Life and Liberty Are Secure Only so Long As the Right to Property Is Secure

Leviticus 25:13 “In this year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

Psalm 115:16 “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to mankind.”

The one unalienable right that our Founding Fathers told us to be aware of was the right to property, because all other rights are related to it. Just a superficial reading of Scripture shows the importance that God has placed on private property ownership. Under English common law the earth was considered a gift from God, as we see from Psalm 115:16. John Locke pointed out that this was a common gift and it was the responsibility of mankind to improve it.

This goes along with the Cultural Mandate that the Creator gave us to “subdue the earth and have dominion over it.” (Genesis 1:28) In one sense, dominion brings in the idea of control which also brings in what the Founding Fathers called “exclusiveness” meaning that private property became a necessity in order to subdue the earth and have dominion over it.

If we did not have what is known as “private rights” to develop and improve property then it would be perfectly lawful for a lazy, covetous person to move in as soon as improvements were made and take possession of the land. Even then the lazy, covetous neighbor would not be secure because someone stronger than him could come in and take over.

In the book, The 5000 Year Leap, we read that without property rights four things would occur that would completely frustrate the Creator’s command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and bring it under dominion. What are they?

1. “If another person could come in and take possession of the property once it is improved it would completely destroy the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve any more property.”
2. “The industrious individual would also be deprived of the fruits of his labor.”
3. “Marauding bands would even be tempted to go about the country confiscating by force and violence the good things which others had frugally and painstakingly provided.” (Look what is happening in some of our cities where private property is being confiscated, business’s ruined.)
4. “Mankind would be impelled to remain on the bare subsistence level of hand to mouth survival because the accumulation of anything would invite attack.”

In other words, and like Locke and our Founding Fathers brought out, property is an extension of a person’s life and energy as well as ingenuity. The reason that they bring this out is that every man has a ‘property’ in his own person. So, the labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.

A question does come that since everything originally was common with the rest of humanity how then does one require ownership? John Locke answers the question: “It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state that Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common (gift from God) is of no use.” John Locke goes on to say: “Thus this law of reason makes the deer the property of the Indian who has killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who had bestowed his labor upon it, though before, it was the common right of everyone.” In other words, property becomes the owner of those who put the labor into it. For example, in the early days of our Union property was allotted to those who would take possession and put labor into it. It was Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court that mentioned that property, per se, has no rights; “but the individual – the man – has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his Life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property.” It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “Property is the fruit of labor.”

On the basis of all of this, one of the primary purposes of government is to protect property. The early American colonists realized the importance of this and it is one of the things that led to the Revolutionary War, because it was the royal crown trying to take away property through various kinds of taxation without their consent. Our Founding Fathers realized the foundational stone for human liberty and human happiness is private property.

This is why government should not take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have-nots,’ as the redistribution of the wealth is unconstitutional. However, we see today how the government has slowly but surely began to redistribute, out of concern (supposedly), for the poor and needy. The question does arise who will take care of the poor? The answer according to our Founding Fathers was “anybody but the federal government.” Up until the present time, help was given almost exclusively by the private sector or on the community or state level.

It would seem to me that if we lose our right to own private property we also will soon lose all our other rights.

Life and Liberty Are Secure Only so Long As the Right to Property Is Secure

Leviticus 25:13 “In this year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

Psalm 115:16 “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to mankind.”

The one unalienable right that our Founding Fathers told us to be aware of was the right to property, because all other rights are related to it. Just a superficial reading of Scripture shows the importance that God has placed on private property ownership. Under English common law the earth was considered a gift from God, as we see from Psalm 115:16. John Locke pointed out that this was a common gift and it was the responsibility of mankind to improve it.

This goes along with the Cultural Mandate that the Creator gave us to “subdue the earth and have dominion over it.” (Genesis 1:28) In one sense, dominion brings in the idea of control which also brings in what the Founding Fathers called “exclusiveness” meaning that private property became a necessity in order to subdue the earth and have dominion over it.

If we did not have what is known as “private rights” to develop and improve property then it would be perfectly lawful for a lazy, covetous person to move in as soon as improvements were made and take possession of the land. Even then the lazy, covetous neighbor would not be secure because someone stronger than him could come in and take over.

In the book, The 5000 Year Leap, we read that without property rights four things would occur that would completely frustrate the Creator’s command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and bring it under dominion. What are they?

1. “If another person could come in and take possession of the property once it is improved it would completely destroy the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve any more property.”
2. “The industrious individual would also be deprived of the fruits of his labor.”
3. “Marauding bands would even be tempted to go about the country confiscating by force and violence the good things which others had frugally and painstakingly provided.” (Look what is happening in some of our cities where private property is being confiscated, business’s ruined.)
4. “Mankind would be impelled to remain on the bare subsistence level of hand to mouth survival because the accumulation of anything would invite attack.”

In other words, and like Locke and our Founding Fathers brought out, property is an extension of a person’s life and energy as well as ingenuity. The reason that they bring this out is that every man has a ‘property’ in his own person. So, the labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.

A question does come that since everything originally was common with the rest of humanity how then does one require ownership? John Locke answers the question: “It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state that Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common (gift from God) is of no use.” John Locke goes on to say: “Thus this law of reason makes the deer the property of the Indian who has killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who had bestowed his labor upon it, though before, it was the common right of everyone.” In other words, property becomes the owner of those who put the labor into it. For example, in the early days of our Union property was allotted to those who would take possession and put labor into it. It was Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court that mentioned that property, per se, has no rights; “but the individual – the man – has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his Life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property.” It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “Property is the fruit of labor.”

On the basis of all of this, one of the primary purposes of government is to protect property. The early American colonists realized the importance of this and it is one of the things that led to the Revolutionary War, because it was the royal crown trying to take away property through various kinds of taxation without their consent. Our Founding Fathers realized the foundational stone for human liberty and human happiness is private property.

This is why government should not take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have-nots,’ as the redistribution of the wealth is unconstitutional. However, we see today how the government has slowly but surely began to redistribute, out of concern (supposedly), for the poor and needy. The question does arise who will take care of the poor? The answer according to our Founding Fathers was “anybody but the federal government.” Up until the present time, help was given almost exclusively by the private sector or on the community or state level.

It would seem to me that if we lose our right to own private property we also will soon lose all our other rights.

Exodus 18:21  “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”

When we repeat the Pledge of Allegiance we highlight this principle: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.”

Democracy requires the full anticipation of most of the population in the legislative or decision-making process of government. In a country like America with 300 million people that would be impossible to come to any type of decision. You take the masses of people in a country, like the United States of America, and most are busy in their everyday affairs and would not have the time to sit down in different hearings and to do the daily task that would be necessary. Our Founding Fathers knew that there would be an explosion of our population and so they worked towards building a Republic.

Looking back in history we see that the Greeks tried the Democratic method of mass participation in their states and cities and each time it ended in tyranny.

A Republic is governed through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely as the population grows in a country. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

James Madison said: “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and having general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A Republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Madison, like the other Founding Fathers knew that the United States would be pushing West and expanding said: “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; and a Republic they assemble and administered by the representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over large regions.”

He went on to give a very good definition of a Republic: “We may define a Republic to be a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favorite class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercise and their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank Republicans claim for their government audible title of Republic.”

Here in the states we would do well to remember the words of Madison, Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers.

Today we hear the word democracy that the average American uses to describe America’s constitutional Republic. We need to have a clear and distinct understanding between a democracy and a Republic.

In the early part of the last century some people came together and organized the ISS – The Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The idea in back of this was to throw light on a worldwide movement known as socialism. This new movement – socialism – is defined as government ownership or control of all things of production and distribution and all that that entails. The slogan that was adopted for this new movement was “production for use, not for profit,” which caught on and we see the results of this in the Western world.

But because of the violence that was associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) the term socialism was looked upon in a bad way and so it was renamed to “the league for Industrial Democracy.”

This was bringing in the idea that the word ‘democracy’ would begin to convey the nationalization of production and distribution as well as the nation’s resources which then would become the property of all the people – hence a democracy and through that America could enjoy “production for use, not for profit.” We see this idea coming out with some of our politicians about the equal distribution of wealth which basically goes back to take from “the haves” to give to “the have-nots.”

Some of the brilliant young leaders at the turn of the 20th century of ISS were now in some of the most prestigious positions in politics, the press, universities, etc., and became the opinion makers of our society. We see this still being played out through the radicals of the 60s who are now in places of influence.

Actually to all of this what we have is really an attack upon the Constitution of the United States. In other words their thought was that the Constitution was outdated and perhaps totally obsolete.

We hear this argument today among so-called “progressives” who want to change the Constitution. Basically with many of our politicians today it would seem that they are paying little mind to the Constitution, although upon taking the oath of the office is to protect the Constitution which is the law of the land.

Proverbs 29:12 “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked.”

Proverbs 28:5 “Evil people do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand everything.”

Proverbs 28:16 “A leader without understanding taxes his people heavily, but those who hate unjust gain will live up longer.”

It was Thomas Jefferson who said: “Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” We live in a fallen world and our Founding Fathers knew that when they put our Constitution together to make sure that by following the Constitution the citizens would be protected from the basic human nature of man.

At the Constitutional Convention a question that our Founding Fathers had to answer, and that no political scientist in any age had been able to answer with complete satisfaction was: “How can you have an efficient government but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?”

Our Founding Fathers knew the frailty of human nature and after 200 years of American history we see the wisdom of the Founders. Today we see many unconstitutional actions that have taken place and being justified because it was for “a good cause.” It was Rahm Emanuel, while in the White House as the Chief of Staff in the Obama administration, who said that every crisis should not go to waste. It was Thomas Sowell who brought out that it’s through crisis – created or imaginary – that government increases its authority. It is through these crises that the solution is another government department. George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant in a fearful master.”

So the Constitution was so defined by our Founding Fathers that any public official would be able to serve at his upmost ability, but at the same time be restrained by the Constitution in regards to any mischief. Even today we find our political leaders straining at the Constitution in order to be free to do what they think is best, but Proverbs reminds us that there is a way that seems right to man but it leads to destruction. (Proverbs 16:25) Human history fully demonstrates the wisdom of this verse. The Founding Fathers knew that the leaders are not angels but fragile human beings.

This is why the Constitution is not what some call “a living document which can change with the times” because the Constitution was designed to control something which has not changed and will not change – namely human nature.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there was the danger of losing our Constitutional Rights. They also knew that the erosion would not come all at once but through a progressive erosion and Madison warned us that this danger should be wisely guarded against. He went on to say that when it does begin and we see that our rights are being taken away that we need to act immediately. However, there are so many rights that we do have that it has been hard to keep track of them all, but the one that he warned us against the most was our property rights. (A book that has just come out called LIVE NOT BY LIES  a manual for Christian dissidents by Rod Dreher brings forth how soft totalitarianism is taking over America. It is a good read).

We all must realize that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Exodus 18:21  “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”

When we repeat the Pledge of Allegiance we highlight this principle: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.”

Democracy requires the full anticipation of most of the population in the legislative or decision-making process of government. In a country like America with 300 million people that would be impossible to come to any type of decision. You take the masses of people in a country, like the United States of America, and most are busy in their everyday affairs and would not have the time to sit down in different hearings and to do the daily task that would be necessary. Our Founding Fathers knew that there would be an explosion of our population and so they worked towards building a Republic.

Looking back in history we see that the Greeks tried the Democratic method of mass participation in their states and cities and each time it ended in tyranny.

A Republic is governed through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely as the population grows in a country. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

James Madison said: “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and having general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A Republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Madison, like the other Founding Fathers knew that the United States would be pushing West and expanding said: “in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; and a Republic they assemble and administered by the representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over large regions.”

He went on to give a very good definition of a Republic: “we may define a Republic could be a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favorite class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercise and their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank Republicans claim for their government audible title of Republic.”

Here in the states we would do well to remember the words of Madison, Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers.

Today we hear the word democracy that the average American uses to describe America’s constitutional Republic. We need to have a clear and distinct understanding between a democracy and a Republic.

In the early part of the last century some people came together and organized the ISS – The Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The idea in back of this was to throw light on a worldwide movement known as socialism. This new movement – socialism – is defined as government ownership or control of all things of production and distribution and all that that entails. The slogan that was adopted for this new movement was “production for use, not for profit,” which caught on and we see the results of this in the Western world.

But because of the violence that was associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) the term socialism was looked upon in a bad way and so it was renamed to “the league for Industrial Democracy.”

This was bringing in the idea that the word “democracy” would begin to convey the nationalization of production and distribution as well as the nation’s resources which then would become the property of all the people – hence a democracy and through that America could enjoy “production for use, not for profit.” We see this idea coming out with some of our politicians about the equal distribution of wealth which basically goes back to take from ‘the haves’ to give to ‘the have-nots’.

Some of the brilliant young leaders at the turn of the 20th century of ISS were now in some of the most prestigious positions in politics, the press, universities, etc., and became the opinion makers of our society. We see this still being played out through the radicals of the 60s who are now in places of influence.

Actually to all of this what we have is really an attack upon the Constitution of the United States. In other words their thought was that the Constitution was outdated and perhaps totally obsolete.

We hear this argument today among so-called “progressives” who want to change the Constitution. Basically with many of our politicians today it would seem that they are paying little mind to the Constitution, although upon taking the oath of the office is to protect the Constitution which is the law of the land.