This is the longer version of my response to Nick's questions on Ranting to/dev/null. See this post for more background. He asked, "Is it possible for a government to steal? The government is to punish theft. Is there any _moral_ restriction on how the government may take (or otherwise control the use of) somebody's property? Would a Christian in government be under any _moral_ obligation to refrain from taking the property of others for a particular purpose?"
The shorter answer is that it is possible for a government to steal (the answers to the other two questions flow from this). However, this possibility results, not from some inherent restriction on a government's actions, but on the particular form a government has taken. Two ideas should be considered: 1) the right of private ownership and 2) the responsibilities of government.
The first premise, which is implied in what has already been stated, is that there is no inherent right to private property or private ownership of any kind. I can already hear the objections- hasn't he ever read the Ten Commandments? One Reformed ideology states the objection like this:
We believe that in the prohibition of stealing, God has ordained the institution of private property. We believe that the Christian church should teach against theft in all its forms (Ex. 20:15).
We deny that the institution of private property is a human invention. Rather, it is the result of a biblical understanding of God's ordination of private property. But because man is fallen, the institution of private property, like all God-ordained institutions, has been much abused (Eph. 5:5).We believe that the root cause of political disregard for the institution of private property is envy and covetousness (Matt. 20:1-16). We deny that theft can be sanctified, even if it is done in the name of civil justice (Is. 5:20). If the civil magistrate oversteps the boundaries established for him in Scripture, one result can be various forms of theft, including oppressive taxation.
A single counter-example will do: Library Book. If it is possible to steal public property, then the prophibition of stealing does not constitute the ordination of the institution of private property. It certainly allows for private property; it does not, however, require it. The only implication that I am allowed to draw from this commandment is that lots of things are not mine. Personally, I think that free-enterprise and low taxes and private property are a great idea; nevertheless, I cannot sanction scriptural proof-texting to turn this into an article of the Christian faith.
Another case, which might be made in favor of private property, actually pervades scripture. This is the whole theme of the inheritance of the land. There is the division of the land amongst the tribes and to families within the tribes. Furthermore, to insure perpetual ownership, there is the provision of the year of Jubilee and of the kinsman-redeemer. And this would make a compelling argument if the political and economic situation of ancient Israel were normative for modern nations. But it is not. The nation of Israel was a theocratic kingdom, the purpose of which was to be a typological foreshadowing of our final and eternal inheritance of the earth when we shall reign with Christ.
I grant that I have not proven that private property is not an inherent right. But the burden is not mine. Unless the question of a government's ability to steal is purely academic, then it is a matter of injustice; a question of grounds for revolution. It is not enough to deny the premise; the opposite must be proven at least to the point of justifying civil disobedience.
The next thing to consider is government itself. One of the best statements that I know of outlining the purpose of government is found in the preamble to the US Constitution. It lists: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The question then is this: is it possible for a government to fulfill its purpose while denying the existence of private property?
As for establishing justice, if private property is an inherent right, then it is obviously unjust for a government to take a form that would deny this. Circle back to the first premise. The next purpose, to insure domestic tranquillity, might be the strongest argument in favor of private property. If we grant that the government has the right to eliminate private property, can it do this and keep the peace? This is a question of prudence.
Then there is the provision of common defense. This necessitates the right on the part of the government to claim some property. Adequate defense requires adequate funds. Beyond this, it becomes another question of prudence. If a government lays claim to all the property, will the economic situation be such that the common defense can be supported?
The promotion of the general welfare is the most relevant. How is never stated. Capitalism is not the only option. Even if it can be shown that an overly socialist state fails to promote the general welfare, it cannot be shown that all degrees of socialism have failed. Note that the general welfare does not need to mean that people are rich, only that their needs are met.
The blessings of liberty could easily be taken in an individualistic sense and, in the specific case of our present government, this would be appropriate. There is a strong case to made here for an individual's freedom to own property. However, this is a matter of how our government has defined itself. My claim is that the form of the goverment determines the extent or existence of private property, yet, I had included this in a list of the responsibilities of all governments. I stand by that inclusion by noting that the original intent of this phrase was probably not so centered on the individual as on the state. The thirteen colonies had just won their freedom from the Bristish sovereign. Without banding together, they could not hope to retain this freedom. One of the duties of a government, related to the common defense, is to prevent being taken over by a foreign power. Freedom is, or at least was, not so much about individual rights as it was about domestic vs. foreign rule. [For a fuller treatment of the idea that the original intent of the Constitution was not geared toward the individual, see this post.]
Even under those governments in which private property is granted, there is still eminent domain, which is defined as "a right of the government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction." If I am living in an economic system in which my private property is the means to my welfare, then a government that exercises the right of eminent domain must compensate me to the extent that my welfare has been compromised. At the same time, if I live in such a society, I am generally expected to take care of myself. But say I live in a socialist state. The government has the right to tax me as much as it wants to. If it does, though, it bears the responsibility of my welfare. There is still the possibility in both cases of a government acting immorally. Whether or not it is guilty of stealing might be a technicality. In any event, those governments that fail to act in accordance with their own standards would be guilty of deriliction of duty. Still, until this actually happened, we are called to submit as unto the Lord. We're not allowed to revolt over our political or economic theories, no matter how sound.
Posted by kcourter at maio 10, 2004 6:00 AM