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.”
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.

“United States Of America Shall Be a Republic.”

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.

The Majority of the People May Alter or Abolish a Government Which Has Become Tyrannical

Psalms 133:1 “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”

Philippians 2:2-4 “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

Our Founding Fathers were very well acquainted with the abusive, autocratic government which for 13 years had imposed rules and regulations that were in violation of the English Constitution. This is why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when there is a long list of abuses by the government against the people that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

John Locke said in his: Second Essay Concerning Civil Government that “when the government comes in to take away property, beginning to reduce the citizens to slavery that basically the government is setting itself up in war against the people that the government “forfeit the power the people had put into their hands.”

However, it needs to be understood that it was the majority that set up the government and so it must be the majority that can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. John Locke went on to emphasize that there is no right or revolt in an individual, a group or a minority, but only in the majority.

A good definition of government’s role is found in the Virginia Declaration of Rights where it is stated: “The government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people. And that, if any government shall be found in adequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such a manner as shall be judged most conducive to the people or to the public health.”

What we need to keep in mind is that according to our Founding Fathers, it’s the people that are sovereign and that when necessary the majority can take over to restructure the political machinery – with the purpose of restoring liberty.

When I look at our government today we see that we are losing our liberty by unjust laws that are passed, regulations that begin to choke us, a political elite that determines what is best for us and an educational system that is programming our youth contrary to a Judeo/Christian worldview. Perhaps now is the time for the majority to speak. One way, of course, is the vote that we still have. Might we be wise this coming November 2016 as we vote for the best candidate to be the president of the United States.

The God-given Right to Govern Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People. 

During the 1600’s the royal families of England were bringing out the principle known as the “DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS.” In other words, it was declared right for them to reign and what they said or did was God-given.

The principle of the “God-given right to govern vested in the Sovereign authority of the whole people,” was a radical idea and one that met much opposition for the reigning kings of that time. A man by the name of Algernon Sidney was beheaded in 1683 by King Charles II because he insisted that the right to rule was invested in the people and that no one can rule without their consent.

John Locke fled out of England to Holland to be able to say the same thing Sidney was saying: “And whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and, consequently not the person THE PEOPLE HAVE CONSENTED TO.”

How we can thank our Founding Fathers for the fact that there was no idea of the divine right of kings in their thinking when they began to lay the foundation of our Republic. Alexander Hamilton said: “The fabric of American empire ought-to-rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.”

It is interesting to note that in the early days of our Constitution many of the citizens feared that too much power was given to the Federal government and it was through the writings of Madison and Hamilton their fears were put to rest that ultimate authority resides in the people alone.  When I see today the authority that the Federal government is taking upon itself it should cause great alarm. We are now being told what to eat, what to do, where to go, etc., and with the promise of citizens being taken care of by the government from the cradle to grave. Some might like it, but it is always at the cost of our freedom.

This then brings in the question: What happens when the elected officials usurp the authority of the people and begin to impose abusive policies upon them? This brings us to the fundamental principle of our Constitution and the next principle that we will be looking at: THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE MAY ALTER OR ABOLISH A GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS BECOME TYRANNICAL. Here in America we still have the privilege of going to the voting booth to vote in candidates.

This is why I think these 28 principles that have made America strong are important to keep in mind when we go to the voting booth. We need to vote for the one that most exemplifies these principles.