviously really need)? And then you just saw that same wheelchair sitting in the thief’s driveway? You really think it would necessarily be a sin to take it back? What if the thief’s not home right then, so you can’t approach him to… Read more »
So, David, you feel we are right to sit back and watch ISIS slaughter the Worlds Christians and do nothing.
Robert, I can’t speak for David, but I think it is an awful example of the direction we’ve gone as Christians that “send in the military to shoot some people” and “sit back and do nothing” are immediately assumed to be the only two options.
And no, I’m certainly not saying that “negotiate with the theat of war” is the third option.
I’m probably more interventionist than David is though.
Ben, I didn’t call it a sin. I don’t think that sin/non-sin is a very good dividing line, because it sets far to low a standard for us as Christians. In fact, I even mentioned that in a contrived example like yours I would probably do it, out of revenge and probably a bit of spite for the thief. But I wouldn’t recommend it as the ideal action.
But yeah, we both agree on the application in this case, and that’s probably the more important thing.
@Robert: “So, David, you feel we are right to sit back and watch ISIS slaughter the Worlds Christians and do nothing. ” I’ve written somewhere else before that the one appeal that motivates me to want to place a bullet center-mass in an ISIS follower’s head is this very thing – part of the you-broke-it-you-fix-it thinking. But, honestly, how much more of our “help” can Iraqis – especially the church there – take? Granted, Saddam Hussein was bad, but that area of the world especially (We’ve all read our Bibles) has had bad people since virtually the beginning; there are… Read more »
David, I’m sure we disagree on a lot of things, even on the exact application here.
But that was a beautiful post you just made.
Timothy,
“A republic appeals to me because men are not angels and I agree with our founder’s attempt to limit the damage sinful men can do to our liberty in Christ.”
I agree. The attempt might be made to work better. It will never work perfectly as long as men are not angels. I do think it has worked better than some Christians think it has worked.
@Jonathan Franzone
I’m sincerely honored, sir! Thank you!