Private Property Rights

The right to private property is something the American people believe is an inalienable right. For thousands of years society has allowed private property and rights to that private property. For example, people cannot steal someone’s private property without penalty. This has led to a resurgence in discussion of this policy issue because of the lack of input in where tax money goes from property tax. From a ‘May’ perspective, it is important to understand how the Bible supports the use of private property and what the government may control regarding it.
The ‘May’ portion of the May-Can-Should Analysis focuses on ‘Authority’. Biblical principles help guide understanding of a piece of legislation. That piece of legislation should also keep within the Constitution’s listed enumerated powers. A key policy issue discussed in Week 3’s module is private property.
In Genesis 1:29 the Bible speaks of Dominion Mandate. The Tend Commandments have as part of the rules an addition of ‘Thou shalt not steal.” This evokes the notion that one owns property and has rights to that property like not having someone take that property wrongfully (stealing). It is the idea that fruits of one’s labor belong to them and in belonging to them, they have rights attached to it.
The week 3 module mentions lus and dominium in the Roman Empire as well as a renewed Catholic reinterpretation of private property later witnessed in the Middle Ages. Back when the Roman Emperor was in power, depending on one’s relationship with the Emperor, they were entitled to property rights. Once the Roman Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church decreed that because people are made in God’s image, they can have dominion over the land and possess the right to own property.
The right to own property was not absolute in the sense that people cannot do whatever they wanted with or on their property. Rather in the Catholic Church interpretation, people had access to property rights. Locke for example, believed in the fruit of one’s labor and that if one worked hard for something, they are entitled to it (McDonald, 2014). An example of this is, if someone works hard on saving money to purchase something, once purchased, they are entitled to the rights bestowed on owning the item purchased.
The rights of the individual then are that private property equals the fruit of labor. That if one works hard, they prosper. By using one’s gifts and bringing value to society, the person earns the right to own something that is then taxed by the government, so the government can then use that money for the general good. “The general good” has been something that appears somewhat contentious in the present-day expression of American government.
People have a personal investment in how the government sees private property and what can be done with it. For example, property tax is a major way states make their money. The policy issue lies in what may be done with the money being taken from land owned by American citizens.
Current attempts at safeguarding private property rights are being seen in Congress today. For example, the H.R. 1689: Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2017, is a bill in its first stage of the legislative process aimed at adding additional measures to protect private property rights. Introduced on March 22, 2017 by Senator James Sensenbrenner Jr., it has an 8% chance of passing according to the govtrack website (GovTrack, 2017). Existing in other versions since June 30, 2005, it appears to have very low chances of being passed by Congress. What does that mean for the United States public?
It means that a clear and direct attempt at protecting private property rights is being thwarted at the bill level. A bill specifically made to safeguard private property rights in the United States remains unpassable even after 12 years of being submitted and resubmitted. This could mean a host of things, but for now, it means the government has limited interest in adding protections to the private property rights of American citizens, at least regarding this bill. That is unfortunate because of the current political climate surrounding private property, property tax, and wealth distribution.
Wealth distribution is something briefly touched on for Week 3. For example, Marx and the Communist Critique aimed at promoting an understanding that in a capitalist society, only business owners win. That employees are deceived and exploited via religion and materialism. While communist notions are not something that many Americans would agree with, there is some importance regarding materialism. People for example, are more concerned with acquiring possessions than owning private property or having difficulty breaking even with high salaries. “The University of Chicago law professor complaining his family was barely keeping their heads above water on $250,000 a year. This hypothetical family of three in San Francisco making $200,000, enjoying vacations to Maui, and living hand-to-mouth” (Lowrey, 2018). Such issues reveal that there is a lack of harmony and balance with private property, capitalism, and inalienable rights.
If one looks at the Old Testament, there is voluntary redistribution of wealth. It was seen as good to cheerfully give, with no coercion needed to do so. The Old Testament mentions this happening every 7th year as well as Year of Jubilee. Additionally, under the Mosaic Covenant debt is forgiven and family property could not be given up as discussed in Week 3 modules. Such measures were adopted to not allow any one person to become too wealthy. Imagine if that was witnessed in modern American society today?
Modern American society has seen rises in foreclosures, which would be unheard of under the environment explained in the Old Testament thanks to the Mosaic Covenant. “The report shows a total of 105,481 foreclosure filings, default notices, scheduled auctions or bank repossessions, in October. This is up 27% from September’s 129-month low, but it is still down 8% from last year” (Ramirez, 2016). Yet, the rise in debt, the lack of forgiveness of debt thanks to increased interest rates leads to the opposite of what would have been experienced back in Old Testament days. Currently, people are giving up their private property and private property rights because they cannot afford to maintain themselves financially. What does this say of the way the American government is being run?
Well firstly, the people in the Old Testament chose to give of their wealth and thwart exploitation. This was not done by a government. If the American people wish to end extremism in capitalism and protect their private property rights, they must choose to do so and take actons necessary to make it possible. Second, the idea of wealth redistribution does not consider that everyone is capable of greed and ill behavior. Therefore, a system aimed at a balanced interpretation should be implemented.
In conclusion, it is important to discuss the various ways in which the Bible supports legislation and how policy keeps within Constitution’s enumerated powers. As American citizens, there must be discussion over what rights are being potentially hindered through introduction of new bills or policy. Without such discussion or analysis, one cannot understand what potential roadblocks lay ahead regarding personal rights and specifically, the rights of private property.




References
GovTrack. (2017). Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1689). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1689
Lowrey, A. (2018, February 6). The Hoarding of the American Dream. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/
McDonald, R. M. (2014). Light and Liberty: Thomas Jefferson and the Power of Knowledge. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Ramirez, K. (2016, November 11). October shows surprising 30% increase in foreclosures. Retrieved from https://www.housingwire.com/articles/38512-october-shows-surprising-30-increase-in-foreclosures