Here is a great quote from James Madison about the Unalienable Right to Property:
PROPERTY . . . In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them . . . He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in excess of liberty, the effect is the same . . . Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This being the end of government . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right . . . A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species . . .
James Madison, “Property,” Quoted in Verna Hall’s The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, Volume I: Christian Self-Government
There are two things that occur to me as I read this:
(Article Continues Below)
- It is urgent in the preservation of Human Freedom that we honor the right to Property of Conscience. Individuals have a right to speak and live according to the dictates of their own conscience. You cannot make a pharmacist supply an “abortion” drug. You cannot force a hospital or doctor to provide abortions. You cannot force a business man to hire someone who practices homosexuality and force him to provide benefits for a homosexual “marriage.”
- Taxes need to be spent for the benefit of all. Taxing one’s property with the intent of benefiting another is stealing. That is right Communism and Socialism are stealing! The “Welfare State” involves theft on a grand level. Building a road that everyone can use promotes the “general” welfare - this is acceptable. Providing food for an individual is “individual” welfare - this is unacceptable. Neither government nor the individual has the right to steal from one individual to provide for another.
Possible Objections:
- What if one man’s conscience is in conflict with another’s? Then what? This is why we need God’s Law in the Bible - so that we can study and discern His Heart and His Ways and get His Wisdom about these things! God has also written His laws on the hearts of all men. (Romans 2:14-15) We can study this and see where mankind has created law consistent with God’s law! For example, there is no right in the Scriptures for same gender “marriage.” Additionally, human law and history show clearly that the ancient concept of marriage involves a man and a woman. We can recognize that this “law” is written on the hearts of men.
- But wasn’t Jesus into helping the poor? There is no doubt in my mind that God requires us to love our neighbor. It is a duty of all men to aid one another in times of distress or need. The error comes when we put our focus on forcing one neighbor to aid another by stealing the one’s property and re-distributing it to another according to our own agenda. We will get much further in helping the poor when individuals are encouraged in this responsibility. We are each responsible, but we don’t have the right to steal property to get the job done. Those of us who follow Christ need to find and promote solutions that do not promote stealing or any other kind of violation of property. In other words, we each need to help the poor out of our own property!
I am convinced that the threats to Property of Conscience and Property in general are amongst the greatest threats to preserving Freedom for our children and our children’s children. The ideas of Socialism and the New Morality pose a significant threat to the human race! Am I saying everyone who espouses these ideas is evil? No, I will leave that approach to others. If all we do is offend our fellow human beings who have mistakenly embraced significant errors by labeling them we will get nowhere fast. Offense hardens a heart into it’s current position.
I do propose that we as Christians live out Freedom and act in Compassion to display real solutions to the world. Unfortunately, many of the ideas of Socialism have become common place, even among those who have no concept of where their ideas have come from. If all we do is tear down those ideas, the myth that “conservatives” don’t care about the poor and needy will continue. We do need to dispute socialist ideas, but we cannot do that only.
Our Solution?
Defend Property. Act in Compassion. Preserve Liberty.
| 3.0 |
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Send This Post to a Friend
11 responses so far ↓
1 Ed // Mar 21, 2008 at 7:23 am
I agree Jon. Compassion cannot be legislated it comes from the inside out so while a communist or socialist government may SEEM more compassionate it really isn’t. Like all morality, true compassion cannot be produced through a system of government it is produced through a living relationship with the Lord and is fostered best in a free society like democracy.
Jesus said,
2 Casper // Mar 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm
You are so right Jon, nobody has the right to take someones property and give it to someone else.
I see in the news that the federal government is preparing to spend billions to bail out the banks and mortgage industry. Those are billions of your and my tax dollars!
Now when my neighbor Julio’s lawn mowing business was struggling, he tried to get some help, and there was none available. Julio mismanaged his business, and he paid the price.
The mortgage and financial services industries demanded deregulation, and starting with Reagan, they got it. Now they’ve mismanaged their businesses, and they should pay the price. I look forward to your future blog posts calling for withholding of food stamps from the families of the upper management at Bear Stearns.
If the little guy shouldn’t get welfare, why should the big guy? Please explain,,,
3 ThirstyJon // Mar 21, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Casper,
I am not an expert on banking or corporations. I have questions before God about how principles that lead to freedom apply. It gets a bit complex for my understanding. The day will come when I have a better understanding of these things, and I am sure I will post about them then.
F0r now I will share a couple of thoughts.
First, I do not feel favorably about the government intervening with tax money in corporations or banks. If American Taxpayers’ money is being used to bail out the financial interests of someone with the influence to get the government to do so, this is wrong.
If what is happening is the government is trying to promote the “general” welfare by keeping the banking system that we all rely on afloat, well, honestly, I still don’t understand it; but perhaps I will discover the logical justification for such an action. Right now I don’t really get or understand what is being done.
Just today and yesterday I was studying about the Federal Reserve, our currency, and some other stuff. I find it very daunting trying to comprehend what in the world is going on.
As best as I can tell, the Federal Reserve is our National Bank yet it is intertwined with a lot (entirely, actually) of private money. It is still our national bank, however. Whether or not it is a good way to do things, I have yet to comprehend, but it is the way we are doing things.
Now I am not saying that the banks and mortgage companies you are referring to are part of the Federal Reserve (although, aren’t all banks investors in the Federal Reserve?). I am simply using the Fed to illustrate that it is possible that the Government has an interest in the general welfare via these banks and mortgage companies.
So… Seeing as I do not understand the information or even have it all I will conclude with some principles that I will be applying as I grow in understanding the info.
1) It is wrong for the government to bail out corporations or banks that represent individual or some individuals financial interests for the sake of helping those individuals. It is just as wrong as stealing to help one small business.
2) Whatever situation that we have gotten ourselves into regarding currency, banking, etc., the government must work to promote the general welfare of the entire nation by making sure these institutions stay up and running.
Hope that clarifies my thinking for you. I am enjoying the workout. I have much to learn in the area of corporations and banks.
God Bless!
ThirstyJon
P.S. Wouln’t it have been great if Julio’s friends, family, and church had come to his aid? I have seen this kind of thing happen. Neighbor helping neighbor is the key!
4 Casper // Mar 22, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Julio’s a bit of a jerk and has no friends, his family’s dead, and he doesn’t go to church. I guess he just has to die.
You know what would be best for the “general welfare”? If we generally allowed the greedy idiots that did this to generally lose their golden parachutes and generally get a job as a doorman at WalMart.
But no - we’ll make it better, we’ll pay the price. Bank presidents will walk away slightly less wealthy.
Conservatives love capitalism and hate welfare - until there’s trouble. They want to Capitalize the profits and Socialize the losses. Pick one.
Reagan should have let Chrysler go down the tubes, same with the S&L’s, maybe that would have taught somebody something.
5 ThirstyJon // Mar 22, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Sounds like Julio needs some help from you then. That is what Christians do.
Although none of us can prevent people from getting the reward of what they sow in life. We can be there in mercy to comfort and show the way to God’s mercy.
You may be right about letting Chrysler go down and the S & Ls.
ThirstyJon
6 Casper // Mar 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Sure we can prevent people from getting what they deserve, we’re about to do it. The banking and financial services sector is crashing in a mess of their own making, and the FedGov is prepping the bailout to the tune of 200billion of our tax dollars. As I said, they’ll retire slightly less wealthy.
7 ThirstyJon // Mar 23, 2008 at 12:16 am
Casper,
If the government is engaged in one dumb activity, that doesn’t meant they must engage in another. Didn’t I already say that I do not support stealing money from one to “help” another? This applies whether the “helpee” be poor or rich.
And ultimately, bailing out whomever will not prevent them from getting the reward for what they sow in life.
ThirstyJon
8 Casper // Mar 27, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well you voted for ‘em Jon. No “Conservative Republican” (sic) is going to let a rich man lose a dime. Where’ve you been the last 30 years?
9 ThirstyJon // Mar 27, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Casper,
One could almost think that you weren’t watching the news in 2006 when the “Liberal Democrats” took over Congress. In the News I’ve been watching the John McCain’s are against bailing out, and it is the Democratic Congress that is for it.
ThirstyJon
10 ThirstyJon // Mar 27, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Casper,
By the way, the only person in Congress that I voted for is Dennis Hastert, and he is on his way out, replaced by a democrat. So, unless whomever I vote for wins for President, there will not be one person in the federal government that I voted for!
I did not vote for Obama or Durbin. Nope.
ThirstyJon
P.S. Well, actually there will be another election between Oberweis and Foster soon (not sure exactly when, I think November).
11 Casper // Mar 28, 2008 at 9:51 am
Wow - you admit that voted for Denny Hastert? That’s amazing.
From ThirstyJon: Yes Casper, I voted for Dennis Hastert. I am glad I did.
Leave a Comment